« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »

April 27, 2006

Neckties deemed "Un-Islamic"

I really hate wearing neckties - I hate it even more if other people are wearing neckties with "comedy cartoon characters" on them.

You know who you are and you should be adult enough to know it ISN'T funny.

Seriously - if I have to attend one more meeting where someone is wearing a "Daffy Duck" or "Taz" necktie - I think I might just go bananas.

But disliking neckties does not excuse the kind of extreme beliefs about neckties we find here.

Q1370: What is the view on wearing a necktie?
A: Generally speaking, it is not permissible to wear a tie, or other kinds of clothes that are considered as the attire of non-Muslims, in such a way that their wearing will promote vile Western culture. The ruling is not confined to people of the Islamic Republic.

So there you have it - the wearing of a necktie is a promotion of "vile Western culture".

I would like to agree - but strangely I cant find a single reference in the Koran that suggests that neckties might be forbidden.

Maybe it is because the modern necktie was not invented at the time the Koran was written.

Perhaps the Prophet Mohammed had NO IDEA about neckties in the future - and so he didn't bother to include neckties on the list of allowed and forbidden things.

Strangely enough I can't recall any quotes from the Bible about neckties either ... so I can't figure out why neckties figure so highly on the Islamic agenda.

When a third world culture faces genuine problems such as female illiteracy, problems with medical care, high child mortality rates, while also having problems supplying adequate water and sewage to ordinary people - then you'd think that it might be more important to fix the problems rather than worry about whether people were wearing a necktie or not.

Maybe I am being unduly "Islamaphobic" - but when someone accuses a common piece of clothing of being a "vile promotion of western culture" - and when I can't find anything in the Koran to support their assertions - I start to wonder:

Why would they say that?

What is the real agenda here?


Tags:, , , , , , ,


April 26, 2006

IE is dead to me

This column from PC Magazine entitled The Great Microsoft Blunder - manages to sum up every problem I've ever had with IE - and then project them into a nightmare I would never want to face when I was working in IT.

From the beginning Microsoft were playing "catch up" with NetScape - and it took a long time before MS would get a grip on the phenonema called "The Internet" - and then try and woo networking people.

You see - I remember the kludges I used to have to do to make Novell, MS and various UNIX boxes communicate with each other ....

Back in the early days Microsoft didn't get it - configuring a Dos or Win3.1 PC to talk to everything else was a nightmare - and possibly expensive, depending on the systems you were trying to integrate (i.e. PC-NFS) - and the introduction of WfW did not help matters either.

As Microsoft explored the possibilties of "networking" - normally stable protocols broke everywhere as MS tried to impose their (non) open standards on the rest of the world - and Microfrost lost a lot of friends in businesses that relied on UNIX servers to manage their infrastructure.

Right now - I don't even want to TEST the new IE beta.

Why should I?

What's in it for me? Free phone support? From Spain? I think not ...

If I test the new beta for free I expose myself to all sorts if unknown security risks - and unless I get paid for doing so why should I bother?

Every other week, or near as makes no difference, we learn just how easy it is for black hat spyware and malware merchants to subvert our computers using security holes in IE.

Why should I act as a beta tester for a piece of software that is a PROVEN security risk?

Now I use FireFox instead - and I'm not going to evangelise - FireFox except to say Try It!

To borrow a phrase from one of the "anti-social" web2.0 sites - "IE is dead to me".


Tags: , , , , ,


April 11, 2006

10 Cold War Films

One of my criteria here was that the film should be made before the end of the Cold War – which I would date at about the time the Berlin Wall came down (1989) .

I tend to prefer earlier Cold War movies that were made at a time when paranoia was peaking - before the age of détente.

This list is in chronological order and spoilers follow - but as the films run from 1951 – 1974 everyone should have seen them by now.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (Robert Wise - 1951) This tale of aliens arriving on Earth and sorting out the Cold War nuclear threat found a deeply popular niche in the popular psyche. Even now people meet and/or channel aliens that advise that “humankind should change its ways” by “giving up all atomic weapons”. Early Cold War classic that just looks like a Science Fiction movie and launched a thousand imitators – none of which were half as good as this.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Don Siegel - 1956) – The ultimate 5th columnist tale as identikit aliens take over America in a story of deep paranoia and metaphoric confusion. Who are the “pod people” – infiltrated communists from behind the Iron curtain or McCarthyite brainwashed Americans? You decide - and then decide who you would trust.

