this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
6 points (71.4% liked)

Privacy

391 readers
1 users here now

Privacy is the ability for an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.

Rules

  1. Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.
  2. No Porn, Gore, or NSFW content. Instant Ban.
  3. No Spamming, Trolling or Unsolicited Ads. Instant Ban.
  4. Stay on topic in a community. Please reach out to an admin to create a new community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
c0mmando@links.hackliberty.org
6
How to build a Darknet Insurance (snb3ufnp67uudsu25epj43schrerbk7o5qlisr7ph6a3wiez7vxfjxqd.onion)
submitted 1 month ago by Insurgeon@links.hackliberty.org to c/privacy@links.hackliberty.org
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hello friends,

I have a harmless but very illegal hobby in my jurisdiction and if I get caught, I will spend some time in jail, lose my job and pay a hefty fine. I would like to buy an insurance that covers all the damages, i.e. lawyer, court, fines, compensation for time in jail, confiscated equipment and cash etc.

After months of research and pondering I came to the conclusion that such an insurance could and SHOULD exist right now!

Let me explain the idea with a short fictional story set in the near future:

http://z7735okcy6gggduobp6vjfcgwz4ss5eeduww7iw2agjmfgpjlnquezqd.onion

I'm looking forward to your honest feedback.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The problem with this is your doing something illegal why would a legal company cover your ass when it could jeopardise their whole business just taking your money. Also insurance is a scam/pysop perpetrated by the state it self. So if it did exist it would be a honeypot 100 percent

[–] Phineaz@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I see, an enlightened American (or not? I can hardly ever tell tbh). There are two very good models of insurance that I can think of right now:

  1. Obligatory, with fees based on income. Esp. health insurance.
  2. A situation where you absolutely cannot afford losing the object in question. An individual may never recover, but it is an extremely rare occurence, e.g. your house burns down. The cost spread over many shoulders is insignificant, but it ensures that no one is left with nothing. A third possibility are investment strategies, where an insurance uses the money to future-proof a system or sector - the incentive for good performance is that they have to pay for e.g. flood damaging if they don't build proper dikes. But that can easily be done without insurance, by governance.
[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I disagree with either of those being good.

[–] Phineaz@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

Congratulations, they disagree. Have fun paying hospital bills then and pray you never get into an accident.

[–] Insurgeon@links.hackliberty.org -2 points 1 month ago

I care about morally right vs morally wrong according to libertarian ethics. I don't care at all about "LEGAL" vs "ILLEGAL" in a fiat sense. Fiat-"illegal" has nothing to do with right or wrong. It just arbitrary rules written on paper by evil thugs without the consent of their victims.

Therefore I can't follow your arguments. Did you read my essay?