Slashdot Mirror
Alan Turing Gets an Apology From Prime Minister Brown
99luftballon writes "The British government has officially apologized for the treatment of Alan Turing in the post war era. An online petition got more than enough signatures to force an official statement and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has issued a lengthy apology. 'Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work I am very proud to say: we're sorry, you deserved so much better.'"
If only Alan was alive today...
Bullshit. The British Government happily ignores these online petitions whenever it doesn't suit them to agree. It's simply a matter of them saying something like "We expect the results of an investigation into this matter. We will make a decision in due course. Thanks for playing." They normally rephrase that last part though.
I'd say since about 24 hours ago or however long it was. Seems to have worked.
Why bother
No, Mr. Brown is being proud to be the one apologizing. A politician's way of bragging to the other politicians that he got to do it and they didn't. Peacocks are all the same.
Why bother
Humility is an honourable trait.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Despite the awful treatment he was exposed to at the time, it is comforting to see him finally recogonized for what he really was.
This was long overdue, to be sure, but even now it means so much to so many people. I believe we all owe Turing, whether we know it or not.
Any time a government admits, "Ok, we screwed up," it's a big deal, and it's usually a sign of change for the better.
Is that any worse than a conservative who's proud that he's not sorry when he ought to be?
And you must have missed an awful lot of education if you think that Gordon Brown is anything to do with liberalism.
Listen to my latest album here
It's a shame they didn't at least pay passing tribute to Turing's full accomplishments. Cracking Enigma and "quite brilliant mathemetician" don't do the man justice. I like Wikipedia's "often considered to be the father of modern computer science" as a starting point.
"I suppose we should be pleased that Brown has issued this apology, just a shame he's part of a government that knew about torture of terrorism suspects under interrogation. I don't think chemical castration is any worse, and it was even legal at the time. How times have changed eh? Now the government only does awful things to you without evidence and when you've not even had a trial."
Well yeah. The thing is, Turing's contribution to the great britain shouldve made him a hero. INstead, he got castrated.
The cases you point to, at least, were against "enemies" (however true that is). What they did to Alan was against a war hero, perhaps the most important life saver in the retake of europe from the nazis as his work allowed the allies to gather the information they needed to get the nazis out the countries they had invaded.
Not to mention, for christ sakes, that he was the inventor of computer theory. Not just europe or the brits owed things to him: my job and life revolve arround what he started because I work in computing. The computer revolution would not have been possible without his mathematical work (and that of many others like Von Neuman).
NO SIG
What they did to a human, let alone him... no, a simple apology just won't do.
I believe you mean "a puff".
Nothing more than a computer-theory-inventing-second-world-war-winning-hero puff.
NO SIG
"Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly."
It is not too late. Homosexuals still exist, even homosexuals that were alive back then.
Whoopdie Shit. Nothing quite beats apologizing for leading someone to suicide because they didn't love what your government decreed everyone should love...long after their death. Maybe next time the government will, I dunno, apologize in their lifetime! Better still, how about not doing something grossly inhumane to someone? Hell, Turing did good things for these assholes and all he got was shame and suffering from them. Any "deeply sorry" just comes off as "Well I guess I better do this before someone throws a rock through my window" in my eyes.
I agree with you. We English have a history of persecuting our great men based on their sexuality (Oscar Wilde for example).
Still, hero or nobody I imagine that goverment will have a constant supply of things to apologise for in 50 years time to which they will say "I can't believe the abhorrent and barbaric treatment of people in those times".
Swings and roundabouts.
Bah, this is just Labour trying to score a couple of brownie points since they're about to get trounced in the election next year.
Some PR drone probably stumbled across the petition and thought "Ok, this sounds like a good idea and it won't hurt the government's image, we might as well do it".
Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
I read Spycatcher a long while ago. Wright seemed like a guy who made many solid technical contributions to the geekdom of spy craft. Clearly, later in life he had some axes to grind. One of which is the terrible way the Official Skinflint Act was used to deny benefits to long serving members of the secret service. Like what they say about Area 51: the only secret there is the massive waste of taxpayer dollars.
Peter Wright - Wikipedia
Because of the interest and because of the rancour following the pension, in 1985, he decided to publish his memoirs in Australia in order to make ends meet. The British government did all it could to suppress publication, under the pretext that such a publication would be in violation of the Official Secrets Act. They brought an injunction against Wright in Sydney. The Australian court, however, ruled against the British government, thus turning a book that might have had moderate success into an international best seller. Furthermore, the verdict not only vindicated Wright but also represented a victory for press freedom. The publication of Spycatcher temporarily unlocked the doors of official secrecy as far as former intelligence officers were concerned. With the enactment of the 1989 Official Secrets Bill, an absolute prohibition on revelations by serving or former intelligence officers was imposed.
The British governing class always seemed to care a lot more about that stiff upper lip thing, than rewarding those who toil in mandatory obscurity.