The Mouse That Roared (Jack Arnold - 1959) – Suppose a small bankrupt country declared war on America expecting to be defeated? With the hope of large post-war grants for “reconstruction” after surrender? And then got their hands on a “doomsday weapon” by mistake? A Cold War comedy classic.

The Manchurian Candidate (John Frankenheimer- 1962) – Brainwashing, assassination and paranoia about the “Dark State” make this a deeply disturbing movie. This is one of the earliest films to deal with the “Dark State” theme - using the idea that the Communists were “brainwashing” people with drugs, and hypnosis tp perform covert assassination. Strangely enough, at this time the CIA were experimenting with brainwashing people with drugs and hypnosis under the MK-Ultra program. The fact that the USA were soon to be rocked by a series of political assassinations and accusations of mind control makes this a highly prescient work – especially as the novel was written in 1959.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley Kubrick - 1964) – Mad Nazi scientists, mad military and technological malfunction cause WWIII. This film has to be seen to be believed – it reeks of Cold War paranoia and insanity – and then some. It could be classed as a Cold War comedy classic – if you think laughing at the destruction of the planet is funny. This film is slick, sarcastic, cynical and funny as hell – ending with the Vera Lynn WWII song “We’ll Meet Again” was a stroke of genius.

Fail-Safe (Sidney Lumet - 1964) – This tale of technological malfunction ends with a trade off you would never want to make. Similar in theme to Dr. Strangelove, this dark and brooding film asks questions that only conspiracy theorists should ask: How far would you go to stop a nuclear war?

The Spy Who Came In from the Cold (Martin Ritt - 1965) – This is the perfect antidote to the “Spy” genre films epitomized by James Bond and his clones. As this sinister tale unfolds you realize that your friends are really your enemies, your enemies are still your enemies, and when trapped in a web of intrigue sometimes betrayal can only come from within.

The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! (Norman Jewison - 1966): Suppose some Russians arrived in a nuclear submarine by mistake and didn’t want to start a war? Misunderstandings fuel laughs in this tale of non-invasion and paranoia – another Cold War comedy classic. I particularly liked the Paul Revere type character who is still riding across the wilderness shouting “The Russians are Coming!” even as the film comes to an end .Is he the lone voice in the wilderness or a rumour monger stirring up trouble?

The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola - 1974) - Surveillance, betrayal, paranoia and the big question – just who IS watching the watchers? This is possibly one of the scariest films on the planet. After watching this film I realised that just because I am paranoid doesn’t mean they are NOT out to get me – because they have a living to earn. Highly recommended - if you can stand the heightened level of paranoia that lingers for days afterwards.

The Parallax View (Alan J. Pakula - 1974) – An intrepid reporter investigates the mysterious “Parallax Corporation” and ends up being framed as an assassination patsy in a film that mixes anxiety and paranoia with the fear that the Cold War has created a “Dark State” which is now out of control. This, along with “The Manchurian Candidate” - was one of the first films to introduce the very popular “Dark State” genre which continues up until this day.

ALSO RAN:

High Noon (Fred Zinnemann - 1952) - This film, for various reasons, has often been cited as a “Cold War” film – but I have a different textual reading of this film that is too small to fit into the margin. “High Noon” is still a great film – just not a Cold War film in my opinion.

Thunderball (Terence Young -1965) – Is still my favourite Cold War “Bond” film - and any claims for “Dr.No” and “From Russia With Love” fall on my deaf ears. Maybe we should file “Bond” films under the “Spy” genre – but in this film an evil scientist tries to take over the world by engineering war between the USA and USSR. It exploits the common fear that somebody else could cause WWIII against the wishes of the USA and USSR – a theme that has found great popularity over the years.


