Category Archives: IT

April 17, 2016 · 18:42

What the law allows

This is not the usual article for me. This is not a mere look at facts and at information, one could say that I have skin in the game (me using the loosest of all interpretations). You see, I know Paul Farrell. We might not be on the same side at times, for the same reason I am on opposite sides of Brendan Molloy, but we all went to the same University and I know them both to be good people, both with integrity and with a decent moral compass. These issues matter. For the same reason that I stand next to David Cameron, yet I remain holding a healthy respect for Ed Miliband. Ed sees things wrong (read: does not see them my way), but he truly believes that he was fighting the good fight for his party, which is all that mattered.

So how does this relate?

You see, whenever the name Edward Snowden comes up, it seems to raise a red flag for me, like a bull my horns go into battle mode. There is something really wrong about the Snowden case and it forever will be from my point of view, so when I read ‘Edward Snowden on police pursuing journalist data: the scandal is what the law allows‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/17/edward-snowden-on-police-pursuing-journalist-data-the-scandal-is-what-the-law-allows) got my attention to the smallest degree, yet when the quote “singled out for critique the Australian government’s contention that it broke no laws in its leak investigation of Paul Farrell, a Guardian reporter who in 2014 exposed the inner workings of Australia’s maritime interception of asylum seekers“, I became wide awake. You see, I know Paul, which makes it another matter entirely. This links back to an article where Paul Farrell was part of a team (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/07/asylum-seekers-will-be-handed-to-police-on-return-sri-lanka-confirms), that reported on certain issues. The quote “a group of 53 legal experts have called on the federal government to reveal how asylum seekers are being assessed on board customs vessels” points towards an issue that is very valid to be raised upon. When we see “a group of 53 legal scholars from 17 Australian universities warned that the government’s conduct under its hardline military-led border regime “Operation Sovereign Borders” was in violation of international law“, that point of view does not change one bit. The press has every right and even a mandate to report on it (read: why this is not done more often in commercial cases remains a mystery). These elements are not part of the actual spying issue, but they are related to the issue.

The rest of the article reads nice, but there is a side that I saw missing. Where were these people stopped? You see that makes all the difference. How far have people looked into the matter? When we consider UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), we need to consider article 17 where we see “Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea“, which is at the heart of the matter. Refugee boats are for the most smugglers, meaning that they cannot rely on ‘innocent passage’, in addition, article 18 gives us the passage bit with “traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters“, which is exactly what smugglers are intent on doing, and whilst doing so we get article 19 where we see “Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State“, which again is exactly what smugglers ignore, because the status of these people cannot be confirmed, as such they can be regarded as prejudicial to both the peace and the good order as well as the security of the coastal state. Perhaps these 53 legal experts looked at that part, perhaps not (read: if I get any documents proving that part, I will reopen this blog article at a later stage).

So at this point, I saw an article that has issues, but I see nothing short of a mere article, nothing that should have woken up Edward Snowden, more important, why did it wake up the AFP? The article gives more than just 53 legal experts, it mentions “Hanson-Young also called on the minister to reveal the fate of a second vessel of 153 asylum seekers believed to have departed from India“, it mentions “The Tamil Refugee Council of Australia” as well as “UNICEF Australia and Save the Children said they were also “seriously concerned” over the secrecy on the second boat“, which are clear quotes, clear issues to be raised by a member of the press, so why do we get: ‘Federal police admit seeking access to reporter’s metadata without warrant‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/federal-police-admit-seeking-access-to-reporters-metadata-without-warrant)? You see, in the 2014 case we have the quote “The Australian government’s “on-water” activities to turn back asylum seekers have been shrouded in secrecy under the military-led Operation Sovereign Borders. They led to several incursions into Indonesia’s territorial waters in December and January”, you see, this makes it not an AFP case, but an ASD case as this was a military led operation. The quote: “incorrect calculation of the boundaries of Indonesian waters” is even more hilarious especially when you realise that RADAR, SATNAV and other means tend to show shorelines, can we assume that those on board of the Ocean Protector should have known these little facts? If not, than let us meet with the captain and discuss the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, where we see in section 2(a):

Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

Which gets us nicely to the duties of being a ship’s captain, where we could now conclude that the Ocean Protector could be regarded as in violation of that pesky UN law named UNCLOS, to be more precise in violation of section 19 of that one, because it could be seen as acting against the ‘security of the coastal State’. This is why I looked at the IRPCS, as that is foremost on the mind of any ship captain, which gives us section 2a and this now gets that person in hot water with section 19 of UNCLOS. Going from other sides there are now the 1st and second mate to consider of the Ocean Protector, as the transgression, unless clearly defined in a military agreement, could be cause for a tribunal and as such the captain could stand a chance to be ‘captain-no-more’, which means that the mates move up a position, this is sometimes regarded as promotion through termination (read: this doesn’t always require extreme prejudice).

My issue is less with the statements of Edward Snowden and much more about (as I see it) the stupidity of the AFP to look into a matter that has so many clear sources named, especially names of people who would know more than the article revealed that the investigation into Paul Farrell seems to be a waste of time to say the least. To be honest, I am much more worried about the escalations we get from the SMH with the title ‘Scott Morrison to share Australian Christian Lobby stage with anti-gay extremists‘ than anything Paul has written here (sorry Paul, I am not trying to diminish your work).

You see, the article Paul partially wrote asks questions, they ask the right question. What is a clear issue is: “the secrecy on the second boat and were worried that unaccompanied minors could be on board whom required additional assistance from Australia under international law“, now also consider “The council had previously stated that at least 11 of those on board had previously been tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities before fleeing“, we see a pattern. A pattern that some elements (I reckon mostly UNICEF) had data and information that was vital, in all this we see the statement that also matters “Morrison told Sydney radio that the second boat was no longer in Australian waters“, so basically Morrison has clearly stated that the second boat had entered Australian waters. Yet when and where? This does not change my view on UNCLOS and its interpretation of it, but it does have an issue with what happened afterwards and the Guardian does not really report on it, it asks questions. Now if Paul got Morrison to make the statement, than that does not make Paul a better investigative journalist, but it does make him an awesome and dangerous interviewer and no matter how he got the quote, he did get the quote and Morrison will have to place his virtually burned bum on a cushion for a little while. So why did the AFP need the metadata of Paul Farrell?

You see, I look at the article with different eyes, as a data miner I see other patterns and the article skates on one that seems to be ignored. We get that from “The AFP have undertaken a number of investigations targeting journalists’ sources, many related to stories about asylum seeker operations“, a statement where I see ‘many’ in a different light. I am wondering, especially in light of what was written why Paul’s data was sought for. My assumption is that there is another side to this. I personally reckon that Paul has had interactions with another person, on perhaps another story. I reckon that someone else is under investigation and Paul Farrell is only connected to some extent.