The other aspect that boggles the mind is the "gays are communist pinkos" circularity. If you castrate your war heroes, I think you might just be priming the pump for defection. It's not gays as such who are unreliable, but anyone who fears arbitrary persecution by their own government.
Another thing I've sometimes wondered: notwithstanding the official secrets act, where was Churchill when Turing could have used a solid character witness, such as "the official secrets act prohibits me from discussing the details, but in my opinion, if you do this, you'll shame the British empire for 100 years" or some distinctly British harrumph to that effect.
The real shame here is the amount of power held by the people who knew better.
Randroids don't pass the Turing test.
Apologizing or not- neither one helps Alan Turing now.
But this sets a precedent. By apologizing for this behavior in the past it cements it as being definitely not OK and that can help others.
You are completely right. Well, almost completely right. The only worse thing would be letting history roll on without even so much as an empty, belated, politically opportune token such as this apology. When an injury is done to someone that is beyond repair or restitution like this, even moving mountains won't fix things. But silence becomes an accomplice to the original act, and at least speaking out serves to break it.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
You got your apology to a dead man from a man who did not wrong him. I hope you (the petitioners) feel better, because it certainly accomplishes nothing else.
It's hard to believe you're serious, but just in case... When a government acknowledges that something it did was wrong, it reinforces the notion that governments are supposed to do right. When there's a perception that it does so at the request or insistence of the governed population, it reinforces the notion that governments should or must be responsive to the governed population. Anyone who thinks that "merely" symbolic actions don't accomplish anything doesn't understand how important symbols are. If you really thing nothing was accomplished, I recommend a rigorous course of study in social and political theory, preferably in some place where the government can do no wrong, say, Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
But I rather think you understand all of the above all too well, and would like to minimize what has happened because you're perfectly OK with what happened to Turing in the first place.
Allow Bill Maher to explain it to you (here's the video).
You see, conservatives think apologizing is a sign of weakness. It's what liberal pussies do when they're not busy driving electric cars and feeling empathy. When, in fact, it's the weak and the scared who are too insecure to apologize.
There's an interesting point - is there anyone still alive today who was prosecuted under the laws? Could they get any compensation, or will they only get just words too?
Still, Brown's tolerance for LGBT people and their sexuality probably doesn't extend as far as the Spanner case, where gay sadomasochists were imprisoned for consensual S&M. When the Labour Government passed the recent law on "extreme" consensual adult images, they cited the Spanner case as justification for the new law. I'm bisexual, and masochist - but despite the welcome improvements to gay rights on the one hand, overall I can't say Labour have made me feel better regarding my sexuality over the last twelve years.
On the one hand, they propose laws banning hate speech that could cover accusing gay people of being child abusers; but on the other, they themselves compare "extreme" adult images to child porn, and sadomasochism to pedophilia.
Nice gesture. Now they should give him the honour he deserved while he was alive. Considering his contributions to the war effort and Computer Science, he should be knighted.
You're missing the point. Brown is not apologizing for Britain having behaved *illegally*, or for having prosecuted Turing. The law was applied as written at the time (I'm assuming; I haven't checked). He's apologizing for Britain's treatment of Turing, period. The law was unjust, and the results horrific. Britain is recognizing this and doing the only thing it can at this point: express its regret.
You got your apology to a dead man from a man who did not wrong him. I hope you (the petitioners) feel better, because it certainly accomplishes nothing else.
What it accomplishes is setting a new tone.. that the Government (or at least its current leader) has reflected on this subject and identified that the past actions were heinous in nature, that an apology is warranted. Offering the apology will set the precedent that G.B.'s leadership will not condone this treatment and will expect its agents to never commit the same action lest it make the leadership look hypocritical.
This reminds me of a trip I took to Venice, Italy. I was walking around and found myself in the 'Jewish Ghetto' and permanent plaque was put up by the people of Italy apologizing for the way the Jewish people were treated. This plaque helps both the parties involved to not forget history and be doomed to repeat it.
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
Incest is a cultural and possibly biological bad thing... I suppose I could agree that they shouldn't be involved in that either. I do not think it would be common and the abusive stuff would still be a crime (one could classify it as abuse and get it MOSTLY illegal without messing the right to choose a partner.)
Multiple spouses? I suppose those happen already, just not in the legal system... Legally, its 1 at a time but that doesn't seem to change a whole lot. Again, normal people don't do it without cultural support for it. Women with rights probably are extremely unlikely to agree to other wives. For the most part, I think today we have about the same stats regardless of the legal system.
Age? Well its rather silly to put numbers on it. Every now and then I hear about some poor child (18 or 19) fooling around with a 16-17 year old and getting labeled a sex offender. Where has the purpose for judges gone??? (they are there to inject some "common sense" not brainless apply law by guidelines.)