Tags:


April 10, 2006

The "Raw" and the "Cooked": Ontology is Everything

I've recently read the article about by Clay Shirky about how Ontology is Overrated.

That's how long I was offline and how long it has taken me to catch up - luckily while I was catching up I made a lot of notes on my internal blog - the one I use to write reminders and tech notes to myself - and now some of these are going to get refined and see the light of day.

My major problem with the Clay's argument is that it conflates artificial categorisation taxonomies - in this example the Library of Congress categorisation scheme - with naturally evolved taxonomies.

Human taxononmy is not machine taxonomy.

Human taxonomy is not a formal taxonomy - human taxonomy changes with new entries, new ideas and new concepts.

Human taxonomy is a folksonomy.

I have to say - from the point of view of a human being - "Ontology is Everything".

Consider the following oppostional "semantic features" - or "tags" as they are called when used in the "semantic web".

RAW vs COOKED
DEAD vs ALIVE
HOT vs COLD
FOOD vs POISON

This naturally occuring ontology is not just an "imaginary" structure created to organise objects - it is a vital method of "carving the world at its joints" that is necessary for human survival.

We all use this ontology daily in order to determine what is "safe to eat" - a category that is both culturally determined and culturally flexible.

I would have never have known that "RAW FISH" was safe to eat - and very nice too - if the Japanese hadn't overlaid their own ontology onto mine.

Because they placed the "RAW FISH" sub-category into the "FOOD" category - I modified my category - and now eat Sushi when I can.

Before that I would have placed "RAW FISH" in the "POISON" category - my mother still does.

Back when our ancestors created ontologies it was nothing more than a primitive survival mechanism.

Ontology is necessary - human beings use ontologies all the time to navigate the world safely - so for our survival "ontology is everything".

But I think Clay Shirky was building a "straw man" argument to make his point.

There are many problems with human created ontologies - "Taxonomies" - but I think that most of these are caused by using out-of-date taxonomies.

We need dynamically created taxonomies - one example would be the taxonomic tree used by biologists.

Every so often a new animal, fish or insect is discovered that doesn't fit with the existing taxonomy.

Biologists don't go - "oh no - it doesn't fit - we must junk our existing classification scheme".

Instead they debate long and hard about what generally agreed changes can be made to the existing taxonomy to make it reflect the new discovery - while trying to preserve as much of the existing taxonomic structure as possible.

So when Clay Shirky says that "Ontology is Overrated" - I think what he really means is that "static ontologies such as fixed taxonomies based on tree-like hierarchies are overrated" - a slight difference.

Any categorisation system that is flexible and dynamic will reflect the flexible and dynamic nature of human categorisation - and that will be more usable to human beings than a static ontology - solely because it reflects the dynamic nature of human social categorisation systems.

I believe that the making of the "semantic web" means making the machine web easier to use by humans - by tapping into the shared collective knowledge of human beings - not by using fixed machine ontologies or systematic SEO keyword search.

Why not?

Let's forget formal ontologies - lets "tag" - and when we are not tagging we shoud argue about the value of tagging, of folksonomies and ontology.

That's how new ontologies are created.


Tags:


April 9, 2006

Does SEO make bad writers?

It looks like the New York Times has finally figured out a problem that I wrote about on January 1st

In a an article entitled This Boring Headline Is Written for Google - the NYT dissects the problems of written media in a search engine dominated world.


... software bots are not your ordinary readers: They are blazingly fast yet numbingly literal-minded. There are no algorithms for wit, irony, humor or stylish writing. The software is a logical, sequential, left-brain reader, while humans are often right brain.

... you know you're also writing for search engines, and you tend to write headlines that are more straightforward," said Lou Ferrara, online editor of The Associated Press. "My worry is that some creativity is lost."

Quite.

If we all write for the machines - for the SEO robots that dominate media in the Age of the Web - then who is going to write for human beings?



Tags:

April 8, 2006

Da Vinci Code: Author Cleared

As I predicted, Dan Brown - the author of the best selling "Da Vinci Code" - has been cleared of copyright violation.

