Re: Stash Burn?
--- "A.Melon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Steve Thompson scribbled: > > --- Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [incinerating the evidence] > > > What's wrong with this idea? > > The Alabama hillbilly remains free to harass you the next time > you pass through the area. Don't you think it's a little insensitive to stereotype pigs in that particular way? What if they were to read this online and somehow link it to your real name? > > Who gives a shit? Much better to pay off the cops ahead of time so > they > > won't inconvenience your criminal activities. > > Do you pay off every cop in the US or merely every cop within > twenty miles of your drug route? Whatever it takes, of course. But in practice, there are minimising techniques that will tend to reduce the requirement of paying off every pig in the continental US of A. For instance, if you have the means you might choose to establish a culture of privilage and exclusivity (perhaps via allocating scarce 'access') among the pig population in which the payoffs are only given to pigs who demonstrate loyalty to your drug empire over time. Various selection criterion would apply: don't ask, don't tell; not too greedy; length of service; consistent and courteous attitude. Rookie pigs would have a file opened, and their service record updated each time they interact with your drug cartel's employees. After some arbitrary period, or after the accumulation of enough 'points', pigs would start receiving cash payoffs and perhaps other perqs. As you might imagine, there would need be a detailed and sophisticated system described in order to make for a complete system, and I do not propose to make an exhaustive list of requirements here. I simply think that it could be done if your organisation was sufficiently competent. > SOP is to drive unregistered or stolen cars with license removed. > Keep a fake "new car" paper license in the rear windshield. With > no way to connect you to the vehicle, response to a traffic stop > should be obvious. No need to stop the car if you have a > passenger and a few scoped and unscoped battle rifles. Sunroof > optional but recommended. Be prepared to repaint the car. Sure. > It is unnecessary to have a belt-fed AR or m249 with several > thousand rounds mounted in the trunk facing backwards. Using a > turn signal or windshield wiper lever to aim is awkward, and so > is explaining away bullet holes in tail lights when you're pulled > over for that later. I confess that I don't really understand the obsessive preoccupation you people have with firearms. They have their place, of course, as everyone understands the occasional necessity of a well-placed load of number-four buckshot (to the knees, usually), but guns are above all else, a tool. And they aren't the only tool in the arsenel. Far too many people are sidetracked in this way, however, and it's a shame. Just once, can't we have a nice polite discussion about the logicstics and planning side of large criminal enterprise? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Stash Burn?
--- Steve Thompson scribbled: > --- Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. > > > > Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? > > > > If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge > > pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed > > incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on > > board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone. > > > > What's wrong with this idea? The Alabama hillbilly remains free to harass you the next time you pass through the area. > Who gives a shit? Much better to pay off the cops ahead of time so they > won't inconvenience your criminal activities. Do you pay off every cop in the US or merely every cop within twenty miles of your drug route? SOP is to drive unregistered or stolen cars with license removed. Keep a fake "new car" paper license in the rear windshield. With no way to connect you to the vehicle, response to a traffic stop should be obvious. No need to stop the car if you have a passenger and a few scoped and unscoped battle rifles. Sunroof optional but recommended. Be prepared to repaint the car. It is unnecessary to have a belt-fed AR or m249 with several thousand rounds mounted in the trunk facing backwards. Using a turn signal or windshield wiper lever to aim is awkward, and so is explaining away bullet holes in tail lights when you're pulled over for that later.
Re: Stash Burn?
--- Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. > > Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? > > If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge > pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed > incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on > board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone. > > What's wrong with this idea? Who gives a shit? Much better to pay off the cops ahead of time so they won't inconvenience your criminal activities. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Stash Burn?
