On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:57:18AM +0000, Damian Counsell wrote:
The law has historically been imposed as a means to protect property and of course the more property you've got the more influence you have in shaping what becomes law.
No problem with that.
Now it seems that the intelligence services have made a grab for more law, not because they're interested in paedophiles, terrorists are drug smugglers, but because they're interested in grabbing intellectual property and more `jobs for the boys'.
Yeah, right, and the Jews were responsible for blowing up the twin towers. I'm very cynical about the authorities's motivations, but "grabbing intellectual property"? That's just tosh.
The security services are in up to their knecks when it comes to grabbing sensitive commercial information and also preventing it from being grabbed. It's why the French are keen on introducing Linux - as there's less possibility of the US making use of the numerous backdoors littering MS products to steal their firms commercial secrets.
I've heard so many daft conspiracy theories since 9/11 (as the Americans refer to it) that I'm thinking of writing a book. The slack security that led to the incident itself is support for the cock-up theory of disaster more than anything else.
Most of the conspiracy theories are rot. Plenty of people hate the US - the only surprising thing was that it hadn't happened earlier.
Subsequent proposals for new powers are just panicky efforts by incompetents at stable-door shutting.
No, they're not that incompetent. It's a power grab under a pretence - pure & simple.
Here in the UK for example (see *The Observer*'s review of her autobiography) our very own Stella Rimington shut down the unit responsible for investigating al-Qaeda members in London years ago because she thought it was a waste of money.
It probably was a waste of money - there's more money to be made in espionage itself rather than counter-espionage on a group who hate the yanks. Crikey, if they investigated every group that hated the yanks then they wouldn't have resources to do anything else.
Sure, the security forces want more power and money, but most of them are inept plotters---unless it's some elaborate double-bluff, of course. The vast majority of such "security operatives" are bumbling bean-counters who just do what's required for a quiet life. They are civil servants---with all the images that creates; just like the half-wits who negotiate "bargain" deals with Microsoft.
I think that this bumbling image is carefully cultivated. Most of them are very clever individuals and I've met a few. Remember that Oxbridge is still the prime recruitment area and people who go there aren't noticeably stupid. When it comes to the government per se, then the bumbling incompetence displayed is not carefully cultivated - its a fact. Most of these politicians are effectively unemployable; although they've got the cunning of cornered rats they're really quite thick - and unpleasant with it.
Yay! The penguinistas should march on Menwith Hill, MI6 Vauxhall and parliament in no particular order and kick the lot out - our taxes would halve over night ;-)
Please, not the "small government" fetish---even as a joke. Most of the depressing aspects of life in Britain are nothing to do with high taxes and flabby administration; they're to do with people who have allowed themselves to be conned into believing they can have a proper health service (still considerably more efficient than most of the others in the World) without paying for it, or that they should be able to drive to work easily despite sitting one-to-a-jeep as they take their cars to school, to the newsagent and to the out-of-town shopping mall.
I disagree entirely. The ill's of this country are caused by stupid, mendacious and greedy politicians and civil servants who spend the countries money on vanity projects such as the Dome and the most expensive office space in Europe on themselves. Then when they can't get all their friends and family jobs they create `parliaments' in every province of the land and fill them with more toadies, brown-nosers and hangers on. The money they've got at their disposal they dish out to their `mates' who then dish it out to their `mates'. This is what happens in the health-service were the health authority jobs are political appointments to their clueless, greedy and corrupt friends. Hence we get such things as the MS deal. Public transport is actively discouraged because it doesn't use so much oil and hence raise so much revenue or income for the oil companies - remember what the baboon in the Whitehouse did before he became president? I do trust that he's not using the terrorist business in Afghanistan as a smokescreen to stop the development of the Caspian oil reserves by the commies. I mean that would be really cynical, bombing starving people in order to protect his `mates' and his interests. These amongst other reasons is why our taxes are going up and it's why I want smaller government - we don't need them, they're worthless parasitic scum.
We live in a democracy and the government pays most attention to the Daily Mail-reading voting bloc that is most likely to put a cross in the box.
If you think we live in some sort of democratic paradise where politicians listen to us then you're astoundingly naive. The Daily Mail and the rest of the Fleet St rags might aswell be written by 10 Downing St along with the BBC news etc. At least one Fleet St editor is known to be an MI5 man.
Increases in security powers are meant to please the "something-must-be-done" brigade and not the sorts of thoughtful iconoclasts who read this list ;-). They are very little to do with "intellectual property" or, indeed, "jobs for the boys"---about which most individual MI6 employees probably couldn't give a toss. (I told you I was cynical.)
It's not meant to please the "something-must-be-done" brigade. It's presented to us as meeting the publics demands for security as evidenced by the stories in the Daily Mail etc `reflecting public concern'. Only the terminally stupid give a damn about terrorists, paedophiles and the rest of the media created monsters lurking on the 'net - but then I guess Daily Mail readers are terminally stupid. BTW, what they really don't like about the 'net is cynical people like myself agitating public opinion against them. The 'net thankfully remains a bastion of free speech and let's hope, despite their best efforts, it stays that way. My best guess is it will. After all many years ago the rich/powerful tried to control printing technology and that effort also failed miserably. Cynical? You're an amateur ;-) -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ Marge, there's just too much pressure, what with my job, the kids, traffic snarls, political strife at home and abroad. But I promise you, the second all of those things go away, we'll have sex. -- Homer Simpson Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy