

Prominent Mexican anti-corruption blogger goes missing - curthopkins
http://www.dailydot.com/news/el-5antaurio-blogger-missing/

======
alttag
What's the value in protecting one's identity if colleagues are going to
release it to the (possibly corrupt) government and media? If he does return,
there's no way he can continue with the pseudonym, and in the (unlikely?)
event of a safe return, it sounds as if he'd now be in jeopardy for past
reporting.

It seems there's no positive end game, even if he is found safely.

~~~
tzs
There are four possible states for someone in his profession.

1\. Identity is secret. This is his ideal state.

2\. Police know his identity, drug cartels do not. Not as good as #1, as he
has to worry about corrupt police working with the cartels, or poor police
security letting his identity out.

3\. Police do not know his identity, but the drug cartels do. This is the
worst possible case. The cartels can target him, and the police cannot help
him.

4\. Police and drug cartels both know his identity. Worse than #1 and #2, but
better than #3, as he might get some help from the police.

If he had disappeared voluntarily (for instance, if he had gone on vacation),
he would have told his colleagues. We can thus infer that he was probably
taken by the drug cartels. That means he's in state #3 or #4. By making sure
the police know his identity, his colleagues ensure he is in state #4, not #3,
which is better for him.

The positive end game for him if he is found safely is moving away from Mexico
(or at least from the drug cartel territories), assuming a new identity, and
trying to live a normal life doing some job other than reporting on drug
cartels. The moment he was taken both his pseudonym and real identity died--
the only question now is if that also means the end of his life.

------
andrewcooke
please, americans, stop buying drugs that go through mexico.

i don't care if it should be legalised or not. you still have a choice. so
this guy's blood (and his unimaginable suffering) is on your hands. and he's
just one of thousands.

[and, to pre-empt the excuses, how do you _really_ know what is home-sourced?]

~~~
ryanac
I don't like this argument because you can replace "drugs" with anything a
government decides to make illegal. If a product or service is made illegal
and there's still a demand, it will be sold on the black market and everyone
knows what that funds.

The people who created laws that pushed these "drugs" into the black market
knew this too and they also had a choice; collect the money themselves through
taxes and use it as they see fit (probably to, I don't know, reduce drug use)
or keep funding these kinds of activities.

Obviously if all/some drugs were legalized they'd find something else to sell,
but why make it easy for them by giving them total monopoly over some of the
most sought after substances on earth, with an endless supply of customers,
some who are legitimately in need.

Also, when it comes to legalization vs "getting everyone in America to stop
buying drugs", I think legalization is a lot more realistic.

P.S. I know one sure fire way to make sure it's home-sourced, unfortunately I
can't do that because it carries some risk, jail.

