Why I don't live in the UK anymore

[Robert Holmes-2]

Civil liberties? Pah, who needs 'em.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20051222/995e586e/attachment.htm

[Owen Densmore]

Spooky!

I have to say I'm completely surprised by the European reaction to  
terrorism.  As far as I can tell, their measures makes Homeland  
Security and all its attendant nonsense seem tame.

Any insights into why this is so?
[.. other than I'm an idiot and wrong as hell! :) ]

     -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org


On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:

> Civil liberties? Pah, who needs 'em.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[James Steiner]

On 12/22/05, Robert Holmes <rholmes62 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Civil liberties? Pah, who needs 'em.
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece

Oh. My. God. What is it that law enforcement policy makers seem to be
such unimaginitive, sort-sighted prats?

All they will have succeeded in doing for crime is to have created a
new black market in fake and duplicate overlay license plates for the
discerning criminal on the move!

Do they really think that criminals won't simply work around such a system?

I'm not sure what to believe: Are they incredibly stupid, or incredibly facist?

You may note that nothing was mentioned about requiring a warrant for
access to the records (does the U.K. offer protection from search and
seizure?) making this an easier way to track people than credit cards
and telephone records, even. What a great end-run around existing
civil liberties protections!!

Holy Cow.

~~James
_____________________________________
turtlezero.com -- its turtles, all the way down!

[Michael Agar]

I've never understood why the policy types don't get what the drug  
spooks always have said over the years during my illustrious drug  
career--you never get much from population wide remote monitoring.  
Most effective info, in terms of results and costs, comes out of  
information from face to face undercover work. In return for millions  
of pounds the car watchers will get a hit or two and along the way  
mess up a lot of lives through large numbers of false positives, not  
to mention missing some important stuff as they drown in a flood of  
uninterpreted data. See the 9/11 report for more details.


Mike


On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:

> Civil liberties? Pah, who needs 'em.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20051222/790251ba/attachment-0001.htm

[Martin C. Martin]

Owen Densmore wrote:
> Spooky!
>
> I have to say I'm completely surprised by the European reaction to  
> terrorism.  As far as I can tell, their measures makes Homeland  
> Security and all its attendant nonsense seem tame.
>
> Any insights into why this is so?
> [.. other than I'm an idiot and wrong as hell! :) ]

The Economist had an interesting angle on this, in an article about
America's most hated companies of all time:

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323688

Rockefeller's empire [Standard Oil] became, says Mr Smith, ?a proxy for
everything that Americans feared?and what they feared was a
concentration of power.?

Here Americans diverged sharply from Europeans, who have been much more
comfortable with concentrations of power manifested in big government
and nationalised industries. Where Americans fret about trusts and
combinations that stifle future winners, Europeans fret about unbridled
competition that guarantees future losers.


I think the bottom line is, Europeans have more faith that their
governments will work more-or-less in the people's interests.  Thoughts?

- Martin

[Giles Bowkett]

Well, my theory is that policy types have a desire for power over
other humans which is much more central to their decision-making than
either abstract logic or solid common sense.


On 12/22/05, Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu> wrote:

> I've never understood why the policy types don't get what the drug spooks
> always have said over the years during my illustrious drug career--you never
> get much from population wide remote monitoring. Most effective info, in
> terms of results and costs, comes out of information from face to face
> undercover work. In return for millions of pounds the car watchers will get
> a hit or two and along the way mess up a lot of lives through large numbers
> of false positives, not to mention missing some important stuff as they
> drown in a flood of uninterpreted data. See the 9/11 report for more
> details.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
> Civil liberties? Pah, who needs 'em.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

--
Giles Bowkett = Giles Goat Boy
http://www.gilesgoatboy.org/

[Owen Densmore]

Mike's mention of the drug space reminded me of a news report today  
about how Afghanistan is producing a huge amount of opium .. and  
forms > 50% of the economy there.  To help solve the problem, a  
suggestion was made to legalize it all and channel it into medical  
usage.

My question from this is why have the War On Drugs at all?  If we  
simply treated drugs somewhat along the line of liquor, or possibly  
pharmaceuticals for really hard stuff, do we have *any* idea what  
would happen?  Presumably the drugs could be made much, much cheaper  
and the legal part would be reduced to things like Driving Under the  
Influence or some such.  I'm sure the cartels would oppose it like  
crazy but it would be interesting to have a glimmer of the impact.

Any pointers to studies and/or real information?

On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:34 AM, Michael Agar wrote:

> I've never understood why the policy types don't get what the drug  
> spooks always have said over the years during my illustrious drug  
> career--you never get much from population wide remote monitoring.  
> Most effective info, in terms of results and costs, comes out of  
> information from face to face undercover work. In return for  
> millions of pounds the car watchers will get a hit or two and along  
> the way mess up a lot of lives through large numbers of false  
> positives, not to mention missing some important stuff as they  
> drown in a flood of uninterpreted data. See the 9/11 report for  
> more details.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
>
>> Civil liberties? Pah, who needs 'em.
>>
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Giles Bowkett]

Anecdotally somebody who lives in Amsterdam told me that drug use is
down there as a result of marijuana decriminalization and various
public-health initiatives regarding harder drugs. I don't know beyond
that.

I do have a perspective on this issue which might be interesting,
however. In London today you can get a handgun very easily. Twenty
years ago, this wasn't the case. There was a huge boom in demand for a
drug called Ecstasy in the late 80s, which coincided very very closely
with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Consequently a lot of Eastern
European gangsters devoted a great deal of energy to setting up
Ecstasy labs in Eastern Europe and establishing secure smuggling
routes into Western Europe. In the mid-90s, the boom subsided, and in
the early 00s, the bottom fell out of the market entirely for a few
years. During that time, these gangsters had these huge international
smuggling rings just sitting around which weren't making them any
money. So they started smuggling guns instead of drugs, and their
profits got healthy again. Twenty years ago, you couldn't buy a
handgun in London if you were Vito Corrleone; today it's roughly equal
in difficulty to buying a pack of cigarettes.

This hasn't had a good effect on crime rates in London at all.

Speaking of the Mafia, the Mafia didn't exist in today's powerful,
centrally organized form prior to the Constitutional Amendment which
banned alcohol throughout the country in the early 20th century. At
that time they were a loosely federated set of local crime syndicates,
mainly concerned with protection rackets and brothels. Prohibition
generated massive demand for smuggling networks, and the Mafia
developed into their present form as a result.

Since I'm on my soapbox, I might as well mention Dr. Kary Mullis, the
geneticist who, after winning his Nobel Prize, wrote an autobiography
where he said that taking LSD increases your intelligence. Interesting
book, I recommend it. A lot less depressing than this other stuff. ^_^

On 12/22/05, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> Mike's mention of the drug space reminded me of a news report today
> about how Afghanistan is producing a huge amount of opium .. and
> forms > 50% of the economy there.  To help solve the problem, a
> suggestion was made to legalize it all and channel it into medical
> usage.
>
> My question from this is why have the War On Drugs at all?  If we
> simply treated drugs somewhat along the line of liquor, or possibly
> pharmaceuticals for really hard stuff, do we have *any* idea what
> would happen?  Presumably the drugs could be made much, much cheaper
> and the legal part would be reduced to things like Driving Under the
> Influence or some such.  I'm sure the cartels would oppose it like
> crazy but it would be interesting to have a glimmer of the impact.
>
> Any pointers to studies and/or real information?
>
> On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:34 AM, Michael Agar wrote:
>
> > I've never understood why the policy types don't get what the drug
> > spooks always have said over the years during my illustrious drug
> > career--you never get much from population wide remote monitoring.
> > Most effective info, in terms of results and costs, comes out of
> > information from face to face undercover work. In return for
> > millions of pounds the car watchers will get a hit or two and along
> > the way mess up a lot of lives through large numbers of false
> > positives, not to mention missing some important stuff as they
> > drown in a flood of uninterpreted data. See the 9/11 report for
> > more details.
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
> >
> >> Civil liberties? Pah, who needs 'em.
> >>
> >> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

