3 ms·
I seriously doubt it. Remember, "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity." Our law enforcement community i
by magduf 7y ago
I seriously doubt it. Remember, "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity." Our law enforcement community isn't that bright or long-term thinking. Plus, once criminals get it through their thick skulls that BTC really is traceable after all, they won't use it any more.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- clamprecht 7y agoBut if the opponent knows you subscribe to this rule (assume ignorance over malice), couldn't they take advantage of this?
- microcolonel 7y agoThe aphorism does not call upon you to assume good intentions, but to avoid attempting to establish intention when it has no benefit to solving the problem noted.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoYes, there is no stable state of the system in which ignorance and malice are assessed accurately. If you don't want the rate of malicious action to increase, you need to overdiagnose it.
- UweSchmidt 7y agoI doubt it too, but dislike the meme you cited. Intelligence agencies are very much capable of producing elaborate, long term plans and are quite good with crypto. They could introduce it to the world without cooperation or coordination with regular law enforcement. Not saying that they did. I have never heard a convincing argument for your quote and would like everyone to at least consider malice when the situation warrants it. Maybe "follow the money" would be an equally valid, but contradictory heuristic to deal with unclear situations.