Hum. Well, me I personally like the piss-off factor: the cops KNOW you had something, which is bad enough. And then, they KNOW you destroyed it. But most importantly, they know you know they know, but you don't give a crap. A flagrant touting of their authority. If they don't beat you to death, it'll be very satisfying. The pod jettison idea is interesting, but I'm sceptical: Those guys are always on the lookout for something being chucked out of a car getting pulled over, but if it were jettisoned straight out the front it might work. -TD From: Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Stash Burn? Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 19:23:08 + On 2005-05-02T10:13:50-0400, Tyler Durden wrote: > yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. > > Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? > If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge > pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed > incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on > board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone. > > What's wrong with this idea? That's rather complicated and unlikely to succeed. A more practical solution would be a pod that can be jettisoned. Dark-colored or camo, rock-like, and indestructable for later retrieval. No cop would notice such a thing fired directly forward after he's pulled in behind you and lighted you up. Add a radio beacon for easy location after the cop has departed.
Re: Stash Burn?
On 2005-05-02T10:13:50-0400, Tyler Durden wrote: > yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. > > Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? > If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge > pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed > incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on > board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone. > > What's wrong with this idea? That's rather complicated and unlikely to succeed. A more practical solution would be a pod that can be jettisoned. Dark-colored or camo, rock-like, and indestructable for later retrieval. No cop would notice such a thing fired directly forward after he's pulled in behind you and lighted you up. Add a radio beacon for easy location after the cop has departed.
Re: Stash Burn?
Yes, I think those are the essential questions. Admittedly it would normally be quite difficult to eliminate any detectable trace...I'm assuming that a huge blast of heat should do it. Cooling can be done by liquid, for instance. The liquid could be programmed to flush at certain random intervals to cover correlation between operation and smokey interest. (But this probably eliminates dual-use arguments.) Assuming it's doable then I'm as yet uncertain about the legal ramifications. Say the smokey's are stopping you for something "routine" and you burn your stash right there. Do they have the legal right to even mention the disposal operation? And if they do, is there any legal way to state what substance was destroyed? Perhaps it was pot (as opposed to something harder), or moonshine, or even some designer drug that's not yet technically illegal? -TD From: Thomas Shaddack To: Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Stash Burn? Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 20:29:13 +0200 (CEST) On Mon, 2 May 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: > yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. > > Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? > > If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge pulls > you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed incinerated. > Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on board? Too late now > if any trace of evidence is gone. > > What's wrong with this idea? Let's focus on the technical realization first. How to annihilate a sizable chunk of matter without leaving even minute traces of it? We should keep in mind that contemporary forensic detection/analysis technologies are pretty damn sensitive. We also shouldn't forget that burning the substance releases a considerable amount of energy, and takes time - at least several seconds. Soaking it with liquid oxygen could dramatically reduce the burning time, and lead to total oxidation to CO2/H2O/SO2/NO2/P2O5, but it also bears certain risk of explosion, and LOX does not belong between user-friendly substances as well. The method also should not provide any hard evidence about when the incinerator was last used, in order to make it difficult to prove the exact moment of its deployment. This sharply collides with the requirement to dump the waste heat, as the unit will be pretty hot for some time after initiation, even if it will be directly connected to the car's heatsink.
Re: Stash Burn?
