at least (not) initially

[suprunp]

Let's imagine that I'm explaining to you how to do something:

"Firstly, try to find a user who doesn't have a firewall.
Secondly, install this malicious software on his computer.
That's all. I would even say it's a win-win situation - you have your information and the user doesn't know anything, at least not initially, and therefore has no reason to worry."

"at least not initially" means here "the user doesn't know it; at least he doesn't know it initially". - Q #1: Is it acceptable to use it the way I did?

" [...] and the user doesn't know anything, at least initially, and therefore has no reason to worry.
"at least initially" means here the same, i.e. "the user doesn't know it; at least he doesn't know it initially". - Q #2: Is this variant possible?

Thanks

[Tdol]

It's a correct usage. Both forms work, but I prefer the negative one.

I don't see how it can be called a win-win situation- in a win-win situation both parties benefit, and I fail to see how not knowing that someone has invaded a machine to steal personal information is of any benefit to the victim. That's like claiming that if a thief puts a mask on and robs you, you benefit from not knowing the identity of the criminal.

Please restrict your discussions to legal activities- discussions on how to break the law are not acceptable.

[suprunp]

It's a correct usage. Both forms work, but I prefer the negative one.

I don't see how it can be called a win-win situation- in a win-win situation both parties benefit, and I fail to see how not knowing that someone has invaded a machine to steal personal information is of any benefit to the victim. That's like claiming that if a thief puts a mask on and robs you, you benefit from not knowing the identity of the criminal.

Please restrict your discussions to legal activities- discussions on how to break the law are not acceptable.

Thank you, Tdol!

I suspect that it ("a win-win situation", "of benefit to the victim") is sarcasm.
My intention was not to discuss how to break the law, and I can't see how it could have been perceived that way. What I wanted to find out was what I was supposed to say not to break 'the language law'. This needed suitable context.
My apologies if my message offended anybody.