3 ms·
At the same time if he was following standard OPSEC to not ship from the same place twice, and not ship from near where he lived, tracking number would have bee
by threwawasy1228 8y ago
At the same time if he was following standard OPSEC to not ship from the same place twice, and not ship from near where he lived, tracking number would have been completely fine.
- wmf 8y agoExcept then he'd spend all his time driving instead of earning money. And if he got caught despite following standard OPSEC then armchair commenters would invent new OPSEC that he "should have" followed.
- threwawasy1228 8y agoSure, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, OPSEC in and of itself is definitely a perpetually unfinished iterative process by its nature. If you are actually interested in this gwern has done some excellent statistical analysis on all known arrests related to DNMs over a few specific timeframes.[0] The canonical method seems to be (though I can't confirm this, I am armchair commentator as you say) that most sellers wait until they have a queue of several packages ready and then only do one drive to drop them in the mail, so then it doesn't cut into their time or profits dramatically, whilst also giving them an extra bit of protection. [0] https://www.gwern.net/DNM-arrests https://www.gwern.net/DNM-arrests