Spam

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 11 October 2002 14:51
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Spam
>
>
> In message <FMEFLOMOCGIMKOKKKLFIAEAECGAA.oml@sysrx.uk.com>, Owen Lewis
> <oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes
>
> >I think my left leg has just got a little longer. Unless and
> until the Star
> >Chamber is reintroduced to this country, prosecutions are a
> matter of public
> >record. So is their outcome, both in matters of finding and sentence.
>
> Indeed, but there is significant work (or indeed intellectual property)
> in collecting all that public information into a digestible and
> correlated report.

What, all two of them :-)

Joking aside, were one to summon up the interest, a request to one's MP
would produce the required information. I simply wouldn't bet the ranch on
the future value of the relevant IPR. Now if *some* MP's were told that that
this information was being provided by the police (or whomsoever in public
service) only under NDA, I do believe it would increase their fervour - nay
delight - in jumping up and down all over the matter in hobnailed boots.
>
> >Still, its remarkable what some will volunteer to sign away when
> asked to do
> >so.
>
> If it helps my work, without me having to do an impossible amount of
> original research...  But it's not even as bad as that. Things would be
> pretty grim if one professional couldn't tell another something in
> confidence.

That is most certainly so. Confidences when accepted are to be respected
without exception. The converse of this is that confidentiality should not
be unreasonably demanded - though it sometimes is. In my experience of such
occasions, the equivalent of "Boo!" uttered softly and with a disarming
smile often has a most helpful effect. This applies in commerce as well as
to dealing with public servants on non-commercial issues. Information is
often not imparted freely. There may be a question of trade though the trade
may be neither material nor immediately obvious. This is most usually the
case where confidentiality is asked for, the confidentiality itself being
but one element in the trade. If the request for confidentiality is
unsupportable and gently refused or qualified and the demander still
requires the rest of the trade, its remarkable how often the matter of
confidentiality can be disposed of gently. Almost as much fun as playing
poker.
>
> >An average does not vary 'according to crime'. It is an average
> - of 8% - we
> >are told. Ergo, 100% on kidnapping (one on 10 years?)
>
> Once again, it's several a year. Once again, it's not often publicised
> (perhaps for fear of copycat crimes).

Then you can cite a case of cases in which it has been publicised? One notes
that the several paid-up journos here are remarkably silent ;-)

As to copycat crimes, I think you might find that the risk of such is far
greater where people think there is no detection and hence no punishment.
Not that I object to stealth and deception in police strategy. In general,
the police watch, wait and look a bit dumb strategy that recently lead to
the taking of kiddie porners en-masse was masterly. It would be nice to
think that they will score similarly with the NSs. Somehow, I doubt it
though.

I do, however, detect a feeling in
> the Met that they'd actually like kidnappers to know that if they do it
> in London they *will* be caught.

Personally, I'm sure if it.

However, there are particular reasons for this success rate. These days,
unless one is well and truly in the serious crim frat, ensuring that the
ransom can be washed cleanly is a *major* problem. In short, it in not that
the Met are super-effective against a relatively rare form of serious crime
but that prophylactic measures now commonly used, coincidentally make
profiting from kidnapping in the UK - not just in London - very difficult to
execute successfully.

If one looks at the abduction and killing of children where there is no
extortion of ransom, then the police record is woefully short of 100%. This
is not a criticism of the police; they are not omnipotent. In such cases,
they are deprived of the most powerful tools that can come into play only
when ransom is demanded.

However, it is also reasonable to expect that there are kidnappings where a
ransom is paid, the kidnappee returned and the kidnapper home free - all
without the police being informed. Naturally, such matters can't affect the
boast of 100%, can they??

> ........I
> honestly don't know what the clear-up rate is for Nigerian Scams, but
> it's greater than zero!

It would be very uncharitable not to accept that much on trust.

 Owen