In issuing his judgment, Justice Peter Smith said that Mr. Brown did indeed rely on the earlier work, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" in writing a section of "The Da Vinci Code." But he said that two of "Holy Blood's" authors, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, had failed to define the central theme of their book and thus failed to prove their accusation that Mr. Brown had lifted it from them.

I said here, here and here that the ideas contained in both Baigent & Leigh's and Dan Brown's book had precursors in the occult, fortean and conspiracy fields that precluded any claim on copyright.

This is a victory for common sense - for once. it looks like authors and writers can now use historical and pseudo-historical sources to construct new works of fiction - within the bounds of common sense and fair use.

It looks like the judgment means that works can be copyrighted but ideas cannot - so there is no "Copyright on Conspiracy" - this time.

One question: Is the judge - Justice Peter Smith - a Freemason?

If he was - then he could have been a representative of one of the oldest conspiracies on planet Earth -
The Knights Templar - or then again - maybe not.

Either way I get to mention the Templars - and as any good fortean occult conspiracy buff knows - the Templars are involved in everything, everywhere and at all times and have spread their evil tentacles all over the world.

I have to go now - I think I am being watched .... @*$/)@?"/$)&*@(# ++++ NO CARRIER ++++


Tags:


April 7, 2006

Takedown: Free Speech

It seems that my blogmaster over at SpyBlog has spotted yet another threat to liberty and free speech.

When talking about the new "takedown notices" - empowered under the recently passed Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006 - wtwu comments about the new laws:

They have worldwide scope and penalties up to 7 years in prison (i.e. severe enough for extradition procedures to apply) for not complying quickly enough with a "takedown notice" (2 working days) and thereby being deemed to agree or approve of the internet content, in question. This might deemed to incite or glorify terrorism or be classed as "disseminating a terrorist publication" or providing training material in the use of noxious substances

What I want to know is this: If I am an author researching cyber-warfare, information terrorism, asymmetrical warfare and the New Cold War - and I access and/or store a whole bunch of documents in my working day - and then share my working documents with other people via a social bookmarking scheme - do I then become responsible for my links if they are subsequently found to "promote terrorism"?

It's worth considering - if I tag everything in del.icio.us for my New Cold War research - does the act of tagging make me a security threat because I flag too many keywords that are flagged by the CIA/NSA/FBI/MI6 databases?

Right now I feel like a sitting duck for any computer program that searches for patterns in keyword searches - my keyword cluster units are so specific they can only be attributed to a terrorist - or a writer who is researching terrorism.

Anyone who thinks computers are the solution will just look at the facts - and come to the conclusion that I am a security threat.

But then why should I worry - I have nothing to hide and nobody relies on computers to do their work for them anymore - or do they?


Tags: terrorism


Tar Baby Evangelism

I just found a guide to promoting your Tar Baby - whatever it is - in this Tar Baby Evangelism "howto" guide.

Just subsititute your personal Tar Baby for the one in the outline given here.

This general guide seems to be about "Eris" - some mythological goddess of discord - but you can substitute any Tar baby Beliefs you like into the argument and still win.

If you don't have a Tar Baby yet - then go here for some suggestions - or you can roll your own.

THE SOCRATIC APPROACH: should always be used to open the conversation with the victim. That is what asking questions to start an argument is called. You approach the victim and simply ask: "Did you know that God is a female? And that Her name is ERIS, Goddess of Discord?"

If the victim says "yes", then he's either lying or you've picked a fellow Discordian, idiot.

If he doesn't, then proceed to:

THE BLIND ASSERTION: This is where you say, "Well, She is a woman and Her name is Eris." Now see if the victim appears to be convinced. If not, proceed to

THE FAITH BIT: "But you must have faith! Faith is wonderful, etc.! I feel sorry for you if you don't have faith!" And then add

THE ARGUMENT BY FEAR: "Do you know what happens to those who don't believe in Goddess?" If the victim says "no", don't tell him whatever it is you think happens to unbelievers, just shake your head sadly and go to

THE FIRST CAUSE PLOY: wherein you point to all the chaos around you and ask, "Well who do you think make all this then, wise guy?" If he says "nobody, just impersonal forces", then go on to

THE ARGUMENT BY SEMANTICAL GYMNASTICS: wherein you say that he is right and that those impersonal forces are a female and that Her name is Eris. If he still objects to your objectionable
presence, then go to the

FIGURATIVE SYMBOLISM DODGE: wherein you explain that all sophisticated people know that Eris is just a figurative symbol for discord, but that the Discordian Religion is a magnificent work of art--portrait of chaos, so to speak.

