Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 17:46 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:b52cc$459c2e19$4fe7356$31413(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> Removing the original context makes /BAH's comment tenuously acceptable >> but it is even more of a cheap shot than I would resort to. > > > OK. But I'm LOL :-)
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 17:46 T Wake wrote: ruthless snippage >>Neither the US nor the UK is likely to have a "cease to >>exist" sort of disappearance he's discussing as our >>future. > I agree. >>That's the stuff of scifi and "The Prisoner" >>as I mentioned earlier. > Again, I agree. While I accept that the "thin end of the wedge" argument may > be construed as a logical fallacy, there is reason to be concerned at the > gradual erosion of liberties and, more importantly, the perception of those > liberties. In a huge sweeping generalization I offer that the human being is a form of herding creature. As such we tend to fee safety in numbers and the general benevolence of the crowd (sometimes seen as the parental figure of the state.) Eventually that benevolence yields opportunity to those who prefer to take advantage of the situation. All such deviations have finite lives. The result is that individuals may suffer in the short term, but over the long haul the herd prevails because the reversion to the mean will bring things back to sanity. Hayek (economist, I mentioned him earlier in this thread) says 'that man is free who must obey only the law, not other men.' I suppose there are degrees of freedom to be considered. > The UK prevention of terrorism acts (and associated legislation) overturns > centuries of law and assumed freedoms. [*] > > While we can look at our current government (and ones from the last, say 200 > years) as stable, rational and acceptable, there is no reason to assume this > will remain true in the future. Each freedom which is surrendered (willingly > or otherwise, for good reason or otherwise) is a freedom which future > generations may have to give their lives to reclaim. > > Using the Chilean "disappeared" as an analogy may be comical today and in > the near future for a "western democracy" but as people become more trusting > of the state, as more power is given to the state, as more assumptions are > made that the state is looking after "our" interests it could be less and > less comical. > > A trivial example is the custodian of the data. In the UK recently, the > Metropolitan Police (the most high tech, best resourced etc force in the UK) > had it's officer's payroll details stolen because they were stored on > laptops. Come the day that we have a national biometric database (for > security), what happens if someone gains illicit access to it? > > As the UK becomes more accustomed to "surveillance" (CCTV, ID Cards etc), > the less people question the information they give away about themselves and > more importantly the less they question what is being done with it. > > -- > [*] Note: My examples are mostly UK biased because I have no idea about US > law and only minimal interest in learning more > >
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 17:47 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:35670$459c2e53$4fe7356$31413(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:de4d6$459c1096$4fe756c$30741(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>[....] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>>>>>country that are being lost. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>>>>>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>>>>>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>>>>>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >>>>>> >>>>>>I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your >>>>>>Constitutional rights. >>>>> >>>>>No, I haven't. It is only your opinion that I have, but you are >>>>>wrong. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >>>>>>phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. >>>>> >>>>>He can listen using the procedures described in the Patriot Act >>>>>if, and only if, I cause attraction to myself by talking about >>>>>procurement and disbrusement of mess-making subjects. So I don't >>>>>do that. I also haven't said the word bomb in an airport since >>>>>1975 or so. >>>>> >>>>>Has my Constitutional rights been taken away because it is no >>>>>longer a prudent thing to say the word bomb when I'm going >>>>>through security? >>>>> >>>>>Use your noodle. >>> >>>>But you have used it in an USENET post now, so I assume from this point >>>>forward all your electronic comms are monitored. >>> >>>Of that I have no doubt. Everything usenet is international and >>>public with *no* expectation of privacy. This is just like >>>the bugged parking meters. Many of have assumed for years that >>>usenet is scanned for such key words. I've seen all sorts of >>>attention seeking posts using dozens of suspect expressions >>>like anthrax, bomb, suitcase bomb, hijacking, concealed weapons, >>>and the like. >>> >>>There, think that got someone's attention? >>> >>>I sure hope so! Otherwise the boys are asleep at the switch. >> >> >> And there is no way of knowing if they are. > > Make it look real. > > Unfortunately that possible cost is a bit too dear for my taste. > Same here. Detention without a lawyer is not something I want to undergo just to validate the security service :-)
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 17:53 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:35670$459c2e53$4fe7356$31413(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:de4d6$459c1096$4fe756c$30741(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>>kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>>>>kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[....] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>>>>>>country that are being lost. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>>>>>>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>>>>>>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>>>>>>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your >>>>>>>Constitutional rights. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, I haven't. It is only your opinion that I have, but you are >>>>>>wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >>>>>>>phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. >>>>>> >>>>>>He can listen using the procedures described in the Patriot Act >>>>>>if, and only if, I cause attraction to myself by talking about >>>>>>procurement and disbrusement of mess-making subjects. So I don't >>>>>>do that. I also haven't said the word bomb in an airport since >>>>>>1975 or so. >>>>>> >>>>>>Has my Constitutional rights been taken away because it is no >>>>>>longer a prudent thing to say the word bomb when I'm going >>>>>>through security? >>>>>> >>>>>>Use your noodle. >>>> >>>>>But you have used it in an USENET post now, so I assume from this point >>>>>forward all your electronic comms are monitored. >>>> >>>>Of that I have no doubt. Everything usenet is international and >>>>public with *no* expectation of privacy. This is just like >>>>the bugged parking meters. Many of have assumed for years that >>>>usenet is scanned for such key words. I've seen all sorts of >>>>attention seeking posts using dozens of suspect expressions >>>>like anthrax, bomb, suitcase bomb, hijacking, concealed weapons, >>>>and the like. >>>> >>>>There, think that got someone's attention? >>>> >>>>I sure hope so! Otherwise the boys are asleep at the switch. >>> >>> >>>And there is no way of knowing if they are. >> >>Make it look real. >> >>Unfortunately that possible cost is a bit too dear for my taste. >> > > > Same here. Detention without a lawyer is not something I want to undergo > just to validate the security service :-) Psssst. Let's bribe an Arab. ;-)
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 17:54
T Wake wrote: snip > It may have, but the selling point given to the public was to reduce crime, > not to increase the detection rate. > > As the crime rate has not stabilised over the last 15 years (it is > increasing in inner city, high CCTV areas), this leads to questions about > the value of solving the crimes. > > If people are going to give up a freedom willingly, then surely they need to > know the _real_ reason it is has been surrended, not be told one reason then > if that fails to appear be given alternative reasons until one which has > actually happend pops up? > > Something sold as crime prevention needs to prevent crime. When it fails, > finding a new use (in crime solving) is not something which can be > trumpteted as a valued reason. Oh come on. The mainstay of politics is selling "the big lie" and the bigger the better. "Follow the money." In the US we call that pork. |