Can I prove this?

That is of course part of all this. You see, I cannot without seeing more than one source smitten with all this. But consider all the sources the Guardian has had. Any maritime issue can be much easier ascertained by the ASD (and it was a military led operation), they have a lot more resources and any maritime leak can more easily be traced at the maritime source (you know the instigating server side of things). In all this, the quote “Earlier this year Guardian Australia reported that the AFP had accrued a file of at least 200 pages on Farrell in an attempt to uncover and prosecute his confidential sources” from the ‘surveillance’ article now matters. It links to a Feb 12th article where we see the quote “In April 2014 I reported for Guardian Australia that one of the vessels involved in Australia’s unlawful incursions into Indonesian waters, the Ocean Protector, had gone far deeper into Indonesian waters than the government had disclosed“, which is the statement that caused all this. You see, the Ocean Protector is a government vessel, yet a civilian one that falls under the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The ASD has options here, but it seems overkill to use them when it is not a military operation. The ASD can rely on “The Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) provides foreign signals intelligence, known as SIGINT, to the Australian Defence Force and Australian Government to support military and strategic decision-making“. So why use the AFP instead of a much better equipped ASD? That is the question that comes to mind. What is without doubt is that this is not merely a Paul Farrell investigation. This is just a personal opinion, but when we see the amount of sources Paul Farrell had, in addition if the ship had an Automatic Identification System (AIS) on board, was it logged off and shut down? Even crew members with a smartphone turned on could have been enough of a source. A dozen sources all lower than open intelligence sources, were they looked at? In addition if the Ocean Protector had any switched on Esterline Technologies equipment on board, there might be additional ways to get certain information. I wonder how deep this was investigated before someone had the less than bright idea to, no matter how lawful I was, to the metadata of a journo?

The article raises questions, and what it does not tell us makes me wonder about several other questions, none of them considered.

In all this the by-line of a picture in the February article gives us “Michael Pezzullo, secretary of the immigration department, told a Senate committee this week he had referred a cabinet leak to the police. He also referred a Guardian Australia journalist to the AFP after a report that revealed a customs ship had entered Indonesian waters far deeper than previously disclosed“, which makes sense, yet that line gives me the issue of the Cabinet leak and a lot less about the Guardian leak. It seems to me that the massive file on Paul Farrell reads like a bright light, one that dissuades away from the cabinet investigation that is one that many parties would want to keep out of the press. I just wonder what Paul will find when he takes a look at that Cabinet member and the information that is being looked at. I am not certain that it will be about Asylum seekers or refugees, or another matter entirely, but that again is merely speculation from my side.

Can I be wrong?

Off course I can. You see, my speculations are merely the consequences of data I saw and other data I read. Now ask yourself, knowing the backlash spying on the press gets you; do you think that the AFP is actually this stupid? As I raised issues of location tracking in many forms, the essential part isn’t whether he got a hold of that data, the question becomes how many non-illegal methods could he have used to get it. So, the actions by the AFP seems to be a massive overreaction. That is even before we see whether the Ocean Protector is on http://www.marinetraffic.com. Even after that, there are Indonesian systems to consider. If anyone had revealed that data it would have been a political issue between Indonesia and Australia (the second party without any claim to secrecy within the territorial waters of Indonesia). All these mere issues, all clearly within the view of the public, the audience, the press and the governments at large.

So now ask yourself: ‘Is there any sense to exposing one’s self to internal investigation as the press demands visible answers?‘

That is why I got to the path I am on. Consider one additional path. If we consider a phone number, for example (purely a random example): 8816 273 14432, now consider that this is an Iridium sat phone. You see these puppies also tend to be on boats. They have been used in many non-metro environments since the mid 90’s. These puppy’s come with data and GPS enabled and Iridium is actually one of the better more secure solution, there are few cheap ones that offer very little security. So was this about Paul Ferrell, or did Mike Pezzullo (or one of his top minions) drop the ball in another way and was this his panic solution?

These are mere thoughts in all this. It took mere minutes to get to this place and I had initially read the article in February. We must acknowledge the issue that “Law enforcement did not need a warrant for accessing the information at the time“, which is not as much a cause for concern as people make it out to be. Let’s face it, we are all held to a need for results. So was the AFP wasting time? In my summary they were for other reasons. The need to give the image that they are looking in one area is adamant, for politicians the need for the AFP to look somewhere else is equally their personal need, yet where lies the real need? On the foundations given, it was clearly not looking aty Paul’s data I raised many issues on that matter.

This gets me to the final article. There is nothing about the article that is wrong, it is the reflection of Paul Farrell (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/australias-attacks-on-journalists-sources-are-about-politics-not-national-security). The title ‘Australia’s attacks on journalists’ sources are about politics, not national security‘ hits the mark on several issues. The quotes that I needed in my case were “It’s become a sadly normal reality that journalists’ sources can be targeted in Australia in an effort to hunt down whistle-blowers“, the operative word here is ‘can‘, which is not a given, just a mere option. It does not make the action correct. What is more an issue is “this is the first time the AFP has ever made such an admission in Australia“, you see, why is this the first time? Was there too much overwhelming evidence, or is was the clear visibility of the search a reason to hide something else?

You see, that could be seen as a clear case of ‘conspiracy theory’, but regarding the evidence. The document (at https://www.scribd.com/doc/298816051/Paul-Farrell-AFP-Decision-Letter-and-Documents) that reveals nothing really, there is too much marked out. So was this a clear case of wrongful investigation, or was that the case because it dims the lights of what the AFP is actually looking into. So when we see the quote “From the AFP’s point of view, it has done nothing wrong. As it has indicated in its statement, it has sought to undertake investigations within the scope of the law. It has “sought to identify the source of the disclosure, and then determine whether they had the appropriate authority to release that information”“, to me it shouts not ‘what was wrongfully looked at‘, in my personal belief it screams ‘We are actually sneakily looking at something else‘, again, it is a speculation and I could be massively wrong, yet there is enough in the air to wonder about that issue, not just by me.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 9, 2016 · 18:51

the Other Currency

Sometimes you have to halt a moment. Take a step back and breathe. It is an essential act that I myself have forgotten to take heed on. That part became partially clear in the article the Guardian had yesterday in the TV News section. The title “Paul Mason warns political journalists: ‘You have no real idea what is going on’” is only half of it (at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/08/paul-mason-political-international-journalism-festival-channel-4-news). You see this is linked to several pieces I wrote regarding the (what I believe) to be less than intelligent acts by Alexis Tsipras. So apart from me thinking I was right (read: correct), that piece is an equal mirror for me to look at myself at times, which I am very willing to do.

