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

[Jon]

You both have good points you are making.
We have a common opponent. That's good enough
for a rally zone. "Mobbsey" stands corrected.
However a fight out in the open is good tactics
at least since Ghandi showed how effective it
could be. Yet privacy for privacy sake just because
is a right.

J.S.


----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Gosling <tony at gaia.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ir-l at gn.apc.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 5:31 AM
Subject: [IR-L]: zzzzzz 'Mobbsey' zzzzzzz


> 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
>