Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Steven Horn at 16:54 on 21 Jan 2003:

 MvdV> They look for "interesting" keywords don't they?

They may although the available sources suggest that doing this results in
a mass of materials they can't handle. 

 MvdV> 1) I read George Orwell's 1984.

So did I but it did not scare me then nor does it now.

 MvdV> 2) I am a ham. When I applied for a license in 1964 I had to
 MvdV> submit testimony of good behaviour from two citizens of good
 MvdV> standing. This was part of the screening by the secret service I
 MvdV> learned later. That made me wonder why /they/ were so interested
 MvdV> in people that could freely talk to others all over the world.
 MvdV> The screening of hams has been history for a long time now by the
 MvdV> way.

Screening applications is par for the course whether I am applying for a
new fuel oil account or for a passport.  I am a frequent reference for
passport applications and assume those are now vetted but I have been
called only once to verify my reference.
 
 MvdV> 3) During my study I lived on a house boat. Not much room, so my
 MvdV> ham transmitter was in the bedroom. It didn't have a push to talk
 MvdV> switch but a switch that stayed in position like a light switch.
 MvdV> One night the transmitter was accidentally left on. Luckily a
 MvdV> friend who lived in the neighbourhood put two and two together,
 MvdV> guessed what was going on and came to warn me before anything
 MvdV> interesting was going on. No harm done, bit it taught me to be
 MvdV> careful with communication channels that are monitorable.

What can I say?  Telephone lines are monitorable and I worked within 100'
of a place where this was going on.  Again, it worried me little then and
less now.

 MvdV> 4) I lived in a police state. The republic of South Africa in the
 MvdV> mid seventies. People I knew of that said the wrong things just
 MvdV> disappeared. Presumably they were held for an indefinite multiple
 MvdV> of 90 days under the "terrorist act", but no way to know for
 MvdV> sure.

That would scare me but South Africa's proclivities were well known. 
Presumably you knew what you should expect before you went.

 MvdV> I know that my country is not a police state. It is still
 MvdV> difficult to get into jail just for saying something. But the
 MvdV> times they are a changing and not for the better. In the sixties
 MvdV> it was well neigh impossible. In theory shouting "Johnson
 MvdV> murderer" could get you in jail for insulting a befriended head
 MvdV> of state, but in practise one needed to hunt for a cop, tie him
 MvdV> to a lamp post and shout it in his ear to get that message
 MvdV> across. "Johnson murderer" still won't get you in jail, but I am
 MvdV> not so sure about other things any more. A harmless affair with
 MvdV> the sister of an Al Quada sympathiser may get you in trouble
 MvdV> because the spooks monitor her e-mail or her cell phone. You and
 MvdV> the sister may have nothing to do with it but the naked fact that
 MvdV> you call her two times a day may get the spooks' attention. i
 MvdV> don't like that one bit.

I'm not sure I'd like that either but I'm a fat, soon to be retired member
of the bourgeoisie who is a member of a profession that is treated with kid
gloves -- fooling around lawyers is not a bright idea -- so this does not
worry me a lot.  This is particularly the case because investigating
associates of a known offender has always been an integral part of police
work.  

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven_a_horn{at}yahoo.ca)
Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT 
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+