Linked to these events, not to the articles is a secondary issue I reported on. The date was January 7th 2015. The article is called ‘As we judge morality‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/07/as-we-judge-morality/). In this article I looked at the accusations made by something that walks around with a dripping snatch. Yes! I am that rude! You see, you do not get to make the false allegation ‘a former masseuse employed by Epstein, that she was forced to have sex with the Duke of York over 10 years ago, as well as the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz‘, you do not get to accuse these people falsely and not get branded for life! This part links into the previous part and the follow up from the not so light allegation I made in the article. I stated: “It is somewhat sickening to see that the press might be the fuel for falsely alleged trials and claims“, even though (much too late) as we see today in the Boston Globe “Two plaintiffs’ lawyers admitted Friday that they made “a mistake” when they accused famed attorney Alan Dershowitz of having sex with their client when she was a minor” a year later. I am uncertain why Attorney and law professor Alan Dershowitz would show such grace against the mindless stupidity of his peers by dropping (read: settle) against Lawyers Paul G. Cassell and Bradley J. Edwards. It is my personal believe that the District Attorney has a mandatory function to keep the quality of law above reproach and high in standards (we do know the standards board is for that). I believe that Attorney General Pam Bondi (our famous Sydney Bondi beach was not named after her), still has a clear duty to look into the matter of the claims made against Alan Dershowitz. Cassell and Edwards wasted the courts time, they gave real damage to the integrity of Alan Dershowitz, as such in light of all I reported then, there is still a case of consideration against the two lawyers. As I personally see it, they tried to strongarm a situation, which had basically nowhere to go but backfire. As such there needs to be a price against the false claimant and against those proceeding on those false claims without due diligence.

I do not think that it changes anything against billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, the slimy little weasel (as I would see him) who got off way too light. Yet, the false statements making him violent now also wrongly diminishes his guilt in all this and it smeared the Duke of York in addition, who is not mentioned in the Boston Globe article. Those false claims had a likely impact on the charity work he has done for decades, so this ‘tactical’ legal act should come with a massive price tag, not only because it took serious resources from the FBI to clearly show that there was contradictory evidence as brought by former director Louis Freeh of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This now reflects to the article that got this all started, namely the press. You see, there is a quote in that article “And I think we need to understand that we [journalists] generally know very little about what is really happening”, which might be a grand gesture by Paul Mason, but I think it is the revelation that he was aware of. We do not know everything and most often we don’t even know a lot, which is something I have always known. The second quote he makes is “If you are one of those poor people who have to report Brussels, you’ll know how difficult it is, even for the guys with the press passes, to get the story. They just get handed effectively a series of semi-leaks and spun information”, which is now at the axial of that what matters. The press has with some regularity not been the informer, they were merely the ignorant patsies ‘revealing’ things spin doctors wanted to get revealed. Now, mind you, the revealed info was often true, it was however a truth misstated in proportion and in wrongful secondary considerations. Which is what I have stated on numerous occasions. Especially when we consider Edward Snowden as well as the Panama Papers. They were, as I see them both hostile takeovers, one in the intelligence industry and one in the financial industry. We will forever debate and speculate on the acts of Edward Snowden. I see him as a traitor, plain and simple. That evidence is clearly seen as his first port of call was Hong Kong. That choice limited him and changed the game for him. I reckon as I speculated before that China saw him for what he was: ‘A joke with delusions of grandeur’. He was not evil, just embossed by the option for greed and ‘sainthood’, just the small detail that treason and sainthood tend to be mutually exclusive when it is done to merely enrich one’s self. This is the one element that gives Julian Assange the benefit of the doubt (and because he technically never committed treason).

When we get back to Edward, we see that he had access to some extent and I reckon he got to see a few documents. Documents involving James Fisher, Mike McConnell and Gary Labovich. I think that they had started a path at that point, merely in the planning stage and if that path worked out a small group at Booz Allan would become rich beyond believe and Edward was missing out. I think he had the opportunity to move forward and he took a chance, the wrong one I might add. You see, there was always an issue with all the data and I still believe that some of the players have been miscommunicating the value of all that data and those ‘documents’ I believe that the initial news around that time (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/former-government-officials-cybersecurity-boom_n_958790.html) in September 2011 and in the Washington Technology (at https://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2011/06/06/Booz-Allen-Top-100-government-contractors.aspx?Page=2) in June 2011. Perhaps the path was not clear at that point, but the idea had taken shape. Last year we saw ‘Booz Allen builds on Vision 2020 strategy with SPARC acquisition‘ (at https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2015/11/02/booz-allen-sparc-deal.aspx) and last month we had the conclusion ‘Booz Allen Hamilton hired to support 5 billion CSTAT contract‘ (at http://www.consultancy.uk/news/3402/booz-allen-hamilton-hired-to-support-5-billion-cstat-contract), a path that took likely a little longer because of the damage Edward Snowden caused. He is no saint and definitely no Ideologist. A failed intervention, that if successful would have given great wealth to Edward Snowden, he gambled and lost a little. Yet in all this the Cyber Security and Information Systems technical area task contract (CSTAT) is nowhere near done. As I see it the cloud might be wonky and leaking data like ‘a sift’, so this is something that needs to be investigated.

This again reflects back to the sometimes ‘ignorant’ press. What they are expecting to receive, and what they really receive are two dimensions, in an age of circulation they are not aligned. Yet getting back to Greece, is also important, you see Paul gives us the part that matters in more than one way: “If Syriza falls, there won’t be a conservative government. It will be replaced by a technocratic government. That’s the plan of the Greek establishment. This technocratic government will mess up. We are really lucky that the fascists want to be black-shirted type hoodlums, because in other countries fascists have developed a brain and reinvented themselves as democratic politicians. We are lucky for the moment that the fascists have no chance of ruling Greece, but that may not be the case forever“, he is only partially right as I personally see it. A technocratic government will do what he expects, but it is more the result of what a technocratic government actually wants. They want profit and non-accountability. Tsipras is right that it is about the people, the Greeks, those who make up the land, but there cannot be non-accountability, which is why I opposed the acts of Tsipras and his rock star associate Yanis Varoufakis. They were wrong, they were never evil. The technocratic wave that comes will be evil, because they will keep alive only those who add to the profit wave, the rest is painted away in spreadsheets. I never signed up for a world like that. In equal measure those who ruined Greece are still not held to account, which I personally see as another failing by Tsipras. They must stand trial and bleed for the hardship they gave the Greek people. There is no other way, the technocrats will take a fee from them and ignore their acts. As the EU falls, it does not fall towards the xenophobes as Varoufakis states, they fall towards the nationalists. I agree that they are not mutually exclusive groups, yet I personally believe that these nationalists are not in fear of non-nationalists, they just prefer nationalists to push their nation forward, something that has not happened in over a decade and non-accountability tends to be weird that way.

So as I look at these elements we cannot ignore Paul Mason who wrote the Guardian article and other too is also linked to #ThisIsACoup (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZsHT2FZkxk). There are elements that I cannot completely agree with, but they are valid views, they look at parts I did not realise/ignored. Yet, they are writing about sides I have been trying to illuminate for over 3 years. So I do not attack ‘How the EU destroyed the Tsipras government‘, I do have a few reservations. That is a good thing, because I never claimed to have all the answers or all the truths. I have a view, based on information, often from valid sources, which is also an issue as we saw on quotes earlier here that the press seems to have been a ‘willing’ propulsion system for spin doctors. This is the issue on many levels, so accepting some truths that might not be in my perception of truth is equally important. So please watch that video on #ThisIsACoup. You will learn a few things I did not know (so I learned a lot too) and parts I never realised. Not because I wanted to be ignorant, but because others would not truly inform its population. Paul Mason also illuminates the issues that 2017 will be bringing. He stated “There is no template for those who had 4% last time are winning the election with 35% this election” which is what the Netherlands are facing with the PVV and what France is still likely to face with Front National. A left template and a right template. Neither is correct and both are essential. If this is truly about national governing it must be about the nation and its population, not in fear, but in enlightenment. In that the Economic industry is feeling the pinch in real ways. Because the changes we see now are becoming the massive fear that Dow Jones, Mossack Fonseca, Rothchild, Natixis and several other financial managers are facing, including the IMF (the Christine Lagarde edition, not the Tom Cruise version).

This need is escalating, especially in light of the revelations last month that due to the actions of DuPont Dordrecht its population has been exposed (for many years) to a large dose of perfluorooctanoic acid (aka C8), even as the Dutch NOS reports “Parliament has decided to take random tests within the population of Dordrecht to look at the consequences of C8, the people are not willing to wait, they want to test their blood as soon as possible. Reimke Hitimana-Willemze of the GGD (Dutch version of NHS) stated that there is no reason for it as there is no treatment this substance will only leave the body over time. She stated ‘Keep your money in your wallet’ (paraphrased from http://nos.nl/artikel/2097987-zorgen-in-dordrecht-om-dupont-fabriek.html)”

This illuminates the massive problem (as I see it). A class-action lawsuit and community settlement had revealed in earlier that Chemours would bear the cost. The fact that Chemours Netherlands B.V. might be seen as a coincidence is one side, the fact that C8 (as shown at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a340/) gives us also links to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension. The report has limitations, the reporter notes that there are issues, but the results are too overwhelming. So as we read that this is from 2013, how irresponsible is the response from Reimke Hitimana-Willemze? This is exactly why the shift is growing larger and larger, notably to either the left or the right, but not towards the balance of the middle. You see, the government players have been too deep in the pockets of big business and as such we see misinformation. Is it not weird that yesterday’s article from NOS states: “It is not easy to show whether high concentrations of C8 lead to diseases, according to Warry van Gelder, director of the Albert Schweitzer-hospital (paraphrased)”, I reckon that a mere search on Google revealed that C8 is real nasty stuff and the settlement that DuPont made in 2013 is additional evidence to start immediate blood tests. Especially if there is a chance that a misinformed Dutch parliament makes a quick settlement offer with DuPont (or likely Chemours Netherlands B.V.) at a mere 2% speculated value of the damages, leaving the Dutch NHS to clean the mess up for this fat chemical cat (or is that Chemical Fat Cat?).

This shows as I see it the dangers of spin doctors, especially as the Dutch NOS makes no mention of the 3,500 lawsuits from Ohio and West-Virginia water (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-07/dupont-jury-reaches-verdict-in-ohio-toxic-water-lawsuit) a mere 6 months ago. How did the NOS miss this?

You see, this part only grows the PVV in stronger measures, making the issues Paul Mason mentioned more and more important, in addition, as large corporations are not held to account the consequences of more and more extreme governing is only accelerated and they will be more extreme in dealing with these issues, which tends to be a bad thing as well.

For me there is a shift, the parts reported up to now and the realisation that the movie is bringing. There is an issue with the press, namely a fight between time and value. The issues shown is that speed is not value, the lack of data depth and data realisation deprives value, the speed of it does not equal it. The press is lacking data comprehension centres, something that can oppose spin doctors, which is not realistic because editors are about speed above all, they dumped the level of quality as they are up against the social media message; hacks that rise as the planetary population is lacking more and more intelligence. It is an unequal race and the hacks seem to be winning which will be the biggest loss of all times when that war is done with.

In that we still have the valid question on how Greece can get back on its feet. Making it a tax haven is not really an option but something needs to be infused on Greece. This battle is not one that will be settled any day soon as the economic coup d’état is still developing. As Mossack Fonseca offices are now getting raided the competitors of Mossack Fonseca are still laughing. Consider that for all intent and purposes there is no evidence that Mossack Fonseca has broken any laws. A police force that refuses to clearly intervene in the known guilty El Salvador drug world is eagerly going into a clearly not guilty and non-transgression set Law Firm. How is that anything but a political step and a posturing to scare its customers towards US non-taxable havens? The article from ABC relies on “all under the radar of local authorities“, yet there is no impression at all at present that the law has been broken. Consider that these are the same members of the comedy capers group that never got to El Burro or other members of the Texis Cartel and they are now going after a firm with no established guilt of any kind?

The question that Paul Mason is directing within me is: “Has the press truly become the joke to be played on those not aware of the rules of the land?“, for one part Paul’s acts at present could indicate that I am wrong, but for every Andrew Jennings and Paul Mason, there are at least a thousand ‘anonymous reporters’ hopping for a break and are eagerly taking quotes from the power players in the land. You only need to see the developments regarding Rothchild in the Financial Times regarding Petro Poroshenko as well as the Quay Quarter development (linked to the Rothchild branch), set at a mere 2 billion to see that I am not (entirely) wrong.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 7, 2016 · 21:58

Delusional

This time the story has a twist, it has sides that some considered and many ignored. This all started when the Guardian started a new story this morning. The title ‘From Snowden to Panama, all hail the power of the press‘, written by Simon Jenkins (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/06/simon-jenkins-power-of-press-panama-papers-investigative-journalists). Even though it is ‘merely’ on the ‘comment is free’ part of the Guardian, this article deserves a separate bit of attention. You see, the start set me off, but it was the content that truly leaves food for thought and it should worry you all!

The title is the first part. You see, I always considered Snowden to be a joke, a scenario (explanation will follow), in addition, the Panama papers are showing a side that should worry a lot of players in this game of what I consider to be misinformation. The interesting part is that these two examples are both relying on data, one from the inside and one (Mossack Fonseca should hope so) from the outside.

Then the writer gives us the following: “Fifa corruption, Snowden and surveillance, Rotherham child abuse, drugged athletes, Stephen Lawrence, WikiLeaks, MPs’ expenses, phone hacking, HSBC, cash for questions, cricket fixing, extraordinary rendition, Olympic bribery, Slater Walker share fixing, DC-10 crashes, thalidomide, corruption at the Met: if power had had its way, none of these stories would have come to light“, now for some cold realities. If there is one voice that requires heralding, than it is the journalist Andrew Jennings. He was the one who truly looked into FIFA, with FIFA’s Dirty Secrets (first aired on 29th November 2010), this was basically one man. The press at large didn’t do that much. They ‘reported’ on certain matters, but the visibility it should have gotten was below minimum. The Guardian in May 2011 gave us in “Lord Triesman accuses Fifa executives of ‘unethical behaviour'” the mere quote “In retrospect that was not the right view to take and I accept that” seems to push for sympathy. The only part I see is that the press at large ignored seriously investigating FIFA. When it finally did happen, it was a decade too late. When we see the phone hacking reference, we must realise two elements “investigations conducted from 2005 to 2007 appeared to show that the paper’s phone hacking activities were limited to celebrities, politicians and members of the British Royal Family” is the first and the second “the phones of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, relatives of deceased British soldiers, and victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings had also been hacked“. It was public outcry that led to the official investigations, not the press. The Leveson inquiry that started through the announcement of David Cameron on July 6th 2011 would show a few sides. One of them that the Press Complaints Commission was merely a joke and a bad one at that. It also started Hacked Off, a group investigating the misdeeds of the press. The Leveson inquiry resulted in an advice for a royal charter, something that was massively feared and objected to. We would see responses like “state restriction on press freedom“, yet freedom does not mean unaccountable, which is what the press, for reasons of ambiguity and circulation requires.

The royal charter was from the very first moment bitterly contested by the press, with many of the largest newspapers instead backing Ipso, which by many non-journalists is regarded as a mere joke.

There is little to say about the rest of the initial list, but it is not the last stated about the article. You see, now the light grows on the Panama Papers with “A cloud of stinking dust rises as another wall in the edifice of unaccountability crashes to the ground. No thanks are due to any government or police force, to any minister or regulator“, this statement might sound true, but is it? Let’s look at the list:

  1. Any government. So, what about Panama? That place has its own government!
  2. Police force, they were never part of anything, remember the initial part, Mossack Fonseca has not broken any laws, so how does the police fit here?
  3. Any minister, which is the first real name, hidden in a field of useless names. You see, how are laws made? (at http://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/how-laws-are-made/), that has been the issue from day one for decades, there was a need to truly overhaul taxation laws in pretty much every Commonwealth nation, when was this done? When did the press at large keep a watchful eye on those making laws? Which members of government, which MP, which Lord has attempted to overhaul tax havens and taxation laws? Which bills were created for that? All answers not forthcoming, the press tends to sleep through those moments as they are often regarded as not sexy enough for circulation.
  4. Any regulator. They overlook that things are properly done according to law. As no law was broken, they tend to be useless here.

So the list we see leaves us with one group to blame (because no crime has been reported 3 become non-players), a group that gets blamed all the time, so people do not take heed. What is brilliant is what Simon Jenkins does next. He basically validates all I wrote here (and I have written it before). He writes “Sometimes it relies on a solitary reporter, such Andrew Jennings initially on Olympic and Fifa corruption“, he is correct, especially when he writes “If indeed “everyone in the know knew” that Fifa was corrupt, sportsmen took drugs and contests were fixed, why did it need American attorneys to make arrests, spurred to action by the British press?“, that is a question that has an easy answer as I see it. You see, it is money! In that same light the press has become extremely cautious to (pardon my French) ‘piss off the shareholders and advertisers‘. When it is a player like FIFA, a player with billions, the nervous cat (aka the editor) might not take a step until the transgressor confesses on national news from a public place (like that will ever happen).

So why do I have an issue?

You see, the title has the gem no one talks about.

I have written about Snowden many times, so you can Google that part, but the Panama Papers are new and here to we see a certain lack, one that was equally present with the Snowden claims.

For this we need to take a small step into Logic. You see Mossack Fonseca is not a simple place, I reckon that those working there are amongst the brightest on the planet. Even when Wall Street collapsed and whilst others were looking at Enron. This player with 300,000 companies was making its own waves. Namely waves of continued wealth. Consider those accounts and as these clients are all well above millionaires, consider a fictive amount that they’d pay $10,000 for the privilege of not paying more than 1% taxation. That means that we have a bare minimum of $3 billion in clean revenue and that is the smallest possible number. If they were paid 0.1% of the saved taxation, we get to a number of more than twenty times the amount, not bad for a company with 500 people over 42 nations. We all want a share of that pie and that is exactly what is happening right now (as I see it).

Do you think that you can just walk into systems that secure an annual revenue of billions? You think that hacking is a new invention? No, these people will pay top dollar for 24 hours a day monitoring of every byte they have. This is the puzzling part that every press agency seems to have overlooked (read: ignored). Those files and the massive size of it would have set above average alerts all over the place and this place is anything but absolute top tiered secure. You see, the second part in all this is that new progressive form of entertaining person. In America they refer to him as President of the United States. You see the title ‘Obama calls for international tax reform amid Panama Papers revelations‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/05/justice-department-panama-papers-mossack-fonseca-us-investigation) reads like a mere joke for the following reasons:

– As ‘lame duck’ president you Mr President are on the way out, the elections are already underway and in November a new person comes into the White House, whatever claims you make now, they will never become a reality!

– Let’s take a little gander back to July 2013, where your administration, perhaps even the head honcho of that oval office (read: you) REFUSED to back international taxation laws that would allow tougher calls on digital companies like Google, Amazon and Apple. The quote “Senior officials in Washington have made it known they will not stand for rule changes that narrowly target the activities of some of the nation’s fastest growing multinationals“, which amount to the US needs that money and taxation in other nations is not an option at present.

The last part is shown when we consider the congressional paper ‘Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion‘ called R40623, here we see on page 4 “These tax havens tend to be concentrated in certain areas, including the Caribbean and West Indies and Europe, locations close to large developed countries. There are 50 altogether“, which is wrong, for the simple reason that there are at least 51. America decided not to list the USA, which is shown by Bloomberg (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states), where we see “helping the world’s rich move accounts from places like the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands to Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota“, did you see that one little reference, ‘from’, this is what Mossack Fonseca faces, a move from one place into the USA. Interesting that he who is on the way out seems to skip his own garden when it comes to tax havens. Could the USA be that bankrupt? Or is this another move to force any wealth away from supporting Brexit? You cannot deny the timing that this comes to light just when Greece will be unable to meet another payment, meaning that new arrangements are necessarily. And the Bloomberg article was published months ago!

What is a given is that hacking into Mossack Fonseca should have been nearly impossible, unless you have government assets to use, which we all know is not really an option. In the end I cannot prove how the data got out and Mossack Fonseca will never answer that with clarity, consider that even on a fast internet, it would take 326 hours to download the data that some claim they have from Mossack Fonseca. So either there was another medium, or there are other players in town. These simple elements were easily found, and how long until someone in the office realises that one data job is taking a really long time?

This is why the entire Panama Paper Trail smells and the press at large seems to be avoiding the questions, in this we will soon see the Guardian replace ‘According to Snowden’ replace with ‘According to the Panama Papers we have’ as a new false seal of reliability, so that more ‘dramatic’ revelations can find their way to a page one issue.

How Delusional is that?

That question is equally important, because even though I relied on quotes sources and logic, is my version so much better and so much more reliable? I am not willing to believe myself regarding some of the issues illuminated, so why would you? I personally believe that you can find these same facts easily enough. The levels of logic I employed can be equalled easily enough by an intelligent person, so why did the press not see them and why are they not asking the hard questions?

Is that fair enough?

I leave it with you to consider the facts I presented.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 5, 2016 · 20:34

In anticipation of

Yesterday’s news is glowing like only Plutonium can, it touches, it infects and it spreads. The Panama papers are a hot item, radioactive hot. The only place I skip on judging is Iceland. It was the only European nation that achieved a near utopian standard of living, so the impact from the collapse in 2008 will still enrage its population for a very long time to come. If you doubt this than take a look at Oscar winning movie ‘Inside Job’, the one movie that is the biggest eye opener on economies in the history of documentaries. On the other side we get the biggest joke in UK politics, namely Jeremy Corbyn. His quotes on ‘how only Labour will protect Britain’s families’. Perhaps Mr Corbyn will take a look at his party’s history. How Labour in the age of 1997-2010 achieved absolutely NOTHING in changing the wheel of tax havens. So when Jeremy is voicing his thoughts, he should take a long hard look in the mirror. Any defence or deflection is pointless and absent of values. Both sides have not done their job in stopping tax shelters.

Most important is that no laws seem to have been broken. Yes, we now see that there are a few issues, yet when we see the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/mossack-fonsecas-response-to-the-panama-papers), we see: “Finally, the instances you cite in your reporting represent a fraction – less than 1% – of the approximately 300,000 companies that Mossack Fonseca has incorporated in its over 40 years in operation“, that is the actual case in all this. A system that is allegedly 99% correct and above levels, is now under scrutiny, through no less than criminal acts. Now the weirdest case in statistical history. We are looking at 300,000 cases. In the dataset that is well over 2.5 terabyte we see a fact evolving that is now soon becoming an interesting side.

Here begins a level of speculation that you must comprehend, there is little evidence, only suspicions. I hereby warn the reader to not take what follows as given!

One source (fusion) is giving us: “So far, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has only been able to identify 211 people with U.S. addresses who own companies in the data (not all of whom we’ve been able to investigate yet). We don’t know if those 211 people are necessarily U.S. citizens”

Metro gave us this quote: “But weirdly, considering it’s the world’s largest economy, there was nobody from the USA. Is that because America is a beacon of transparent business dealings?“, the second quote is “Stefan Plöchinger, digital editor of German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung which obtained the leaks, shot out this teaser earlier today, saying: ‘Wait. Just look at what’s coming…’” (at http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/04/why-are-there-no-us-people-in-the-panama-papers-5794114).

One side states that more is coming, yet even under these properties even the term ‘there is more to come‘ becomes a highly suspicious consideration.

Now we get to the speculative side. You see, yesterday I made mention on the Libor scandal, yet I did not mention the part I speculated on initially (on April 1st 2013), in an article titled ‘60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/04/01/60-confiscated-and-counting-in-cyprus/), at that time I wrote: “On 30th November 2010 Jullian Assange revealed that the next target of his whistle-blowing website will be a major U.S. bank. The same date a red notice was issued by Interpol. It was around that time that the hunt for Assange intensified by a lot. Perhaps the one bank was just the beginning? If we look back at the issues we know now, then there is a chance that someone made mention of the LIBOR percentage tweaking issue. If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and USA combined) then that difference would be $112T.

I would love to get 1% finder fee of that! It would make me the FIRST Trillionaire in history (not bad for a person only dreaming to be a Law Lord someday)”

It was my speculation that Libor was not limited to the UK. It was my speculation that the US, as it was in such deep debt, that it started to manipulate the total value of trade, creating an 11.2 trillion dollar buffer. Here the danger for them was that the UK could illuminate that and that would have made the US option impossible and it would go bankrupt overnight (I still want that finder’s fee!). It was a speculation, yet founded on some data I saw, the data implies (cannot confirm or prove this), that packages were reset so that they would not falter, even though collapsed mortgages were added to them. See it as a leave one extra in. A repackaged deal where 70% had not yet collapsed sold at bargain price.

So how does this connect to the Panama papers?

Ask yourself a simple question, a firm like Mossack Fonesca would have extensive protection, firewalls and other shapes of protection. When you represent 300,000 firms worth trillions, only an idiot would rely on a laptop running on Windows 98 (a mere exaggeration). These people are not idiots, they are a lot brighter than I ever could be. This now raises the question how that much data got out. This raises the question, is this truly just about tax havens, or is this about a clear message from the US. The message is ‘Do not leave the EU, or else!‘ a message aimed at the UK and at France. Germany is willing to give aid, because for the most Germany does not want anyone to leave the EU. I personally see this step as a desperate act form large players who would not accept any responsibility from acts of immense stupidity. A path that evolved clearly due to inaction regarding Greece.

The fact that US people are not (yet) mentioned is because the US needs its wealthy with extreme desperate shortages. A nation (the USA), who is at present perhaps so close to bankruptcy that it will take desperate acts. So is the USA behind the hack on Mossack Fonesca? There will never be any clear evidence on that. There is no way to prove this one way or another, this is all clear speculation from my side.

Yet, is this so far-fetched? I personally do not think so, especially when we consider the timing. So as the UK tax havens might undergo slimming down, we could suddenly see another batch of US deregulations set for the creation of taxation, wealth building and retrenching. So will this happen? Is my speculation way too wild? I am not certain, you see, even I question myself. I would have had a lot less faith in all this if we would have seen the ‘revelation’ of Americans. That absence is what fuels certain paths of speculation. When we consider the amount of bonuses that many bankers in the US legally got away with gives weight to all this, in a group of 300K people and this group 0.01% currently American is too low and too unbelievable at present. There is of course all the chance that those names have been held back, time will tell!