There's laws against destroying evidence, interfering with an officer, interfering with an investigation, etc. If they can prove that you had it and destroyed it, now they can charge you with two crimes instead of just one. (I think I heard once that someone was charged with destroying evidence for taking batteries out of a device when he was arrested hoping to wipe its memory). - Eric Tyler Durden wrote: yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone. What's wrong with this idea? -TD From: Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Secure erasing Info (fwd from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:49:56 +0200 - Forwarded message from Richard Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Richard Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:17:43 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Secure erasing Info Reply-To: Mac OS X enterprise deployment project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FYI: Rendering Drives Completely Unreadable Can be Difficult --- The National Association for Information Destruction has said it cannot endorse the use of wiping applications alone for ensuring that data have been effectively removed from hard drives. NAID executive director Bob Johnson said the only way to ensure that the data will be unreadable is to physically destroy the drives, and even that has to be done in certain ways to ensure its efficacy. Most major PC makers offer a drive destruction service for $20 or $30. Some hardware engineers say they understand why the drives have been created in a way that makes it hard to completely erase the data: customers demanded it because they were afraid of losing information they had stored on their drives. http://news.com.com/2102-1029_3-5676995.html?tag=st.util.print [Editor's Note (Pescatore): Cool, I want a "National Association for Information Destruction" tee shirt. How hard could it be to have an interlock feature - you can really, really clear the drive if you open the case, hold this button down while you delete? (Ranum): Peter Guttman, from New Zealand, did a terrific talk in 1997 at USENIX in which he showed electromicrographs of hard disk surfaces that had been "wiped" - you could still clearly see the 1s and 0s where the heads failed to line up perfectly on the track during the write/erase sequence. He also pointed out that you can tell more recently written data from less recently written data by the field strength in the area, which would actually make it much easier to tell what had been "wiped" versus what was persistent long-term store. The paper, minus the cool photos may be found at: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html Hard disks, I've found, make satisfying small arms targets.] Here is Mac OS X software called "SPX" that uses the "Guttman" method of securely deleting data off a hard disk. If you want to donate old HD's this might be the best method for protecting your data that was on the HD other than physically destroying the HD's. http://rixstep.com/4/0/spx/ -- Thanks: Richard Glaser University of Utah - Student Computing Labs [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-585-8016 _ Subscription Options and Archives http://listserv.cuny.edu/archives/macenterprise.html - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Stash Burn?
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: > yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. > > Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? > > If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge pulls > you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed incinerated. > Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on board? Too late now > if any trace of evidence is gone. > > What's wrong with this idea? Let's focus on the technical realization first. How to annihilate a sizable chunk of matter without leaving even minute traces of it? We should keep in mind that contemporary forensic detection/analysis technologies are pretty damn sensitive. We also shouldn't forget that burning the substance releases a considerable amount of energy, and takes time - at least several seconds. Soaking it with liquid oxygen could dramatically reduce the burning time, and lead to total oxidation to CO2/H2O/SO2/NO2/P2O5, but it also bears certain risk of explosion, and LOX does not belong between user-friendly substances as well. The method also should not provide any hard evidence about when the incinerator was last used, in order to make it difficult to prove the exact moment of its deployment. This sharply collides with the requirement to dump the waste heat, as the unit will be pretty hot for some time after initiation, even if it will be directly connected to the car's heatsink.
RE: Stash Burn?
Hum. Well, maybe. I guess a "dual use" argument wouldn't fly. Wait...that furnace should be able to reheat burgers also. -TD From: "R.W. (Bob) Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Tyler Durden'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Stash Burn? Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 12:34:15 -0400 Congratulations, you just turned your vehicle into "drug paraphenalia" What? You claim it is Not for drugs? Tell this to the judge. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tyler Durden Sent: May 2, 2005 10:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Stash Burn? yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone. What's wrong with this idea? -TD >From: Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Secure erasing Info (fwd from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:49:56 +0200 > >- Forwarded message from Richard Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > >From: Richard Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:17:43 -0600 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Secure erasing Info >Reply-To: Mac OS X enterprise deployment project ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >FYI: > >Rendering Drives Completely Unreadable Can be Difficult >--- > >The National Association for Information Destruction has said it cannot >endorse the use of wiping applications alone for ensuring that data have >been effectively removed from hard drives. NAID executive director Bob >Johnson said the only way to ensure that the data will be unreadable is >to physically