I have to add to this:


ARGUMENT BY NEGATIVE PERSUASION: When a Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door and says: "Don't you agree that there is too much famine, war, death, rape. greed and lies on the planet Earth" - then argue the opposite!!

You should make a cogent argument that there is NOT ENOUGH famine, war, death, rape, greed and lies on the planet Earth, beacuse their omnipotent Jehovah has created EVERYTHING on the face of the planet Earth - even the death, famine and greed - and he must want more of the same - so therefore we can never have enough of the whole death, famine and greed thing - because God wills it.

After that they are toast - slip your Tar Baby beliefs in right about now ...


ARGUMENT BY THEOLOGY: When a Mormon approaches you and wants to read from the Bible - pick the bit about "graven images" from Moses - then point out that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from graven slabs that mysteriously disappeared the moment he had finished the translation.

Slipping in phrases about "worshippers of graven images are the tools of Satan" and "in the old days we knew how to deal with heretics like you" are often useful at this point.

Now is about time to slip in your Tar Baby beliefs - while they are reeling with the realisation that the Spanish Inquisition would have shoved them on a stake and made marshmallows on the flames.

Point this out - then hit them again with why they should agree with you.


I guess I should shut up and put some tags in about now - but not until I've mentioned the Templars.

Tags:


April 5, 2006

The "Tar Baby Principle"

My first encounter with the ‘Tar Baby” was as a small child growing up - when I first read the Brer Rabbit stories.

I just read that story again – I always thought it was Brer Rabbit who tricked Brer Fox with the Tar Baby – funny how you remember things.

It wasn’t until Wilson & Shea wrote about the “Tar Baby Principle” in the Illuminatus Trilogy many years later that I really understood what the “Tar Baby Principle” was:

You are attached to what you attack

But what does that mean?

It means if you hate something, I mean really hate something, you spend all your time – the whole of your life even – thinking about what you hate.

You have to live with what you hate every day – it is an obsession to you – and you can think of nothing else.

The object of hate becomes like a lover – you can’t eat, sleep or do anything without thinking about it – it dominates the whole of your being.

How can people stand it? Always thinking about what they hate the most?

How can people become “Tar Baby Junkies”?

I prefer to be a “Jelly Baby Junky” and take a more chilled out approach to life.

Here’s a few “Tar Baby Junkies” who spend their entire lives attached to their “Tar Babies” – thinking about what they hate most – and some of my “Jelly Baby Junky” solutions.

White Power Racists

Tar Baby Beliefs: People with white skin people are superior to people who are black, oriental, or Indian – solely because of their skin colour. This notion can even extend to people who are “whiter than white” because they have the “correct” genes.

Jelly Baby Beliefs: I keep meeting people with different skin colours and ethnic origins and they are not very different from me. Why should I discriminate on the basis of skin colour?

If I meet someone with a different skin colour to me who I don’t like – then the chances are I’ve met many more people with the same skin colour as me that I didn’t like as well.

Who cares anyhow? It’s about people - not skin colour – and I don’t lay awake at night worrying about racial purity.

Anti-Semites

Tar Baby Beliefs: The Jewish people are collectively involved in a huge conspiracy that involves media, politics, banking, Hollywood, newspapers, book publishing and covering up the lie of the Holocaust.

Jelly Baby Beliefs; I keep meeting people who are Jewish and they are not very different to me. Why should I discriminate on the basis that they are Jewish?

It seems to make no odds what somebody’s religion is as long as they are good people.

If anyone comes to me ranting on about ZOG and tries to convince me the holocaust was a hoax they will get very short shrift from me.

