Anonymity: Would you post face pics/identifying details on Mycotopia?

[BuckarooBanzai]

'Ette, we do honestly and with our most heartfelt sincerity thank you for those photos.

And we thank yer hubby too!!!

A little paranoia is usually a good thing...

[TastyBeverage]

BTW, the other issue of posting too detailed information regarding location is nothing to shrug off either. We've had instances where members figured out that they're just down the street from each other, and it wasn't a good thing to either of them. If a random internet person can figure out where you live, so can LEO.

Also, if you live in CA, GA or ID where it is illegal to even possess spores, don't openly admit it on the boards. I keep track of members who have admitted such and if i see you try to trade in the marketplace for spores, i will shoot your ass down so fast... It really sucks to enter into a trade agreement with someone when there's evidence on the boards that you're doing something illegal (ie sending spores to a banned state).

Don't ask, don't tell!

[real_psily]

HELL NO!
I'm with TVC and others posting on the web is like sending an email.
It never goes away. I am always amazed at the dip-shits that email and/or text sexually charged material only to have it pop back up later in a sexual harassment suit.

I don't facebook, twitter, or myspace.
If people want to know what I'm doing they can call me.

Every photo i've posted (BNL, cacti, mush-grows, ect.) I have tried to keep out tattoos (can't believe how many of these you see), landmarks, even fingerprints (on the close ups),... you get the point.

Nobody wants to see another old dude's puss anyway I don't see how that would enrich the overall experience here at topia.

edit: Oh so No, that is not me in the avatar. LOL...
... or is it???

[apokalypse]

Sharing identifying pics? naaah

Aside: Awesome, I love sending prints to the DEA's buddy-buddy

[Ras Asad]

Aside: Awesome, I love sending prints to the DEA's buddy-buddy

yea thats fukt.

[TVCasualty]

Originally Posted by BuckarooBanzai

You only have some drunk college kid's word that Hillary Clinton flashed her tits at him during a frat party in the early 1900s.

She is gettin' on in years, ain't she?

And if you think that your emails are in any way private, think again. Every email that touches the "American Internet" is scanned and cached by the NSA. That includes attachments, by the way.

Yeah, it's funny how surprised people look when I point out that a lot of CEO's are convicted of white-collar crimes partly thanks to the emails they sent (and "deleted") years ago.

Everyone should immediately go out and rent/buy/Netflix/whatever "The Spy Factory," a documentary about the NSA that is much more candid than I expected. It was a Nova special produced by PBS. It'll leave you just sitting there thinking quietly to yourself for a while about the implications of what you just saw.

As far as attachments go, unless they have a good reason to be watching you they probably don't examine them at high magnification to check if you've used photoshop to manipulate pixels in a a complicated photo (like a crashing ocean wave, for example) to blend the hidden message you want to send into the water of the wave so as to be invisible unless you know just where to look.

I'm also a bit ambivalent about encryption. On a site like this, where there are a bunch of mods who can edit posts, it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you wrote everything posted under your pseudonym, so there is always plausible deniability to what you've posted unless you post pictures of your face or if it contains enough info to uniquely identify you. But in the case of encrypted content, plausible deniability would be harder, if not impossible; with something like public-key encryption, if you have the private key you sent the content.

Encryption (to me) just flags something as worth looking at, and I have reason to believe that NSA is able to break any encryption very easily. Quantum computing is already here and being used on the 'net, which is of course a bold claim but if I said how I know I'd reveal too much about myself (which would be really ironic in this thread) and get myself disappeared.

If anything, the Patriot Act has rendered the NSA less effective since it is now glutted with an information-overload. They might hear everything, but what does it mean?? But that will be resolved soon enough.

[Joric]

Most of you on here already know this, but if you post a jpeg file there is header information embedded in the photo that can be viewed. Most of the information is not very specific (date and time the picture was taken, Type of camera and resolution, etc.), but if you're using a smart phone with a GPS your phone may be passing GPS coordinates with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong guys.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Hiding words in the noise of an image is commonly called Steganography. Done properly, it can be more effective than encryption. Doubly effective is an encrypted communication hidden in a picture...

