From: Derek Bell <dbell@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:24:10 -0800 (PST)
To: Asgaard <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: When did Mondex ever claim to be anonymous?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.91.961029194511.27228A-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>
Message-ID: <9610301722.aa12547@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <Pine.HPP.3.91.961029194511.27228A-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>, Asgaard w
rites:
>Disinformation is a time-honoured weapon in political struggle.
>A rumour is called just that because it can't easily be checked
>- somebody heard from somebody, who heard from somebody etc. The
>spreader is hardly ever discredited since he does not guarantee
>the validity of the information. 'It's just a rumour, but...'

	The problem I have is with the "hardly ever" part - there is always
a chance of being caught out. I prefer the idea of something that can be
verified - like the lawsuit against Mondex. Making a case with documentation
is more impressive, IMHO.

>Those arguing in favour of Big Brother - 'the needs of law enforcement'
>- frequently use (probably false) information that is hard to check, to
>impress the public: about terrorists stopped by wiretapping,

	This is interesting, as the UK police don't claim they need such
powers to deal with the IRA. Now they may already have large wiretapping
powers under law, but I get the impression that most successful anti-IRA
action is due either to infiltration or informers.

>pedophiles in great hordes lurking on the net,

	I know the scares are overblown - there are paedophiles on the net,
but not as many as, say, the tabloid press would claim.

>the infamous 'If you knew what I have been confidentially told' and so on.

	This argument alone would make me suspicious of the claimant.

	IIRC, the bullshit claims are enough to annoy most netizens, though
the politicians aren't aiming at us. Still - I think documented risks of,
say, Mondex would hold more weight.

	Derek