[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Syn-l: Re: White House Or Red Roof Inn? (fwd)
[This message originally appeared on the synergetics-l at
<http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/Synergetics-L/synl.html>, a list
for the discussion of R. Buckminster Fuller's magnum opus.]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:38:22 GMT
From: Kirby Urner <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Syn-l: Re: White House Or Red Roof Inn?
[email protected] ([email protected]) wrote:
>friends inside the White House. Barth claimed the British were
>already selling encrypted radios to China and his new boss,
>Motorola, deserved a "level playing field". In fact, according
>to Barth, the National Security Agency (NSA) agreed with
>Motorola's request for export.
I want to be clear on your position: you are apparently against
administration efforts to frustrate domestic access to strong
encryption. This makes sense, since that would just put the
domestic population behind the rest of the world, which has
access to same through other channels.
But are you saying companies like Motorola should not sell
encrypted radio or television to clients not classified as
"domestic"? Or is it just some clients (e.g. the Chinese)
but not others that you're saying Motorola should turn away.
Sounds to me like you're picking on the Chinese because
they're an easy target, after all the brouhaha about where
the DNC has been getting its money (are you so sure the
British have never helped put their preferred candidate in
power through banking channels? Is this really a new game?
I think not -- USAers just aren't used to having the Asians
playing it, but in retrospect you have to wonder what took
them so long).
My view is that we're fast coming to (already well passed?)
the point where we're going to have to regard lethal-against
-humans applications of high technology as uniformly negative
wherever they occur -- exceptions will be few and far between.
Big money is seeing a secure path into the future, but not
if high explosives are factored in as wild cards -- like
you're trying to plan the motherboard of a computer and some
politician comes in and says "by the way, every now and then
we plan to blow a whole section of circuitry sky high,
maybe explode a chip or two -- think you can handle that?"
The Intel engineers I know would all shake their heads and
think this guy must be missing more than a few screws.
Computers need it cold. The temperature needs to keep dropping,
down, down, down -- to way below what jingoists and knee-jerk
patriots of all stripes and coloration find comfortable, but
which delicate high technology absolutely must have to operate
with any integrity. Motherboard Earth is not some Hollywood
movie set, where misguided Rambos can run amuk at will. Save
that stuff for the video parlor or the schoolyard, where
it's safe to indulge in less than grown-up behavior.
If the Qualcomm kid was even inadvertently feeding data to
GIS systems bound for the "brains" of Tomahawk cruise missles
aimed at "external" (non-domestic) targets in another
hemisphere, then Qualcomm is liable to go down in history as
a felonious player, a villain. One just can't afford to
misrepresent one's true intentions so blatantly and expect
to survive as trusted player.
Using GIS and GPS to make flying safer is a positive civilian
use of the technology, but if those planes are carrying
weapons of mass destruction (armed and dangerous), then
we're certainly going to follow the chain of command right
to the top and find out exactly what logic is driving this
design decision -- like why are you wearing a gun coming
into a crowded civilian restaurant Mr. CEO President?
People who want to flaunt terrifying weaponry had better
come clean under interrogation, or own up to a "terrorist"
charge -- applied without regard for skin color, creed, or
place of origin.
The econosphere has become very sophisticated and techno-
logical, all the more delicate and sensitive as a result
of the human presence. We could have a pretty good world
here in fact, if we're willing to treat it with the respect
owing any high precision instrument. People who plan to
simply barrel ahead with lethal weapons planning, come
what may, need to provide some iron clad logic for this
course or their trackers and backers simply will kiss
them good buy (and good riddance) for failing to offer
any credible scenarios worth funding. Big ticket
weaponry just doesn't have that same sex appeal anymore,
has "boondoggle" written on it even before they get off
the drawing board. Like "who's gonna pay for this shit?"
is the first question smart money asks.
Best to not hide behind "national security" shields as in
the past at this point, is what I advise the corporate
R&D divisioins -- because now you know that security
chiefs don't necessarily buy the company hype anymore.
You better have it in writing where you got your orders,
if you want to plead "not guilty" and pass the buck on
up the line.
So if you want to play profitable commerical games in the
civilian sector, don't be so sure your weaponry subsidiaries
will escape scrutiny, and don't count on preferential
enforcement of statutes to protect your namebrand from
being utterly trashed if you turn out to be defrauding
the very people you make such a noise about wanting to
protect. The people are waking up, some of them, and
are finding out they don't like what's been taking place
in their name.
Kirby T. Urner http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/kirby.html
4D Solutions http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ [PGP OK]