Encrypting communication is only of value if you regularly send and receive encrypted communications which waste time to decode. Running a remailer end point drastically increases your ability to communicate via truly anonymous encrypted communications.

There is NO unbreakable level of encryption. There ARE prohibitively expensive to decrypt levels of encryption. It is up to you to make sure you send/receive enough hard encrypted email to make the totality of them is prohibitively expensive to decrypt...

Joric - what you are talking about is called "Meta Data." All files (not just pictures) contain meta-data.

The iPhone is an excellent example of a platform which (by default) includes GPS information in a file's meta-data. Commonly included meta-data (by almost every digital camera) is the fStop setting, shutter speed and lens aperture measurement.

All Word and PDF files contain a significant amount of meta-data. Meta-data in Word macro code is how the secret service nailed VicodenES and tagged him with writing the Melissa worm.

[Scratch]

Newer cameras almost always add extra info in a
section of the .jpg file called the EXIF header.
This info is contained in .jpg picture files but isn't
necessary to display the picture. The info is just
extra baggage and can be deleted without
affecting the picture.

I looked into what info my camera adds to the
photos it records. Found out my camera adds
nothing. Yeah.

Some photo editing programs allow you to view,
edit, or delete this info. I found 2 free programs
to view and delete this info.

EXIF-O-Matic = displays exif info
JPG Cleaner = deletes exif info

Note, I have no affiliation with either of these
programs and they are just some tools I found
that seemed to work. There may be better
programs available for this but "free" always
sounds good to me.

As a test, I copied a sample photo from the
internet, lets call it Sample Before.jpg. I ran this
photo thru EXIF-O-Matic and copied the log
shown below...

EXIF info contained in Sample Before.jpg as
reported by EXIF-O-Matic Version 1.1.8

Sample Before.jpg - EXIF Information
- Exif
Make FUJIFILM
Model FinePix S1000fd
X Resolution 1/72 inches
Y Resolution 1/72 inches
Resolution Unit Inches
Software Digital Camera FinePix S1000fd Ver1.02
Date/Time 2009:05:21 21:38:45
YCbCr Positioning Datum point
Copyright
Exposure Time 1/34 sec
F-Number F2.8
Exposure Program Program normal
ISO Speed Ratings 800
Exif Version 2.20
Date/Time Original 2009:05:21 21:38:45
Date/Time Digitized 2009:05:21 21:38:45
Components Configuration YCbCr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel 3 bits/pixel
Shutter Speed Value 1/32 sec
Aperture Value F2.8
Brightness Value 5
Exposure Bias Value 0
Max Aperture Value F2.8
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Light Source Unknown
Flash Unknown (16)
Focal Length 5.9 mm
FlashPix Version 1.00
Color Space sRGB
Exif Image Width 480 pixels
Exif Image Height 640 pixels
Focal Plane X Resolution 1/1075 cm
Focal Plane Y Resolution 1/1075 cm
Focal Plane Resolution Unit cm
Sensing Method One-chip color area sensor
File Source Digital Still Camera (DSC)
Scene Type Directly photographed image
Compression JPEG compression
Orientation top, left side
Thumbnail Offset 1826 bytes
Thumbnail Length 7276 bytes
Thumbnail Data [7276 bytes of thumbnail data]
- FujiFilm Makernote
Makernote Version 0130
Quality ’
Sharpness Normal
White Balance Auto
Color Normal (STD)
Flash Mode Off
Flash Strength 50528272/365066 eV (Apex)
Macro On
Focus Mode Auto focus
Slow Synchro Off
Picture Mode Auto
Continuous Taking Or Auto Bracketting Off
Blur Warning Blur warning
Focus Warning Out of focus
AE Warning AE good

As you can see that's a lot of info, pretty much
useless unless you are a photography nut. I see
nothing in there like a serial number of the camera
or gps location where photo was taken so it's
pretty harmless. Except, it does take up space.

