We must use science to defeat al-Qa’eda
November 1st, 2006(I was thinking of some good wordplay for the title but the plain quote can’t be bettered)
John Reid yesterday compared the technological advances needed to fight Islamic terrorism to Britain’s battle against the Nazis.
The Home Secretary invoked the spirt of great wartime scientists like Barnes Wallis, the inventor of the bouncing bomb, as he spoke of the ”enduring struggle’’ facing the country.
‘Enduring…’ oh dear, the shoddy rhetoric starts early, let us read into ‘enduring’ costly, irrelevant and misplaced.
This is the same government that tells us these “religious fantics” cannot be “reasoned with”?
And of course such unobjective faith in the power of technology belies the ‘irrational’ basis of government policy.
Mr Reid said he was setting up a taskforce drawn from business and the academic world to pool ideas that would keep one step ahead of al-Qa’eda, which is increasingly sophisticated in its use of computers and weaponry.
So Neu Labour Politician wants to ‘do something’:
1. Form a quango of acolytes
2. (If you haven’t been lobbied recently) ring up business for a product/’solution.
3. Comission a report to see if it is technically sound.
Western governments are already two steps behind their al-queda golem never mind one step ahead.
”It is a race between those who would find the weaknesses in our defences and use that to wreak havoc on our society; and those of us involved in a constant search to defend our country, our freedoms and our democracy,’’ he said in London. ”Just as the innovators Barnes Wallis, Alan Turing and Tommy Flowers were vital in our battle to beat the Nazis, so now we must be able to utilise the skills and expertise of all in our battle against terror.’’
Constant improvement of defences? I refer you to the W.G. Sebald passage I quoted last year
The comparison of the counter-terrorist campaign with the Second World War marks a step change in the rhetoric being deployed by ministers about the nature of the threat.
Mr Reid said, notwithstanding the prospect of obliteration during the Cold War or the IRA’s 30-year bombing campaign, that ”in the UK we are living through the most sustained period of severe threat since World War Two.
The only threat is that maintained, overseen and fed by this government.
He added: ‘This assessment is the diligent product of intelligence professionals. It is no exaggeration. On the strength of such an assessment it would be easy to pump up the politics of fear. But this is not the basis for advancing our values today.’’
Left is the new Right.
Mr Reid was attending a conference of businessmen and specialists from the security sector which has been developing new technology to combat terrorism and decrypt encoded computer programs.
The Home Secretary said that in the past in five years, 387 people had been charged with terrorist offences. Of those, 214 have already been convicted, with a further 98 awaiting trial.
How many people have been temporarily held/harassed by police using anti-terrorism legislationwithout final charges being brought? where all 214 convicted for ‘terrorism’ or rather for subsequent charges?
He added: “That is an indication of the scale of the threat which we face. In responding to it, the struggle has to be at every level, in every way and by every single person in this country. It is easy between trials and between headlines to forget just how deep this on-going struggle is.”
Mr Reid said the current threat was even more worrying than during the Cold War. ”For all the potential horror of Mutually Assured Destruction, the dangers were both stark and, in retrospect, the risks straightforward,’’ he said. ”It is folly to assume that the struggle to advance the values we prize most came to an end with the defeat of Soviet totalitarianism…We cannot underestimate the rate at which those who would do us harm innovate.’’
Coming from a ‘former communist’ the phrase “It is folly to assume that the struggle to advance the values we prize most came to an end with the defeat of Soviet totalitarianism” is rather terrifying is it not?
Mr Reid was shown some of the new security measures now being developed, including a screening device called a Tadar, which uses the body’s naturally-released electromagnetic radiation to see beneath the clothes of suspect passengers – though with a ”fuzzy’’ picture to preserve their modesty.
Concealed objects such as guns, knives or explosives – even those that are non-metallic – are exposed. Stephen Phipson, managing director of Smiths Detection, part of the group that organised the conference, said the machine, costing between £80,000 and £100,000 generated images with no risk to the person being inspected.
No,no,no! The point is not the dignity of whether some jobsworth can ‘see’ your tackle. It is that of ‘innocent people’ being able to live their lives without intervention (and being hammered into F.E.A.R. driven complicity).
He also envisaged architects building security devices into the design of buildings in future and welcomed Mr Reid’s idea of a taskforce to bring together inventive expertise from business and the academic world.
Architects should concentrate on not creating ugly rabbit hutches No one should pander to govenment rhetoric when going about their private business.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:54 pm
“Alan Turing”
What a joke. Alan Turing was a HOMOSEXUAL, who when HMG found out he was Gay, stripped him of his security clearance, adding no doubt to the stresses causing him to commit suicide.
And now this pig fuck DARES to invoke his name in this ‘bogus war on terror’. The gall!
Unless HMG can find a way quickly factor large primes, they are shit out of luck. But first, they would have to find some evidence that ‘terrorists’ are using encryption to hide their communications. It’s all bogus, all bullshit and all bad.
Once again, have you seen this piece of footage about Asterisk?
It describes why bugging everyone’s phones is totally useless since any ‘terrorist’ with half a braincell is on their own private telephone network, which is a piece of piss to set up and use, and really REALLY inexpensive.