Privacy and the use of cell phones.

[David Biggins]

Owen Lewis [oml@eloka.demon.co.uk] writes:

> Sadly, you miss the entire point. Simply it is that those who collect,
> collate and analyse intelligence information will *always* do so
adhering
> strictly to truth and interpret to the best of their ability. 

This remains an idealised definition of the role of intelligence
collectors, not proof of what actions may actually be performed in that
unpredictable arena called "real life".

> To do otherwise would simply be a dangerous negation of their
function. 

But there is no evidence that such "dangerous negations of function"
***NEVER*** occur, and certain evidence (often anecdotal - but that is
in many ways in this area inevitable) that they DO occur.

> What may be made, by others, out of the truths they've spoken is not a
matter for them.

Agreed, but ONLY if they can be *******PROVEN******* to have fulfilled
that idealised role.

> Disinformation can *never* a part of intelligence collection or
processing.

Again, this is an idealised definition, rather than a statement of
***PROVEN*** practice in place.

> Disinformation is a function of counter-intelligence (equating to
'spin' in
> domestic political presentations).

> Take it from first principles and apply your mind. You can only
conclude
> that the above is correct, simply because any other arrangement makes
no
> sense.

But HUMAN situations occasionally do not make sense. 


The problem is Owen, that you are still writing about what SHOULD be,
not what is.

In practice,  I, and a significant number of people, fee that the
intelligence services have long since ceased to be as bound by such high
principles as the ideals would suggest.

There have been, for example, many allegations that intelligence
officers sought to sink the Wilson government, not out of some
commitment to "truth" but out of the political commitments of the
officers concerned.  It is vital to remember that intelligence gathering
operatives are not robots, but people, with objectives, interests, and
drives of their own.  All evidence they gather will be affected by these
drives, and will almost inevitably introduce some degree of bias no
matter how well-meaning or careful they may be.

There were MANY allegations in the early '80s of inappropriate actions
by the intelligence services, largely relating to excessive zeal in
certain aspects of their investigations into members of the Anti-Nuclear
movements.  A significant number were probably true.

Given that such organisations were not illegal, and that most of their
members had committed no offences, the **behaviour** of the services in
many cases would appear in many cases to smack more of a deliberate
attempt to build up a threat - possibly to justify their own existence
and/or budgets, possibly to cover for some of their own
latterly-disclosed recent breaches of security, possibly to pander to
Tory party hysteria, possibly out of their own McCarthyite fear of
communist influence.  

Certainly, their behaviour during this time dismally failed to be
"non-adversarial".


Let me try it this way - 

1)	"Successful programmers will *always* develop products adhering
to best design practices, making sure that the product is delivered on
time, to specification, and without defects, to the best of their
ability.  To do otherwise would be a dangerous negation of their
function".

2)	Microsoft is the most successful software company in the world.

3)	Anyone want to fill this one in?

Just because something SHOULD be, does not mean that it IS.


## dave ##