complex problems vs security and law-enforcement: how to square the circle of my ideas

let’s say i have to do something to be allowed to live:

i have a no-no or two, though …

not meeting family: not anyone. maybe one exception … but not a demand i make again; not even implied. not even wishing for. i won’t presume.

re family, i’m happy with my mother and the one sibling i get on with, but no one else on any other side. there’s always my children and so forth, but that’s never been your business. that will begin to work again in the future if it does; and if it doesn’t, i will share responsibility for any eventual failure.

‘problem is, you lost me this morning when you didn’t follow up — here no going back, because you were playing with me cruelly: no irish, no croatian, no other english — forget it.

talking realistically, in order to square two circles:

let’s talk realistically — what can i do to have a life more or less reasonably without your surveillance and neo-terrorism, everywhere i turn?

remember: i will, after what you failed to deliver on this morning, never meet with family nor anyone with a relationship to, whether personal or business, whom i don’t already get on with. you lost that opportunity today, just to underline.

but other things within my capacity … well, these things, for sure … more than happy to, actually really eager to.

you want to undermine the capacity of the tech i want to see in security? this can be resolved easily. you have your reasons i know: i can see why of course, though i will never share the criteria because i am far more a purist in these matters than you ever will be. but for us to proceed — for you to proceed — there is a solution which i now put before you all.

one caveat: one condition. as long as i get enough to have a comfortable rest of my life, we can talk about this but it requires you first to evidence that “neo-terrorism on the individual” will not be committed against my person again. and that is not an easy call to evidence.

some minimums, first:

i want european residence from this month.
i want an official, even if only cover, role that suits my skillset, in my judgement.
i don’t care if it’s employment or self-, but if either or both, i must be very difficult to fire. i want the kind of job security i’ve never had in my life, mainly because of british interventions to date.
i commit to targets everyone must commit to, but no opportunity for “noi” again, for this reason. (whether uk/irish influences — or within sweden itself, the latter of which has also already manifested itself.)
the legal side: i want a position of institutional power to deliver on “noi” as a robust legal figure, in the three years i scope; and thus the seven years i have as my goal to regular and widespread prosecutions.
i want to be in charge of complex problem-solutioning programmes, but completely outwith security.
i want to be able to exclusively license to all fields relating to security, the strategising and development of which i shall play zero part in the future.
loopholes, however, will remain part of my side of the deal: a complex problem to be eliminated eventually in the 20-year timeframe i propose. “noi”, too, as previously mentioned.
no conditions can be placed around the tech my side chooses to repurpose or begin to develop further. any developed tech will be developed exclusively for complex problem-solutioning, and then any reuse for security will involve new licensing agreements.
c is fine if she wants. it’d be cool and fair if she did, but that’s her choice. she chooses.
no other family contact, not after today.
no people or companies from my past in what i am responsible for: they may, if it is judged appropriate, however, freely participate to any level at all in respect of security workstreams i have nothing to do with in the future.

distribution of existing workstreams:

websites:
- i license ideas from crime hunch, citizen hunch, and omiwan to security.
- platform genesis is complex problems, not security.
- the philosopher space is complex problems, not security.
- secrecy.plus where applied to complex problems belongs to this stream. where security, it belongs to security from the start.
  - we negotiate the details of the division and separation, as expected would be the case.
  - examples: fire is clearly to be licensed to security, and will not be my responsibility in the future.
  - digital pencil & paper is my workstream.
- i want hmagi for complex absolutely, but maybe it can be a common workstream. i doubt you will eventually want it; but i’m up for a common workspace for it, myself.
- never meet again: that i keep entirely for my workstreams. nothing to do with security.

complex problems: where do they sit and who do they work with?
- my initial thoughts: swedish interests, agencies and unis; the eu, particularly the ec; the un; and so forth.
security: that’s up to you. not my job. but i’d suggest:
- the italians first, who are historically firm in the integrity of their pursuit of organised criminality.
- in the uk, the met’s internal affairs department might be another good place to start.