Who cares? It’s about people – not religion – and I don’t lay awake in bed at night worrying about ZOG and their plans for world annihilation and/or dominance.

Homophobics

Tar Baby Beliefs: Homosexuals are creatures of filth and evil that will be condemned to the fiery pits of hell, hanging and/or the wrath of God in the form of AIDS.

Strangely enough - homophobics seem to spend more time than of any “Tar Baby Junkies” dwelling on the exact details of what gay people do – go figure.

Jelly Baby Beliefs: I keep meeting people who are homosexual and they are not very different to me. Why should I discriminate on the basis of their gender identity and sexual preferences?

Consensual sexual acts between adults over the age of consent are fine – whatever the gender of the parties involved - and I really don’t care what other people do in bed together – as long as I can choose what I want to do.

Who cares? It’s about people – not sexuality – and I don’t lay awake at night worrying what gay people are doing in private – unlike many well known homophobic columnists who think about nothing else before going to sleep.

Islamaphobics

Tar Baby Beliefs: All Moslems are plotting to take over the world by being involved in terrorism, suicide bombings and a nuclear arms race.

Jelly Baby Beliefs: I keep meeting people who are Islamic and they are not very different to me. Why should I discriminate on the basis that they are Islamic?

I have met enough Islamic people in my life to know that they are not all fundamentalists who want to live under Sharia law – many of them are more than happy to integrate into secular democratic societies all over the world.

Who cares? It’s about people – not religion - and I don’t lay awake in my bed at night worrying about Islamic world domination - but I do wonder about a future dominated by the USAxis and the IslamAxis during the coming arms race in the New Cold War.

Anti-Nuke

Tar Baby Beliefs: Nuclear weapons are evil and unless we unilaterally disarm the nuclear holocaust is coming to a city near you. We should destroy all our nuclear weapons now – or maybe just sell them to Iran - to ensure world security for decades to come.

Jelly Baby Beliefs: I keep meeting people who are unilateralists and they are not very different to me. Why should I discriminate on the basis that they are stupid?

The whole unilateral disarmament theory is a crock of doo-doo proposed by appeasement monkeys who have no grasp of history coupled with a huge left-wing anti-US bias that helps to feed their Tar Baby habit.

Who cares? It’s about people – not myopia – and I don’t lay awake in my bed at night worrying whether CND are going to force the nuclear powers to disarm – most people are far too sensible for that – and I learned to “stop worrying and love the bomb” a long time ago.

Skeptic Atheists

Tar Baby Beliefs: God doesn’t exist and anyone who believes God exists is anti-scientific, superstitious or stupid. Gullible people who read their horoscopes everyday should be re-educated in the theory of science until unreason is banished from the planet.

Jelly Baby Beliefs: I keep meeting scientists, atheists and skeptics and they are not very different from me. Why should I discriminate because they are skeptical atheists?

You’d think these guys had something better to do than worry about the existence of God – saving the world from global warming, discovering the cure for cancer, creating sources of unlimited free energy and exploring the universe – but they seem to have time on their hands.

If you want to know the truth then put a dozen scientists in a room together and they will all agree – right? So the next time you read an article that proves God doesn’t exist – ask another scientist for a second opinion.

Who cares? It’s about people – not religion – and I don’t lay awake at night worrying that the skeptical atheists will find proof that God does not exist – but I do worry sometimes that some immoral scumbag will use their arguments to justify using some of their nastier scientific discoveries.

Anti-US

Tar Baby Beliefs: The USA is part of the satanic axis designed to subjugate the world and imprint the stamp of the boot on the face – forever.

The mindset that goes with this is staggering – according to the Anti-US “Tar Baby Junkie” - anything the US says is a lie, anything they do is wrong and the USA is the “evil empire”.

Jelly Baby Beliefs: I keep meeting people who are American and they are not very different to me. Why should I discriminate on the basis that I sometime disagree with their government?

Who cares? It’s about people – not knee-jerk anti-American bigotry – and I don’t lay awake in bed at night worrying about the “American Hegemony” – but I do worry about how NeoCon ideas about the Middle East are sowing the seeds for the “New Cold War” and decades of hardship to come.