Ran the sample thru JPG Cleaner to remove all
header info and copied the log.

JPG Cleaner 95 v2.6 log...
Processing Sample Before...Cleaned 9094 bytes
Processed 1 file(s), 1 of them cleaned, 0 error(s).
Cleaned total of 9094 byte(s) in 0:00:00.

The cleaned file it created is slightly smaller
without all the useless header info. Cleaned file
was named Sample After.jpg

File Size comparison before & after cleaning
with JPG Cleaner...
131,635 bytes Sample Before.jpg
122,541 bytes Sample After.jpg

Ran Sample After.jpg thru EXIF-O-Matic and
copied this log...

Sample After.jpg - EXIF Information
- Exif

Yes, nice and clean now. The smaller file size
obviously takes up less disk space and also would
take slightly less time to load on a website or to
transmit by email. Attached are the before and
after photos so you can see there is no difference
in photo display.



I know .gif files can contain extra info too.
Not sure if other file formats might also contain
extra hidden info.

Cheers

[Jaspmf]

I see no economical sense in revealing a picture of myself.
Nothing to gain, everything to lose.

Like the best thing that I'd get is "hey, nice face"
No thanks.

Although I don't practice the best I-net security (anonymizers, ip-spoofs etc)

I also don't have too much to worry about ATM, but it'd be senseless to post that kind of information for everyone to see.

[Om shanti]

Originally Posted by Scratch

Newer cameras almost always add extra info in a
section of the .jpg file called the EXIF header.

I thought about how to get rid of that info too, but never did more than entertain a thought.. I'm going to check out those programs.

thanks, Joric and Scratch, for raising the issue and providing a solution too.

---- Just searched for a linux alternative before realizing EXIF-o-MATIC suggested by Scratch is a java script and thus also runs under linux (and Mac).
But I realized there is one installed by default on Ubuntu: Exiv2
It gave some error messages, but works. The errors weren't related to deleting the metadata

Here is an example using a random image "nikos-photo.jpg" downloaded from Google pictures
option "pr" prints metadata, "rm" removes metadata

xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx:~$ exiv2 pr nikos-photo.jpg
'Error: Directory Image: Next pointer is out of bounds; ignored.
Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0000 has unknown Exif (TIFF) type 0; setting type size 1.
Error: Directory Image, entry 0x0000 has invalid size 1130458735*1; skipping entry.
File name : nikos-photo.jpg
File size : 585916 Bytes
MIME type : image/jpeg
Image size : 859 x 960
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon PowerShot SD630
Image timestamp : 2007:05:30 10:41:43
Image number :
Exposure time : 1/60 s
Aperture : F2.8
Exposure bias : 0
Flash : Yes, auto, red-eye reduction
Flash bias :
Focal length : 5.8 mm
Subject distance:
ISO speed :
Exposure mode :
Metering mode : Multi-segment
Macro mode :
Image quality :
Exif Resolution : 859 x 960
White balance : Auto
Thumbnail : None
Copyright :
Exif comment :

xx@xxxxxxxx:~$ exiv2 rm nikos-photo.jpg
Error: Directory Image: Next pointer is out of bounds; ignored.
Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0000 has unknown Exif (TIFF) type 0; setting type size 1.
Error: Directory Image, entry 0x0000 has invalid size 1130458735*1; skipping entry.


xxxx@xxxxxxxxxx:~$ exiv2 pr nikos-photo.jpg
File name : nikos-photo.jpg
File size : 585230 Bytes
MIME type : image/jpeg
Image size : 859 x 960
nikos-photo.jpg: No Exif data found in the file

[stonedcoder]

Originally Posted by buteo

i voted the last 1 as a joke....never show your face haha.wow whats more stupid than showing off evidence...why must u show off anyway?

Why must people show off ...the need to feel accepted by the tribe and/or superior to one another. (just my guess - not a sociologist)

i would never show my face - in relation to sites like the topia ...but my wife is a big time facebook addict - and she has WAY too many pictures of me up on the net...
Is it just me - or is there something up with facebook - i do NOT trust this site with any of my info - since the government of Canada took them to court (Canada has much different privacy laws than the US )

anyway - i've been meaning to clean up the facebook stuff - but from what i'm hearing -> it doesn't matter anyhow - since the web is archived.

Originally Posted by Shroomette

I may post other parts of my body .

... Please never stop doing this ...tell Irish TY he's a good sport.
(sorry - i have a soft spot for naked women ....oh wait no, no, ...it's a hard spot )

[RestartLater]

Voted no .. still would be nice to have a good friend or friends to meet and talk with in person about our common interests without all the worry. So, do I stay awake at night worrying about it NO or I would not have ever grown a boomer or weed to begin with.

RestartLater

[Threemoonshrooms]

It does not sound wise to advertise such things as my face on the net. Seems a sure way to get into trouble in the long run.Better safe than sorry.

[kcmoxtractor]

Yeah exif files are some crazy shit, I didn't even really know about them until a month or so ago. I would not post pictures of myself doing illegal activities. I don't even have a facebook or myspace...

[growurown]

i was worried in the very beginning so i didnt become a member but i wanted to be able to ask questions instead of looking for answers among other questions.
Still nervous but need help figureing out all this.so that my oysters experinments wont fail.

i wouldnt post pics of myself and im not breaking the law.
just seems like there should be a few agents amongst us. they might even be one of the more well liked folks on here. (not saying they are just saying). Dont trust noone cuz everyones lookin out for themselves.

[beardedlady]

does anyone ever delete all that metadata that your camera stores when you unload pictures?

Additionally, I'll admit I know nothing about the law...but I don't think, if you were to get busted for posts on this site, that denying the fact you posted them would actually work.

I'm not entirely convinced anything anyone posts on the internet is safe, I just think there aren't enough resources to monitor everything posted everywhere. Maybe not a priority.

[Om shanti]

Originally Posted by beardedlady

Additionally, I'll admit I know nothing about the law...but I don't think, if you were to get busted for posts on this site, that denying the fact you posted them would actually work.

I think that would depend on the circumstances. I was personally thinking about the case I mentioned on page 1 in this thread where someone was convicted of illegal arms possession on the basis of a picture. (which was not in the U.S.). All else equal, the fewer identifying marks the better. It's like not leaving foot prints.

does anyone ever delete all that metadata that your camera stores when you unload pictures?

Not until now. With exiv2 under linux you can remove all metadata from pictures in one directory by a single command, so why not. I have to reduce them in size too anyway. It's probably not much more difficult with Windows. If it took 20-30 minutes, maybe just 10 minutes, I wouldn't care to do it. That's about how much I personally worry about this. :-)

Monitoring or no. I also think there isn't any big problem, otherwise I obviously wouldn't be posting any pics or details. ;-) But I also think that, in most jurisdictions, we haven't seen the last of where the law is heading with regards to the internet, and/or the implications of various digital 'fingerprints' (or in this case only something like 'footprints').
Just my .02.

[TVCasualty]

Originally Posted by growurown

Still nervous but need help figureing out all this.so that my oysters experinments wont fail.

i wouldnt post pics of myself and im not breaking the law.
just seems like there should be a few agents amongst us. they might even be one of the more well liked folks on here. (not saying they are just saying).

Good luck with those edibles. I'm going to try to get into growing some this coming year too. And I definitely progressed faster after I registered as a member instead of just lurked; being able to get almost immediate feedback about whatever specific problem I had was really helpful.

I was a little leery of speaking openly about it at first, so I only occasionally posted pictures of a big flush of cubensis in threads (nervousness is relative, I guess) and was sure to keep my face off camera. In my case I was breaking laws, but they were unjust and oppressive laws so I felt no shame or guilt about anything I may have done, and I carry that vibe all through my life which helps keep scrutiny to a minimum. It's what I think is the most common path to disaster: Feeling guilty= acting guilty= looking guilty= being found Guilty.


