world hide and seek championships
some of the better laughs in the wake of last weekend's impromptu tea party at osama's house have been those about world hide and seek championships. (yeah--bad news for bin laden fans, but osama has lost his title). honorable mention goes to the wise guy who mocked up a user id and tagged google maps with a review of the hideout: "four stars--would stay there again", but it's the hide and seek joke that i've liked best.
and, speaking of which, the hide and seek jokes have reminded me of the common barroom conversation about going "off the grid" and hiding out in these days of ubiquitous internet and high-tech surveillance. (divorced guys dreaming about freedom from alimony among many other premises). most folks seem to like to think that they'd be better than average at a grand game of hide and seek, though the jury usually decides that long-term disappearance is, as has been the recent case with osama, a losing proposition.
ever given any thought as to what would be necessary to disappear?
first and foremost of all, you'd have to literally drop off the grid, forgoing cell phones, internet connections, etc. etc. etc. and all other rfid and other technology-enabled widgets. (highway toll transponders, automobile tracking systems now embedded in most all new cars, bank and all other cards, etc.) second of all, i'm satisfied that conspiracy rumors about "echelon" and voice recognition algorithms to parse the entire globe's collective conversation is highly likely given the description of the search for osama's courier by just his nickname, and further important because it's not just someone saying "hey, osama, how's it hanging?", but even someone talking about someone who may or may not be talking to someone that can get you caught. (which is to say, back to rule #1, no phones of any kind). we also have facial recognition technology that can decipher images from public and private cameras, requiring the avoidance of almost all public spaces, and, again, like with phones, even the public passage of people who know people who know people is possible to be tracked.
in the end, the major factor is, how badly does the world want you to be caught? the exhilarating and sobering news regarding bin laden and his having been letter perfect on all of this, save for friends of friends of friends inadvertently dropping the wrong nickname, is that, given sufficient motivation on the part of your pursuers, you can indeed run but there's really nowhere left to hide.
me, i respect the "hide in plain sight" thought, and realize that with kids and other lightly-motivated would-be finders that it's a reasonable dodge, but i'd still prefer to err on the side of extreme paranoia and head straight for the most inaccessible place i could think of. i know i'd be ultimately caught because i'd want such a place to have beer and live music, but i also, like most folks, think i could make it last at least for a little while.
i think the real secret is in leaving no one with an interest in finding you. (and, damn, there goes yet another alimony check into the mail...)
and, speaking of which, the hide and seek jokes have reminded me of the common barroom conversation about going "off the grid" and hiding out in these days of ubiquitous internet and high-tech surveillance. (divorced guys dreaming about freedom from alimony among many other premises). most folks seem to like to think that they'd be better than average at a grand game of hide and seek, though the jury usually decides that long-term disappearance is, as has been the recent case with osama, a losing proposition.
ever given any thought as to what would be necessary to disappear?
first and foremost of all, you'd have to literally drop off the grid, forgoing cell phones, internet connections, etc. etc. etc. and all other rfid and other technology-enabled widgets. (highway toll transponders, automobile tracking systems now embedded in most all new cars, bank and all other cards, etc.) second of all, i'm satisfied that conspiracy rumors about "echelon" and voice recognition algorithms to parse the entire globe's collective conversation is highly likely given the description of the search for osama's courier by just his nickname, and further important because it's not just someone saying "hey, osama, how's it hanging?", but even someone talking about someone who may or may not be talking to someone that can get you caught. (which is to say, back to rule #1, no phones of any kind). we also have facial recognition technology that can decipher images from public and private cameras, requiring the avoidance of almost all public spaces, and, again, like with phones, even the public passage of people who know people who know people is possible to be tracked.
in the end, the major factor is, how badly does the world want you to be caught? the exhilarating and sobering news regarding bin laden and his having been letter perfect on all of this, save for friends of friends of friends inadvertently dropping the wrong nickname, is that, given sufficient motivation on the part of your pursuers, you can indeed run but there's really nowhere left to hide.
me, i respect the "hide in plain sight" thought, and realize that with kids and other lightly-motivated would-be finders that it's a reasonable dodge, but i'd still prefer to err on the side of extreme paranoia and head straight for the most inaccessible place i could think of. i know i'd be ultimately caught because i'd want such a place to have beer and live music, but i also, like most folks, think i could make it last at least for a little while.
i think the real secret is in leaving no one with an interest in finding you. (and, damn, there goes yet another alimony check into the mail...)
posted by kad barma at 9:28 AM
2 Comments:
Hide in plain sight.
It worked for a long time, considering. My question is, was the ISI, or a rogue element thereof, helping him. The thing about secretive organizations is that small elements can wonder off on their own, "doing good", in their own lights. Like LtCol Ollie North.
Regards — Cliff
And at what point (if any) does a rogue element cease to be the responsibility of the organization from which it has been spawned?
I have no trouble conceiving of a trusted individual, who coincidentally enjoyed the trust of the ISI, being able to construct the "in plain site" bivouac and then never doing anything to prompt further investigation. I'm sure Pakistanis all over the country are enjoying such things for benefit of drug trafficking, etc. Just because Osama turned up in this one doesn't mean there aren't more.
I'm also sure there are plenty of situations in the US where people enjoy freedom from official scrutiny in the same way. (When was the last time the DEA or the CIA had a look into one of your closets?) We can debate this all til the proverbial cows come home, but if the man never used the phone or set foot outside that building, it's not hard to see why he could stay their almost indefinitely.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home