Re: When did Mondex ever claim to be anonymous?

[Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>]

Derek Bell wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Or of being ignored entirely. I quite often know something that I can't
point to proof of. I wouldn't try to use such evidence in an argument
as "proof". 

Acting on rumour is ultimately self defeating. The republicans have been
dirt digging on Whitewater for four years and have failed to unearth
anything. As a result they are finding it very difficult to get
anywhere with their latest allegations of campaign corruption which 
are probably true. Of course they might not be having any effect for
other reasons such as the fact that its Bob Dole's campaign 
vice-president thats in jail for corruption at the moment and not
Clinton's but the general principle holds, you don't shoot until
you know you can hit the target.


> >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.

Actually the police are currently asking for permission to use wiretap
evidence in court. There is some opposition because there are those who 
want to keep the extent of the capability quiet. There is very good
evidence
for widespread use of wiretaps and SIGINT against the IRA.


>         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.

Since when was cash annonymous? In the UK each banknote has a serial
number 
which is recorded at the banks when it is passed arround. There is no
reason 
why the US federal reserve wouldn't have added it to its existing note
processing machinery since they must read the serial number during their 
checks for countrefeit notes.

If Mondex said their product was "like cash" that does not mean they
claimed 
it to be anonymous.

	Phill