As far as the undercover agents stalking 'Topia are concerned, my advice would be to not meet any who suggest hangin' out in person. Or sending anything illegal that was solicited by another member in a PM. It happens now and then, and you trade illegal items with other members at your own sole risk because that's against the rules here and is strictly enforced when it's discovered. Mycotopia doesn't increase any risks for us; we increase them for ourselves by doing stupid shit (which is hardly 'Topia's fault!).

Legally, you do not have sole custody and control of what you post here. Your posts can be edited by any moderator (or Hip). For example, all references to illegal activity in my posts were added by Hip when he's drunk because he thinks it's funny. There is nothing I can do about shenanigans like that, so I cannot be held liable for what's posted under my pseudonym here because I cannot maintain control over it. That should help you sleep better...

Originally Posted by beardedlady

does anyone ever delete all that metadata that your camera stores when you unload pictures?

Mycotopia is set up to strip the EXIF data off of all pictures uploaded to the site. You can get third-party software to get rid of them on your end if you feel like it but getting rid of all that data has been standard practice here from the beginning.

but I don't think, if you were to get busted for posts on this site, that denying the fact you posted them would actually work.

I'm not entirely convinced anything anyone posts on the internet is safe, I just think there aren't enough resources to monitor everything posted everywhere. Maybe not a priority.

As I pointed out above, denial does work since who knows who added all that incriminating stuff to your post after you logged off?

And NSA certainly does have the ability (and inclination) to monitor everything everywhere, but the bottleneck is their ability to analyze the unimaginable amounts of data enough to draw useful conclusions; we heard everything you said, but we're still trying to figure out what it all meant.

[Om shanti]

Mycotopia is set up to strip the EXIF data off of all pictures uploaded to the site. You can get third-party software to get rid of them on your end if you feel like it but getting rid of all that data has been standard practice here from the beginning.

It's not in effect. I just tested a photo from Waylitjim's woodlover's 09, and a photo I posted 4,5 months ago, and they both had metadata.

But metadata could easily be removed from all pictures on the server by a simple script, if thought necessary.

[Zen]

I believe that the older vB software did in fact strip this info out, but the newer version may leave it intact. As the web becomes more and more group and social-like you'll notice all software changing to accommodate. The newer versions of vB have social groups, personal blogs, etc ,etc. Maintaining that EXIF and Metadata within images allows sites and software to categorize, search, and sort images uploaded to them.

With that said. The only info a camera will attach to an image is the EXIF data. This data has no personal identifiable information in it. It's stuff like the camera make/model, was a flash used, zoom and focus info, etc, etc. Metadata is not programmed in automatically and would have to be done manually by the user utilizing software specifically to imprint that metadata into the image.

That being the case, there is no inherent security risk by leaving the EXIF data intact. So for clarification, we never took action to strip this data, rather previous versions of vB just didn't support it. ;-)

[Zen]

From a commercial point of view... Mycotopia will do anything that's reasonable to protect the identity of its members, however, that is not a "blank check" to run amok with posting personally identifiable information.

Our terms of service state that you must be 18 years old (or of legal age in your country) in order to be a member here. With that said, we're all adults... And in saying that, the responsibility will ALWAYS be yours to protect what you do not want others to know. This includes any information automatically attached to an image, such as geo-tagging, by a smart phone/device. It is ultimately your responsibility to understand how the technology you're using works.

So we may limit some features or functionality of the board to "assist" in keeping you safe, but that is by no means a 100% guarantee and should never be taken as such.

[mushit]

Thanks Zen. That is common sense. Security is only as effective as the person submitting their info.

[beardedlady]

Originally Posted by TVCasualty

As I pointed out above, denial does work since who knows who added all that incriminating stuff to your post after you logged off?

I apologize for not just taking your word on that, but I really do not believe it. I have not seen anything to support either side of this, but I don't think anyone should take your (or anyone else's) word for this.

I feel it's the same kind of thing as replacing the pronouns in your sentence with SWIM or whatever else...in the end, I doubt that will protect you if someone has serious interest in what you are doing.

