4 ms·
> If you suffix that sentence with "...so the IRS will have trouble taking me to court for money-laundering", the lawyer wouldn't even have to "pervert" it. Pri
by justinjlynn 9y ago
> If you suffix that sentence with "...so the IRS will have trouble taking me to court for money-laundering", the lawyer wouldn't even have to "pervert" it. Privacy is not suspicious. Privacy with the explicit, stated intent of concealing illegal behavior is perfectly reasonably suspicious.
[meme][1] Can't lose privacy [/1][2] If you don't tell people what you're doing in private [/2][/meme]
But seriously, it's a bit of a catch-22; engaging in privacy preserving behaviour but later falling under suspicion of some illegal act shouldn't imply that you engaged in those behaviours for the intent of covering up suspected but not proven illegal acts. It's a real issue -- but it someone were so stupid as to say "haha, I did x so you couldn't prove it!" ... well, that's basically an admission of guilt, isn't it.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoThe IRS doesn’t care about money laundering, they just want you to pay your taxes. The FBI in the other hand...
- saulrh 9y agoI think that that's an issue regardless of the action you're taking. I buy nice kitchen knives on Amazon because I cook. Lots of people buy nice kitchen knives on Amazon because they cook. But if I stab someone with a nice kitchen knife the day after it arrives in the mail, I bet that that purchase is going to get a reaaaaaaally careful look when the "premeditated" bit comes up in court. (There's another issue here about normal everyday things being painted as unusual and bad. I think that that's what drove the post that I originally responded to, and I can't fault the overreaction - too many people have in seriousness said things like "if you have nothing to hide". For the listed reasons, however, I don't think that that's what's going on here, and I'd prefer to avoid giving the anti-privacy group ammunition in the form of weak arguments.)