destroy the drives, and even that has to be done in >certain ways to ensure its efficacy. Most major PC makers offer a drive >destruction service for $20 or $30. Some hardware engineers say they >understand why the drives have been created in a way that makes it hard >to completely erase the data: customers demanded it because they were >afraid of losing information they had stored on their drives. >http://news.com.com/2102-1029_3-5676995.html?tag=st.util.print >[Editor's Note (Pescatore): Cool, I want a "National Association for >Information Destruction" tee shirt. How hard could it be to have an >interlock feature - you can really, really clear the drive if you open >the case, hold this button down while you delete? > >(Ranum): Peter Guttman, from New Zealand, did a terrific talk in 1997 >at USENIX in which he showed electromicrographs of hard disk surfaces >that had been "wiped" - you could still clearly see the 1s and 0s where >the heads failed to line up perfectly on the track during the >write/erase sequence. He also pointed out that you can tell more >recently written data from less recently written data by the field >strength in the area, which would actually make it much easier to tell >what had been "wiped" versus what was persistent long-term store. The >paper, minus the cool photos may be found at: >http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html >Hard disks, I've found, make satisfying small arms targets.] > >Here is Mac OS X software called "SPX" that uses the "Guttman" method >of securely deleting data off a hard disk. If you want to donate old >HD's this might be the best method for protecting your data that was >on the HD other than physically destroying the HD's. > >http://rixstep.com/4/0/spx/ >-- > >Thanks: > >Richard Glaser >University of Utah - Student Computing Labs >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >801-585-8016 > >_ >Subscription Options and Archives >http://listserv.cuny.edu/archives/macenterprise.html > >- End forwarded message - >-- >Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl >__ >ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org >8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > >[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which >had a name of signature.asc]
RE: Stash Burn?
Congratulations, you just turned your vehicle into "drug paraphenalia" What? You claim it is Not for drugs? Tell this to the judge. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tyler Durden Sent: May 2, 2005 10:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Stash Burn? yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone. What's wrong with this idea? -TD >From: Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Secure erasing Info (fwd from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:49:56 +0200 > >- Forwarded message from Richard Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > >From: Richard Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:17:43 -0600 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Secure erasing Info >Reply-To: Mac OS X enterprise deployment project ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >FYI: > >Rendering Drives Completely Unreadable Can be Difficult >--- > >The National Association for Information Destruction has said it cannot >endorse the use of wiping applications alone for ensuring that data have >been effectively removed from hard drives. NAID executive director Bob >Johnson said the only way to ensure that the data will be unreadable is >to physically destroy the drives, and even that has to be done in >certain ways to ensure its efficacy. Most major PC makers offer a drive >destruction service for $20 or $30. Some hardware engineers say they >understand why the drives have been created in a way that makes it hard >to completely erase the data: customers demanded it because they were >afraid of losing information they had stored on their drives. >http://news.com.com/2102-1029_3-5676995.html?tag=st.util.print >[Editor's Note (Pescatore): Cool, I want a "National Association for >Information Destruction" tee shirt. How hard could it be to have an >interlock feature - you can really, really clear the drive if you open >the case, hold this button down while you delete? > >(Ranum): Peter Guttman, from New Zealand, did a terrific talk in 1997 >at USENIX in which he showed electromicrographs of hard disk surfaces >that had been "wiped" - you could still clearly see the 1s and 0s where >the heads failed to line up perfectly on the track during the >write/erase sequence. He also pointed out that you can tell more >recently written data from less recently written data by the field >strength in the area, which would actually make it much easier to tell >what had been "wiped" versus what was persistent long-term store. The >paper, minus the cool photos may be found at: >http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html >Hard disks, I've found, make satisfying small arms targets.] > >Here is Mac OS X software called "SPX" that uses the "Guttman" method >of securely deleting data off a hard disk. If you want to donate old >HD's this might be the best method for protecting your data that was >on the HD other than physically destroying the HD's. > >http://rixstep.com/4/0/spx/ >-- > >Thanks: > >Richard Glaser >University of Utah - Student Computing Labs >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >801-585-8016 > >_ >Subscription Options and Archives >http://listserv.cuny.edu/archives/macenterprise.html > >- End forwarded message - >-- >Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl >__ >ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org >8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > >[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which >had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Stash Burn?
Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [02/05/05 10:18]: : yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. : : Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? : : If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge : pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed : incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on : board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone. : : What's wrong with this idea? The government would never let it fly?