[TVCasualty]

Originally Posted by beardedlady

I apologize for not just taking your word on that, but I really do not believe it. I have not seen anything to support either side of this, but I don't think anyone should take your (or anyone else's) word for this.

In matters of personal security, especially one so sensitive as the kind we discuss around here, taking someone else's word for how things are is a recipe for disaster. After all, I wouldn't be doing the time for whatever someone else gets busted for so it's really up to each of us to keep ourselves safe.

Unquestioningly following pseudonymous advice given over the internet is probably one of the least-safe things we could do, so not taking ANYone's word for things like this is basic prudence. Well, anyone except perhaps an expert currently working within the criminal justice system in some capacity who sees how it really works day in and day out. That's where I get my info, and I have a high degree of confidence in it since it's not pseudonymous or secondhand (to me). Hip has also mentioned the plausible deniability of posts due to their unsecure nature, and if anyone has an interest in researching this to know the real deal, he does.

Frankly, I'd think it would be harder to plausibly deny you posted something if you use encryption and proxies than if you just plug right in and post. Encryption limits the opportunities for third-party shenanigans and flags the content as being worth hiding in the first place. If I were a snoop ,I'd first be going after encrypted data.

[kcmoxtractor]

Originally Posted by Zen

I believe that the older vB software did in fact strip this info out, but the newer version may leave it intact. As the web becomes more and more group and social-like you'll notice all software changing to accommodate. The newer versions of vB have social groups, personal blogs, etc ,etc. Maintaining that EXIF and Metadata within images allows sites and software to categorize, search, and sort images uploaded to them.
With that said. The only info a camera will attach to an image is the EXIF data. This data has no personal identifiable information in it. It's stuff like the camera make/model, was a flash used, zoom and focus info, etc, etc. Metadata is not programmed in automatically and would have to be done manually by the user utilizing software specifically to imprint that metadata into the image.
That being the case, there is no inherent security risk by leaving the EXIF data intact. So for clarification, we never took action to strip this data, rather previous versions of vB just didn't support it. ;-)

Sorry Zen, but this is not true. Exif files can have the serial number of your camera in them, and if you used a credit card or debit card to buy the camera or it is registered for warranty under your name this leads directly to you.

That being said heres my pretty face:

[Om shanti]

Originally Posted by kcmoxtractor

Exif files can have the serial number of your camera in them

Thanks for the info.

Just for the fun of it, I've been trying to find some serial numbers in different photos, but didn't find any yet...

There is a lot of metadata stored in many photos that does not follow the EXIF format, but instead the manufacturer's own proprietary system. So it can't be read by a EXIF program but only in the manufacturer's own programs (if in them). This proprietary format stored data appears as "maker's notes" in EXIF data. So these might contain a serial number.. if anyone has a photo they know there's a serial number in (and what it is) I'd like to take a look at it. (On one website it was however suggested that the serial numbers stored in photos may not be the same ones that you see on your package/warranty note etc but an manufacturer-internal one.)

I also did some more searching. And of course ended up at the EFF, where I found this relevant article: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/07...l-fingerprints

There could also be other hidden signatures, similar to in colour laser printers.. hiding info inside images is a great science these days. This is only speculation, of course.

Also, there are mathematical formula that can identify the make of the camera from an image without the EXIF data. That's because subtly different image encoding techniques are used. I am not sure if they can find the exact model, but at least manufacturer/broad class of models. The field is known as "forensic image analysis".

[Zen]

Sorry Zen, but this is not true. Exif files can have the serial number of your camera in them, and if you used a credit card or debit card to buy the camera or it is registered for warranty under your name this leads directly to you.

Really?! If you have someone pulling the EXIF data from the pictures you post in order to maybe grab a serial number from your camera in order to research that enough to even know what kind of camera it is and then hack or social engineer a way to get your personal information from a warranty vendor or manufacturer I think you have WAY more things to worry about then worrying that the info in even accessible online.

There are millions upon billions of pictures online in any one of hundreds of thousands of blogs, flickers, facey spaces, and tweety pages. If ANYONE is watching you that closely it's already game over for you.

