All reading is about 'what is already' but I have to search for the 'will be'.
On the other hand roll
Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results.
jaclaz
Understanding the past is an argument. The present I do but as the past was not digital I guess there is a shift. In the 1930' the perfect crime was different.
Back to the subject. Lets assume that the S Suspect and D Double (S&D) were able to ICF and the first layer of illusion works (analog Air Force One transporting the POTUS). Comparable to SSL termination where are the risks of blowing-up the successful ICFs?
Lets to illustrate the WEF and POTUS arriving in 2018. Two Air Force One's arrived by helicopter. So on air it was unclair in which of the machines the POTUS was. But
After the POTUS jumped out it was obvious in which machine he was. Lets assume that this all was show and the real POTUS arrived by a LLN car on the street with no guards and arrived later or before the media event.
The lack would obvious be the physical security of the 'Beast'. Hidding but physical unsecure has to be a security plus otherwise not chosen. But a LLN car would fail because checked by Police. If not a LLN car - e.g. diplomatic corps the advantage of hidding would be reduced combined with physical unsecure (compared to the 'Beast') would be less secure.
The reality was that the airspace was closed and all roads checked.
One question remains unclear for me Why does the POTUS not all the time travels with a Double?
Obviously because less secure or too costy. But as today everybody is a smartness (smart witness) and media has super HD cams the Double would be very fast identified by comparison.
This shows that the time of doubles is gone as the example of Hillary Clinton and her double (finger comparison on youtube) shows by example.
Where terminate ICFs in the real world very fast?
Lets to illustrate the WEF and POTUS arriving in 2018. Two Air Force One's arrived by helicopter. So on air it was unclair in which of the machines the POTUS was.
AFO (Air Force One) by helicopter is called MO (Marine One) JFYI
https://
jaclaz
This detail is not important you got a sense, right?
Where breaks ICF in the real word?
I refuse to help you commit a future perfect digital crime.
This detail is not important you got a sense, right?
Where breaks ICF in the real word?
The goal of this post is one question Where will be future crime to understand how to investigate and enforce it. Criminals for sure are happy if LEO does not pose this question.
Its my job to think about what will come.
The problem of data integrity and the missing tools are one element. If LEO cannot find new fast ways to check data integrity this for sure at least enables towards PDC.
At amresl You completelly misunstood the sense behind this theme. I am ok if you have no interest to collaborate. Its no about comments its about thinking ahead.
There is a need to increase LEO collaboration with global eFriends you have never met before and the next question self-poses
How to build sustainable trust with eFrinds? The level of collaboration of criminals is higher They have the same interest. LEOs will lose the battle and the war if the level and speed of collaboration not increases. We here have multicultural crime (persian, arabic, chinese) so I try to understand the cultural element of each and search for LEO-eFriends.
Starting thinking from the perfect leads the way to the todays possible and tomorrow may predictable.
How to find the technical pedictable element of future crime?
I refuse to help you commit a future perfect digital crime.
Publicly stating that you won't have anything to do with it being of course the very first step to create a PCA (Pre Crime Alibi), very smart move. )
😉
jaclaz
Publicly Refusing Statement PRS as part of the PCA can either illuse as true or false (elements of illusion).
How to validate an 'I-distance-myself' based on action or non-action? With non-action no way.
The evidence of No or Not is hardly to proof. Intention of No with unknown action may match with intention of Yes with non-action.
Would be interesting to background proof (question of what period of time to be considered). As no future background proof possible it will always be history oriented.
But what length of time would be usefull? Indirect questioned in what time length ordinary people turn into criminal? So the new question is Legitimate Timeframe of Backgroundchecking LTB (always to PCA related)?
What if the LTB is too short (consider the resources of LEOs are limited to work-through)?
Statistics are not useful as always individual. Step-by-step checking background is a time delay which may is dangerous in interpersonal-ongoing-crime (order to protect lives).
Yes with non-action equals a No. So if I understand you right you want to deduct from perfect to predictive?
Yes with non-action equals a No. So if I understand you right you want to deduct from perfect to predictive?
Allow me to disagree.
YWNA (Yes With No Action) does NOT equal to NO, it equates YBNY (Yes But Not Yet).
Now, YBNY may also mean NO, but the direct equation remains false.
Whilst it would be possible to analyze its supposed meaning with probabilities, or statistically, the result will risk being a SOY (Suffusion Of Yellow) anyway.
Flippism comes to the rescue
https://
jaclaz