Yiddish is the caring, authoritative inscrutability of your elders. It has rules, but they're mainly inherited from the tributary languages. It's inconsistent in a way that shows it doesn't matter. It sounds like a beautiful mess (which, considering its mainly Germanic origins, is quite an achievement). Well, it sounds beautiful to me, anyway. Others think it's just a mess - there's a famous National Lampoon "Teach Yourself Yiddish" piece that recommends you make up vaguely German/Russian-sounding words that start with "sch" and just string them together.

Daily we provide new information about ourselves, when shopping, travelling, communicating on the Internet or telephone, or even when we are simply eating out at a local restaurant. The collection of information is a constant in our lives, with the commercial sector profiling every aspect of our behaviour, from the insurance policies we purchase to the beer we drink. Much of this data is gathered without consumers being aware of the extent to which their privacy and anonymity are being compromised. Whilst the criminal fraternity may also wish to misuse our personal information for fraud or theft, the motives of the largest agencies collating this data are much less obvious or transparent. A recent series of reports to the European Parliament has identified the emergence of new technologies of political control. Such technology can watch and listen to our every move, this is not fiction, although the key player, the US National Security Agency is the same secretive organisation that features in the movie, 'Enemy of the State'. The technology now exists to industrialise such surveillance procedures, with the NSA base at Menwith Hill (UK) having the capability to tap an estimated 2 million phone calls, faxes and emails per hour. Once analysed using artificial intelligence systems such as Memex, this information can be used to build a massive machinery of political supervision with little political oversight or accountability.

A brief look at the historical development of this concept is instructive. Twenty years ago, the British Society for Social Responsibility of Scientists (BSSRS) warned about the dangers of a new technology of political control. BSSRS defined this technology as "a new type of weaponry"..."It is the product of the application of science and technology to the problem of neutralising the state's internal enemies. It is mainly directed at civilian populations, and is not intended to kill (and only rarely does). It is aimed as much at hearts and minds as at bodies." For these scientists, "This new weaponry ranges from means of monitoring internal dissent to devices for controlling demonstrations; from new techniques of interrogation to methods of prisoner control. The intended and actual effects of these new technological aids are both broader and more complex than the more lethal weaponry they complement."