Government needs more restriction on its power to enforce the belief systems of the majority onto minorities. This INCLUDES marriage! A standard contractual agreement is all that is required to give the benefits of legal marriage-- without any restrictions--- relatives, room mates, etc. should be possible. If you want marriage go to a private entity for it. It is a bad idea to mislabel civil unions "Marriage" and dilute the language.
---
Me, I find the behavior of the UK continually ironic. I think they should give Turning more than just a formal apology. He should be held up as an example of how flawed humans can be so that future generations have more examples to hopefully learn from. Given the size of his contribution, he should get a holiday.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I know you were being flip. However, in economics, a liberal is usually someone who supports free market economics - something that's typically considered a conservative view point in the US.
I cannot really understand the cynicism in almost all the comments to this post. Despite the fact that Alan Turing deserved and still deserves a lot more than he got, I find this symbolic step still a positive one, not something to bash repeatedly in 90+% of all the comments. It was an online petition for an apology and it worked.
I actually see something special here: The petition was "online" - using a network of computers, all of which are essentially Turing machines. So in some sense, his legacy played a major role in bringing Slashdot-minded people together, in their creation of an online petition and thus the issuing of an apology - symbolic perhaps, but still deeply meaningful.
People change. Institutions remain. Brown is the chief of that institution, he apologises in name of the institution.
Ironic. Trying to get Turing straight is what got him suicidally depressed.
Apparently the movement in Britain to legitimate homosexuality began as a rebellion against the infusion of Judeo-Christian ideals in society and the onerous ethical requirements of the Victorian era. That said, I argue that it is no accident that during the era it was said that the sun never sets on the British Empire, while these days other powers are in ascendancy.
Indeed. In an era when Britain would forcefully deny the rights of other nations and dominate them militarily all around the world, it also denied human sexuality and imposed an equally immoral view of "ethical requirements" on people regardless of how they felt about it. In the era when Britain stopped being so thoroughly evil to the core, it ceased both to impose empire on others and to enforce the most abhorrent of Judeo-Christian ideals upon its own citizens. Both the lack of an empire and the lack of Victorian standards are signs of an increasingly moral and ethical British society. I too agree that this is no accident, both are signs of increasing enlightenment among the British (and the world at large).
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
No algorithm can tell for every algorithm whether it will halt in finite time. That means for each testing algorithm there exists at least one program which doesn't halt, but the algorithm cannot tell that it doesn't halt. Now, an algorithm where your example is such an algorithm is certainly possible, but would obviously be a very poor testing algorithm.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Now its been recognized that hackers were witch-hunted, persecuted and even worse, maybe we can ask our governments to stop doing so (Reverse engineering lawsuits, DMCA, software patents, ...) and recognize the value of our work?
Obama should do the same for Robert Oppenheimer
In other news, the Prime Minister also apologised for the burning of Joan of Arc and Bishops Ridley and Latimer.
"Apologising" for things other people did is a great way to look good without any risk of admitting your own faults and mistakes. Indeed, it can be a subtle way of rebuking those people for their shortcomings, with the implication that you yourself are free from them.
By apologising for the witch-hunt Turing was subjected to, Brown manages to give the impression that he is unprejudiced, not a bigot, modern, and humble enough to admit past mistakes. To quote the brilliantly-worded title of Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's book, "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)". http://tinyurl.com/mlmjt6
Why do I have the feeling that plenty of people in Brown's 21st century Britain are being persecuted - right now - for beliefs and characteristics that our leaders find just as frightening and alien as earlier British politicians found Turing's homosexuality (and intelligence)?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
No one cares about your "orientation".
Actually, they do. GPs "orientation" (and mine too) is grounds for dismissal or denial of jobs such as teaching (because we will obviously be a threat to the children) and we are the target of one of the most fucked up laws ever to be passed (Im not affected yet, Kenny McAskill has still to get his trainwreck me-too law passed up in Scotland). 3 years in jail and life on the sex offender register for possessing a photo of an act which is perfectly legal to do. This is not a "chip on your shoulder".
Google for "Consenting Adult Action Network" and they have the details. Oh, its mildly NSFW (in case you didnt guess already :) )
So you're saying that democracy at work consists of some PR drone cherry picking the agenda of the government based on the views of a tiny minority of the voting population and only taking action when it involves the government not actually having to do anything significant but which makes it look good ?
Sadly I think Labour share, have always shared, this view and that is the tragedy that faces this country today.
S&M is relevant to straight people too.
The problem is some people have a hard time understanding the concept of "consenting adults".
I'm actually astonished at the number of people who think it was purely cynically motivated. Someone asked the prime minister, via an official channel, to apologise for the significant, shamefully, darkly horrible treatment of someone who should be treated as a national hero, and in short order he did.
If any of the current political party leaders (with the exception of one N Griffin, who I would be unlikely to believe) had said the same thing, I would have been similarly impressed by it.
Maybe it's because I studied CS and have always felt that we were robbed of an elder statesman, but tou have to be pretty hard-hearted to not see the attempt at kindness in this.