3 ms·
True. But they'd need physical access to the target. And actually, back in the day when I mailed cash, that was part of my OPSEC. I had a jar full of dust from
by mirimir 8y ago
True. But they'd need physical access to the target.
And actually, back in the day when I mailed cash, that was part of my OPSEC. I had a jar full of dust from public places. Working with disposable gloves, I'd put the cash in a new plastic bag, toss in some public dust, and shake well.
- coldtea 8y ago>True. But they'd need physical access to the target. Or to just go (or have someone go) right after them at the hair saloon?
- mirimir 8y agoThat's also physical access. My point is that $TLA couldn't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder, if they don't know where $TARGET is. Or know anyone who does. But if they can obtain $TARGET's DNA test results, they could fabricate evidence.
- coldtea 8y ago>That's also physical access. We've already discussing the situation that someone is committing an actual crime for which they want to frame another. Compared to that, getting "physical access" to someone's hair saloon is a trivial part. >My point is that $TLA couldn't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder, if they don't know where $TARGET is. Why wouldn't they know where $TARGET is? That's the easiest thing to know. That would only be a problem is they wanted to implicate fugitives already on the run or in hiding, or Waldo.