--
Giles Bowkett = Giles Goat Boy
http://www.gilesgoatboy.org/

[Parks, Raymond]

Owen Densmore wrote:

> Mike's mention of the drug space reminded me of a news report today  
> about how Afghanistan is producing a huge amount of opium .. and  
> forms > 50% of the economy there.  To help solve the problem, a  
> suggestion was made to legalize it all and channel it into medical  
> usage.
>
> My question from this is why have the War On Drugs at all?  If we  
> simply treated drugs somewhat along the line of liquor, or possibly  
> pharmaceuticals for really hard stuff, do we have *any* idea what  
> would happen?  Presumably the drugs could be made much, much cheaper  
> and the legal part would be reduced to things like Driving Under the  
> Influence or some such.  I'm sure the cartels would oppose it like  
> crazy but it would be interesting to have a glimmer of the impact.
>
> Any pointers to studies and/or real information?

    No.  I have some anecdotal information.  Folk wisdom in Texas states
that the two groups who promoted the liquor bans which existed there
when I grew up were the Baptists (on religious grounds) and the
bootleggers (on economic grounds).  You might look for studies
concerning liquor by the drink legislation in Texas.

--
Ray Parks                   rcparks at sandia.gov
IDART Project Lead          Voice:505-844-4024
IORTA Department            Fax:[phone]
http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288

[Martin C. Martin]

Owen Densmore wrote:
> My question from this is why have the War On Drugs at all?  If we  
> simply treated drugs somewhat along the line of liquor, or possibly  
> pharmaceuticals for really hard stuff, do we have *any* idea what  
> would happen?

Yes; many voters would freak out, and toss out whatever politicians were
responsible.  While I think democracies are the best form of government
overall, they still have drawbacks.  "Tough on crime" is another
example; many studies have shown that there are far cheaper & more
effective options to locking people up, but the voting public doesn't
pay much attention.

It's been said that democracies avoid both the worst and the best ideas.
  For example, the country that's eradicating poverty the fastest is
China, a dictatorship, not India, a democracy.  On the other hand, India
never had the cultural revolution.

- Martin

[Owen Densmore]

Here's an interesting speech by the ex-governor of NM:
   http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/drugreform.html

     -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org


On Dec 22, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Martin C. Martin wrote:

>
>
> Owen Densmore wrote:
>> My question from this is why have the War On Drugs at all?  If we
>> simply treated drugs somewhat along the line of liquor, or possibly
>> pharmaceuticals for really hard stuff, do we have *any* idea what
>> would happen?
>
> Yes; many voters would freak out, and toss out whatever politicians  
> were
> responsible.  While I think democracies are the best form of  
> government
> overall, they still have drawbacks.  "Tough on crime" is another
> example; many studies have shown that there are far cheaper & more
> effective options to locking people up, but the voting public doesn't
> pay much attention.
>
> It's been said that democracies avoid both the worst and the best  
> ideas.
>   For example, the country that's eradicating poverty the fastest is
> China, a dictatorship, not India, a democracy.  On the other hand,  
> India
> never had the cultural revolution.
>
> - Martin
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Owen Densmore]

On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Martin C. Martin wrote:

> ...
> Rockefeller's empire [Standard Oil] became, says Mr Smith, ?a proxy  
> for
> everything that Americans feared?and what they feared was a
> concentration of power.?
>
> Here Americans diverged sharply from Europeans, who have been much  
> more
> comfortable with concentrations of power manifested in big government
> and nationalised industries. Where Americans fret about trusts and
> combinations that stifle future winners, Europeans fret about  
> unbridled
> competition that guarantees future losers.
>
> I think the bottom line is, Europeans have more faith that their
> governments will work more-or-less in the people's interests.  
> Thoughts?
>
> - Martin

This is a very interesting idea, and indeed, explains some  
interesting differences between the US and Europe.  I like it!

Owen