With that said - see my previous comment --

From a commercial point of view... Mycotopia will do anything that's reasonable to protect the identity of its members, however, that is not a "blank check" to run amok with posting personally identifiable information.

Our terms of service state that you must be 18 years old (or of legal age in your country) in order to be a member here. With that said, we're all adults... And in saying that, the responsibility will ALWAYS be yours to protect what you do not want others to know. This includes any information automatically attached to an image, such as geo-tagging, by a smart phone/device. It is ultimately your responsibility to understand how the technology you're using works.

So we may limit some features or functionality of the board to "assist" in keeping you safe, but that is by no means a 100% guarantee and should never be taken as such.

EXIF data, for all intents and purposes, is safe for 99.9% of the members on this board and internet users in general. Some people choose to have a lot of info about them online, some people don't.

In other words, use common sense when making your posts...

[kcmoxtractor]

Totally agree with you, if you are being looked at that hard, they are probably just looking for more evidence. If that is the case, you're probably already fucked. I just wanted to make sure it was known that it could happen.

[tenjin]

Just wanted to add to what Om was saying about removing EXIF data in Linux- you can use GIMP to remove EXIF data too. When you save the picture (after resizing, cropping, etc), there will be a popup box with a 'Advanced Options' dropdown menu and uncheck 'Save EXIF data' before you click save.
but totally agree with Zen said about billions of data out on the net and we sometimes forget about the vast quantity of personal data out there that it would take to zero someone out then its already game over for you.

[TastyBeverage]

It's pretty scary the amount of info out there. A few years ago A friend from gradeschool tracked me down. I was flabbergasted! Turns out he'd googled my name, which led him to an old geocities page i made back in the mid 90's. I hadn't looked at or updated the page in 10 years and had thought for sure it had been taken down. From the old page he found a nickname that i had just started using as a nym online and then googled that and found me from profiles elsewhere. He looked through those profiles until he found a picture and knew it was me.

Employers can do the exact same thing by the way.

I now regularly google my name and then try to take down or delete anything that i can that comes up. I also use a nym here on topia that i use no where else and change my safe addy when i feel i've traded too much on it.

[Om shanti]

Another twist: Making web photos searchable through face recognition software. :-)

Here is just one example.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...o_facebook.php

[TicoShroom]

Being a resident of Costa Rica and doing research in Mycology for a little over 6 months I decided I wanted to know what he Costa Rican law was regarding research and growing of various mushrooms. From the legal research I have done I can not see any law that prohibits the cultivation of any mushroom whatsoever in Costa Rica. I am expecting a formal written report shortly and will update with an English translation of the basic finding and determinations. If confirmed there is absolutely no law against it here then I gladly do full Tek documentaries with name and picture included. I'm thinking Costa Rica should become like Amsterdam was a couple years back. We have all kinds of natural climates to work with.

I have a large Bodega Basement in Tambor Costa Rica. I was thinking of making rooms inside this large room with wood frame and plastic walls. Anyone that may wish to participate please let me know

[Om shanti]

Welcome to Mycotopia, Ticoshroom! :-)

In my opinion, it's best to be a bit discrete, even if it's legal.. because it's probably only legal because the police/hospitals/authorities didn't encounter too many people doing mushrooms yet.

The story of mushrooms in a lot of European countries is that they got very popular because of the internet, PF tek, and so forth. Then some fatal accidents happened that were blamed on shrooms (even though other drugs were often involved - alcohol, cannabis, datura, and what not), and then they got banned. In case you didn't hear yet, that also happened in Amsterdam, so now only fresh sclerotia are legal to sell there.

Just my 0.02$: Enjoy the legal situation to the max., but keep discretion. :-) Anyway, once again, welcome here. ;-)

[TicoShroom]

Thank You for the input. Sure would not want to be part of any situatuation that would push the government here to work on laws to control mushroom cultivation.

[heritage ranch]

i would as the publicity could help my bussiness (edibles at farmers markets)

dont have any worries as i am only here for the edibles. Mmmmmm......tasty