Appeasement Monkeys

Tar Baby Beliefs: The Iranian nuclear program is entirely peaceful because they need to develop an alternative energy source and they don’t have any intention of developing nuclear weapons with any of the reprocessed material.

It is far more important to prevent war in the Middle East than prevent the Iranians having nuclear weapons, so if the price of preventing war is allowing the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons then we should allow it in the name of peace.

Jelly Baby Beliefs: I keep meeting people who really believe this and they are very different to me. I will try not to discriminate against them - but instead I will engage them in conversations at every chance I get – to try and convince them that appeasement doesn’t work, has never worked and won’t work this time either.

Right now the New Cold War is entering a major propaganda offensive – everyone is lying to everybody else and trying to mask their true intentions – while all the time arming to the teeth.

The wildcards are the steadily growing number of terrorist factions – they aren’t accountable to anybody – who could upset any fragile arrangements made by the appeasement monkey factions who are quite happy to hand over major concessions to ensure “peace in our time”.

Meanwhile the threat of homeland terrorism never recedes – we are in danger of settling into the routine of the New Cold War – with threat and counter-threat, alerts, propaganda and terrorist attacks.

Once we settle into that routine - all of us will take for granted the security checks, the compulsory use of identity cards, increased surveillance and monitoring - because government propaganda will convince us that, without these measures, we will not win.

Who cares?

I do.

It’s about people – not power - and about the future of us, our children and our grandchildren.

I worry about how the New Cold War is slowly eroding democratic freedoms, and making old laws and civil rights obsolete.

I worry that the New Cold War will make this erosion of widely held rights and privileges permanent

I worry that the necessity of perpetual counter insurgency against the terrorist threat means that we will all be under increased surveillance and decreased civil liberties.

I worry that the boundaries between “terrorism” and “peaceful” protest are being eroded daily in the name of the “war on terror” – an act that could potentially criminalize legitimate protest and create internal dissent – a new “enemy within”.

I worry that monitoring the “enemy within” - when everyone is perpetually watched to see if they are a potential security threat - ensures that everyone will be a potential security threat – forever.

Most of all I worry that the measures we need to take to overcome the threat of terrorism might destroy that fragile thing we call western secular liberal democracy – ensuring that the terrorists win after all.


Tags:


April 1, 2006

LINX: Daily Mail promotes Cleanfeed

LINX public affairs have finally caught up on the 10 day old advertisment story from the Daily Mail.

A large spread in the Daily Mail [PDF, 4Mb] last week piled on the pressure for ISPs to adopt network-level content blocking, with all the even-handed dispassionate analysis you’d expect from the Daily Mail.

They provide a link to the article in PDF format - I would never have dared - but somehow they manage to miss the fact that irresponsible reporting like this helps perverts to find illegal material.

The story also fails to point out that 100% adoption of the BT Cleanfeed system will not stop children being abused and will not stop perverts viewing illegal material.

You'd think this would be a big issue with LINX - but apparently not - I can't figure out why.

Wake up and smell the coffee guys!!!

You need to use every argument at your disposal to avoid costly filtering and/or monitoring requirements that could become mandatory under the current regime.

The operational costs of the proposed filtering and monitoring requirements are both costly and difficult to implement - and when they have been implemented won't work as intended.

What a waste of time and money.

It doesn't work, it won't work and its time to say so - don't just shilly-shally and go all ambiguous - like this -

.. with all the even-handed dispassionate analysis you’d expect from the Daily Mail ...

Try this instead

Blacklist filtering systems such as "BT Cleanfeed" do nothing to prevent children being abused and will never prevent perverts looking at illegal material.

Or even:

Rather than placing the onus, and the cost, on common carrier ISPs - the government should tackle the root causes of illegal material on the Internet by attacking the criminal gangs who are linked to human trafficking for sexual activity, child pornography, and pornography spam

The Internet doesn't have a problem - the world has a problem.

That is the message that needs to be taken to governments who advocate one-size-fits-all censorware schemes that are expensive to implement and don't work anyway.


Tags: