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