[Ir-l] [IR-L]: zzzzzz 'Mobbsey' zzzzzzz

Thu Apr 27 12:41:54 BST 2000

Mobbsey,  I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or just hit delete ;-)

Privacy for privacy's sake is ABSOLUTELY NOT a vaccuous argument!

Whether I have personal emotional stuff I want to communicate - or I don't
want people stealing my ideas or knowing what my day-to-day movements are,
privacy is the norm.  Mr Mobbsey is not coming from anywhere in the real
world.  In case you hadn't noticed Mobbsey, the state has been turning
increasingly Fascist since the early Thatcher years and is after crushing
dissent through compiling intelligence on dissenters. You're hell bent on
keeping it noice and easy for them.

I can't believe anyone would waste their time trying to flimsily back-up
such a self-sacraficial Fascist 'everything must be open man' position. If
you don't believe in privacy then don't use it.  If you're so unconcerned
about state and private surveillance what the hell's you doing on this list?  

It's simple.
Privacy is an absolute right unless you are a criminal.  Unfortunately the
police and security services are on the take from drugs and vice crime so
leave that alone to concentrate on us, their political opponents. They also
work with the extreme right wing as agents provocaterus to turn peaceful
demos violent. There is plenty of evidence for this if you bother to look.  

And it doesn't matter if PGP could be cracked (we'll never know that so why
try and answer the question) it's a pain in the arse for them to do it for
us all.

Encrypt everything - it's not paranoia its your right.
www.pgpi.com

Tony Gosling
www.bilderberg.org

At 17:31 26/4/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>A response! Good.
>
>I won't bother responding to the tech talk about PGP because that would be
>long and boring (well, except that there is a weakness in the way PGP
>generates its primes, and yes I do understand the maths involved, and
>Windows 2000's disk encryption is not strong enough to resist
>State/security service attck, and in any case all disk encryption systems
>have to trade off security for efficiency and so use inherently weaker
>encryption algorithms).
>
>But I think people are still missing the point that I was trying to make.
>
>Privacy for privacy's sake is a vaccuous argument. Privacy needs purpose. I
>do use PGP, but only to encrypt data on my system, such as address lists,
>where I feel I have an obligation to protect the identities/addresses of
>people I work with.
>
>The important issue is in relation to how we break the intended aim of both
>the Terrorism Bill and the RIP Bill. I think people are missing the issue
>that the proposed legislation does not make new theoretical offences. It's
>purely giving powers for intrusion into people's lives, and what new
>criminal penalties there are relate to people who don't go along with this
>principle. That's not being widely reported in the media. People have
>always been of the opinion that there is an ofence of 'terrorism'. There is
>not, and under the new legislation thwere will not be. Both Bills give
>powers over a persons ordinary civil rights to intrusively investigate them
>using a perceived 'repugnance' in their intended acts.
>
>The only way you can challenge such a repressive act is to openly resist
>it. If one or two people do that, nil effect. But if many people as a
>network do that then you might get somewhere. This is the importance of
>being open and accountable when taking action that might infringe the new
>laws. It's only by being open that you can create a situation where you can
>generate the public and media consciousness about the issue.
>
>That might well involve handing out copies of PGP to people who want them
>in mainline stations, or sending lots of encrypted mails to Jack Straw. But
>we have to pursue the wider agenda on this. The Terrorism Bill and the RIP
>Bill are linked - they're two halves of the system NCIS and MI5 need to
>justify more restrictive and intrusive surveillance of ordinary
>campaigners. The agenda for this is not primarily because of the direct
>action movement. The agenda is motivated by the increasing willingness of
>people to lend support to single issue groups in preference to the party
>political structure. This gives them power, and therefore they have to be
>'watched'. For example, who has more power with the public and media these
>days, an average trades union or Greenpeace?
>
>It's also only by planning open and accountable actions that we can
>engineer situations where we can fight back with the only tool we have over
>Parliament - the European Convention on Human Rights. If people hide and
>try and obfuscate their work from public view that helps the opposition
>prove their case. If we are open and approachable that gives us power to
>deliberately exploit the contradictions between the Convention and the two
>Bills. We can then, with public support, challenge the (soon to be?) Acts
>of Parliaments under the procedures in the Human Rights Act 1998. It only
>takes a win in one good case to invalidate all the procedures in the
>RIP/Terrorism Bill, using the 'incompatibility' procedures for enacted
>legislation in the Human Rights Act, to throw the whole system into chaos.
>
>Finally, a large aspect of both the RIP Bill and Terrorism Bill is
>intimidation of the more mainstream members of the campaigning community
>into toeing the line. I believe it's been deliberately drafted in this way.
>We have to do the same to those promoting these repressive measures. And
>the only way I believe we can do that is be open and in-your-face about
>doing it. This is because although people singularly may not be willing to
>stick their necks out on these issues, if they are part of a large,
>identifiable group they will. In my view encryption doesn't form part of
>that process.
>
>We have to stop promoting this a purely a privacy-motivated issue and
>actually approach it from the power-politics angle. That means deliberately
>seeking to go after the repressive measure by staging broad-based actions
>that infringe them. In my view groups like RTS or Reclaim the Streets will
>have no choice in the matter because they will meet the definitions of the
>terrorism and RIP Bills, even if they are not actually 'proscribed' by the
>government. that why we need to ensure that when the state takes on these
>or similar groups they have a support network of people willing to takes to
>the streets, airwaves and cyberspace in their support.
>
>
>
>P.
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------
>"We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government, nor are we for
>this party nor against the other
 but we are for justice and mercy and
>truth and peace and true freedom, that these may be exalted in our nation,
>and that goodness, righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity
>with God, and with one another, that these things may abound." (Edward
>Burroughs, 1659 - from 'Quaker Faith and Practice')
>
>THE FREE RANGE ACTIVISM NETWORK
>Facilitators -
>  Paul Mobbs - mobbsey at gn.ac.org, tel./fax 01295 261864
>  Tim Shaw - timshaw at gn.apc.org, tel./fax 01558 685353
>Website - http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/rangers/
>
>--------------------
>
>
>
-- 
Tony Gosling <tony at gaia.org>
USE my PGP public key http://www.bilderberg.org/pgpkey.asc

The Bible on the End Times:  http://www.bilderberg.org/trib.htm

Tony's notorious Website  http://www.bilderberg.org
Campaigning for full press access to Bilderberg venues - and a declaration
from the organisers that the discussions are public, not private

i-Contact video	http://www.videonetwork.org
"If you're not careful the media will have you hating the people who are
being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing"
Malcolm X

Council on Foreign Relations: Common origin of NATO, Marshall Plan, EU,
World Bank & IMF
http://www.bilderberg.org/bildhist/#The

Heaps of informative sites:
http://www.bilderberg.org/goodlink.htm#recent