So beyond the speculation we see the facts, because the facts matter. And the press is massively ignoring the impact that Brexit has, not just on the EU and their Euro, but it is the value of the US Dollar that is equally hit when that currency gets hit with the impact the Euro would expected to receive. President Obama’s nightmare has officially begun, because the impact is likely to impact the US dollar before he stops being an elected official. So tactically there is not the question of Mossack Fonseca and the tax shelters/havens. A tactical question that Bloomberg answered on January 27th 2016 (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states) where we see ‘Moving money out of the usual offshore secrecy havens and into the U.S. is a brisk new business‘, it is followed with the quote “It is now moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt“, so ask yourself the following question: ‘Are the Panama papers with the details from Mossack Fonseca a mere hack, or is this a coup d’état by big players like Rothschild moving money into the US, forcing the wealth and the powerful in Europe to face the danger that Brexit will soon impact their money and that must not be allowed’.

This last tactic is again speculation, but it is a tactical one, and it is supported by some facts. In that regard this tactic is old, hundreds of years old, because it was Niccolo Machiavelli who stated: “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception”

I wonder what ‘revelations’ the Panama papers will bring, more important the parts the press will trivialise into the trashcan?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 4, 2016 · 21:21

Working for a new boss

This morning starts off with an entirely different wave of events. Brexit is turning out to the two teams misrepresenting issues as much as possible, many of these representations are about scaremongering. The NHS is going on and on and on and other views are given. In both cases I agree with some parts, I disagree with loads of it (from my point of view with decent evidence). Yet all this we would have overlooked almost half a dozen articles. The story is only the smallest part of it. What is massively interesting that there is for a chosen few a job available! It is not glamorous, you will be frowned upon, but consider a job that will get you a 7 figure income (after a while), a decent house, possible tropical views a few times a year. In this day and age? Who would not accept that? Perhaps the single ideological man or woman, but that leaves a few million people, all ready to accept a position with the glamorous firm of Mossack Fonseca, a panama based law firm, with services on a global scale. Clients like Russian President Vladimir Putin (allegedly). They operate in tax havens including Switzerland, Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands, and in the British crown dependencies Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. I would love a nice job on Guernsey, a nice house, retirement at some point. I am a Trade Marks attorney, one that would love to get an additional degree in finance if that gives me a good job with Mossack Fonseca, is that not what you saw?

The first article ‘What are the Panama Papers? A guide to the biggest leak in history‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers), assisting the rich and famous store their wealth in tax havens. You see, this is all legal, this is not FIFA screwing its soccer fans over breaking ethical boundaries. This is all thankful to a multitude of short-sighted politicians (or really clever ones depending on your point of view) who enabled options in their tax homes. The article ‘used lawfully to anonymously hold property and bank accounts, these companies were registered in a range of tax havens and this map shows the most popular locations among its clients. The British Virgin Islands held more than 100,000 companies‘, so you would not be breaking the law. You just have to accept that some people pay (a lot) less taxation. After 30 year I have clearly seen and learned that living morally correct will get you a one bedroom apartment in the suburbs, a place you will not be able to pay off before you die. So as morality is not a legal requirement, as all this work is perfectly legal, why not?

This is all coming to light because of a leak, someone (as stated by the Guardian) got a hold of 2.6 terabytes of data. The quote is literally “There are 11.5m documents and 2.6 terabytes of information drawn from Mossack Fonseca’s internal database“, which implies that the facts were discovered through criminal activities. This means that Mossack Fonseca might have a case against those perpetrators. Another interesting quote is “Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so“, so why not become a service provider here?

On the other side there is the quote “In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies“, which is equally valid. Mossack Fonseca stated: “it complies with anti-money-laundering laws and carries out thorough due diligence on all its clients. It says it regrets any misuse of its services and tries actively to prevent it. The firm says it cannot be blamed for failings by intermediaries, who include banks, law firms and accountants“, this gives us another side too. When we consider banks we can consider Barclays (Libor 2012), Marcus Agius, former chairman of Barclays, resigned from his position over it. He’s sitting pretty being amongst others on the board of the BBC. Now, there is no evidence that he was directly involved, but it happened under his nose (so to speak), with a few exceptions most got out with their bonus intact and this was a legal transgression, so why would anyone not want to work for Mossack Fonseca, who is not breaking any laws?

When we consider law firms we should consider the news form the Independent in 2013 where we see: “The Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) knew six years ago that law firms, telecoms giants and insurance were hiring private investigators to break the law and further their commercial interests, the report reveals, yet the agency did next to nothing to disrupt the unlawful trade” (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-other-hacking-scandal-suppressed-report-reveals-that-law-firms-telecoms-giants-and-insurance-8669148.html) and when we see the word ‘accountant’ I think Tesco and Pricewaterhouse Coopers. For example the quote I used “Tesco paid PwC £10.4m in the last financial year – plus another £3.6m for other consultancy work“ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/09/30/thriving-team-tesco/) in the article ‘Thriving Team Tesco?‘, where again the case of wrongdoing should be regarded as more likely than not, so why would we not consider perfectly legal work at Mossack Fonseca?

Let’s not forget that the governments on a global scale are enabling this to get some tax revenue. Consider that the British Virgin Islands have 100,000 companies, without them, how much taxation would have been collected? It is a mere case of need and availability.

For example, a fictive person goes to His Excellency John Duncan and states: “Sir, if you offer us a favourable tax option, the option would be open to bring industry and taxable revenue in access of $1,000,000,000. Would you be willing to consider a low taxation plan?” to this the governor would respond “My dear man, we have no profit tax and no corporation tax!”

So how long until the big boys move a few billion to a place like that?

We seem to find time to worry about ethical issues, when the installed governments in Europe have yet to show a mere accountable bone in their bodies for overspending trillions. We seem to be ignoring the obvious. Even if this was illegal, how many banker have gone to prison from 2004 onwards? This is not illegal, this is a mere application of true globalisation. In addition, consider that offshore companies and offshore trusts are in most cases taken out of the view of taxation to begin with, so why not employ this option?

You see, the part that is in the middle of all this is not answered, it is skated around. No one seems to care on HOW the information was gotten at. The quote “2.6 terabytes of information drawn from Mossack Fonseca’s internal database” implies hacking. This does not mean that it could not have been facilitated by internal sources. Such an amount of data does not just easily download, so either someone got access and mirrored a drive, which implies that the server was accessible, what is more likely (read: speculation), is that this is one of the first cloud hacks. To have such a large environment, so global gives the option that data was in the cloud and someone was able to access it. This morning IT Pro had the following quote (at http://www.itpro.co.uk/data-leakage/26293/panama-papers-leaked-through-server-hack-1). “it had opened an investigation after discovering that “unfortunately” it had suffered “an attack on its email server” and that it is taking “all necessary measures to prevent this from happening again“, which could be the case. My issue here is that from a server, getting access to that much data should either be noticed (bandwidth), or it was internal (read: facilitated). When we consider the e-mail data overall, there is nothing that raises flags. Oh yes, there is! That much data with a truckload of attachments gives food for thought. Even as we consider no criminal acts have been undertaken, one would try to secure that much data. Perhaps this was done, but how was so much data gained?

In my view, encrypted UNIX servers would have required massive amounts of time to access and a good IT team always keeps one eye on their servers. Fortune quoted “Mossack Fonseca is calling the 11.5 million leaked documents a “limited” breach” (at http://fortune.com/2016/04/04/panama-papers-law-firm/), which is also likely, yet in all that if that was limited, yet fortune gives us one quote the Guardian would be unlikely to state “It appears that you have had unauthorized access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company and have presented and interpreted them out of context“, now that part will be close to impossible to prove, because the Guardian clearly stated “Using offshore structures is entirely legal”

No matter how this plays out, it seems to me that politicians on a global scale will start playing their ‘hypocrisy card’. Which is another laughing matter altogether. I cannot predict how this will officially play out, but they do have a website at http://www.mossfon.com/ and they are also in Trade Marks, so I should see what my options are. For you the reader, especially those with a degree in wealth management. I suggest you send your resume to:

The MF Group
54th Street, Marbella
Panama, Rep. of Panama

You could also go to web page: http://www.mossfon.com/about_service/careers/, if you want to post your resume online!

Let’s not forget, these people have not broken any laws (at present).

Have a fun day and dream of a life without debt in a place you could never have afforded in any other legal way.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 27, 2016 · 23:00

The excuse from a failed politician

The NHS has been in the news more than once as it is an important issue. It is today’s article in the Guardian that is a much bigger issue than most people will realise. Let’s take a look at the issue. The title ‘NHS would be put under threat by Brexit, says Jeremy Hunt‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/26/nhs-under-threat-from-brexit) is only the beginning.

To show you part of this we need to look at this part by part. The first part is shown at the very beginning “The National Health Service will face budget cuts, falling standards and an exodus of overseas doctors and nurses if the UK leaves the European Union, health secretary Jeremy Hunt has said“, which gets my initial response ‘Let me play the worlds tiniest violin for you Jeremy! Why don’t you consider an alternative job like in a taxi or perhaps become a barber, it’s just a suggestion!‘

Is my response to harsh? In this light, which should always be considered, we need to state the following:

  1. The NHS will always face budget cuts, Brexit is not a factor in that reality. Remember that the NHS works off the UK national budget, which is under pressure to say the least, the EU donation not being the smallest expense in all this.
  2. Failing standards if Brexit happens. This might be the most ludicrous reasoning. Ludicrous because standards are either being met or not and at present from several sources they are not being met, the EU seems to be setting unrealistic high requirements in some cases, requirements that many nations are failing, it should be about British standards, they should be the highest and they should be met, EU be damned (and all that).
  3. An exodus of overseas doctors and nurses when Brexit happens. This could have been an issue, but it was clearly stated in my blog ‘The News shows its limit of English‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/22/the-news-shows-its-limit-of-english/), where I showed how both Sky News and the Guardian were basically fucking up and creating unneeded panic. That article called ‘New immigration rules will cost the NHS millions, warns nursing union‘ showed the lack of investigation by both news sources as the UK government had published clearly in section 79E ‘is expected to demonstrate that he is being paid either at or above the appropriate rate for the job, as stated in the Codes of Practice in Appendix J‘, the nurses are clearly mentioned and the expected income as set out in the charter.

As I see it, I had to explain that to the press in my article on June 22nd 2015, so why would Jeremy Hunt state option C? In his defence, some people might be nervous if the UK leaves the EEC, yet a British passport is one of the most revered ones on the planet. So any non-EU medical employee would do a lot to gain that status and the UK government has done its share of keeping these highly qualified people interested in staying in the UK. So tell me, why is Jeremy giving us part C?

He actually gives us a decent answer through “Hunt argues that, with the NHS budget already under huge pressure, funding levels can only be maintained if the British economy remains strong“, it is only partially an acceptable answer as the NHS has been a mess for almost half a decade now, so these issues had been known, even if Brexit is an additional element, the danger of Brexit had been a fact for at least 6 months, that is, the chance of it becoming a reality, so the consequences of diminished economy has been an element for almost a decade. Even as the UK had been fortunate, the dangers of a receding economy have been a danger for the larger extent and when we realise that other EU nations have not been this fortunate, we should see that part in the light of ‘Jeremy hunt has had an economic advantage until now’. Not being ready for that risk is clearly a failing of health secretary Jeremy Hunt (as I personally see it).

After that he then kicks in his own windows when we read “He cites a series of economic surveys, including from the CBI as evidence of the adverse impact of an exit on the UK economy“, the CBI survey, which was an absolute joke, as shown in ‘Is the truth out there?‘ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/03/21/is-the-truth-out-there/), it makes for a decent read and shows how the CBI survey could be seen as another chapter from one of the most famous books in statistics called ‘How to Lie with Statistics‘ by Darrell Huff, a 1954 publications that shows us never to ignore the classics.

The quote: “Hunt suggests that progress the government is making in employing 11,000 extra doctors and 12,000 more nurses will be threatened and warns of the “damage caused by losing some of the 100,000 skilled EU workers who work in our health and social care system”. Some could leave because of uncertainties over visas and residence permits, he suggests“, which again I consider to be a load of (the word starts with a ‘B’ and ends with ‘locks’). There shouldn’t be any uncertainties on visas or residency permits and offering that even as a suggestion makes (again, in my personal opinion), Jeremy Hunt unqualified for his present position. It is his job to create calm and take stress away, not to introduce additional stresses to an area where he already failed, in addition to these points I am raising, personally, as a conservative. I believe that there are questions on Brexit and to be against Brexit might be the party line, but there are too many questions regarding the European Community, there are conservatives who seem to support Brexit. For one there is Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove, who gave his reasons at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-michael-goves-full-statement-on-why-he-is-backing-brexit-a6886221.html, that part is not up for discussion. The only quote in all this is “The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time“, which applies to the NHS because it is facing both technological and economic challenges already. The Labour party bungled the option to get part of the technological solution implemented that could have helped the NHS (perhaps you remember the loss of roughly £11.2 billion in NHS IT restructuring).

My issue in all this is that (again, as I personally see it) Jeremy Hunt is not much of a visionary, which means that as expected, he will follow the party line as any governing body needs to adhere to. Yet in all this, scaremongering is the wrong approach. We need to be the enlightened party, the leaders that give rise to inspiration by properly informing the people. The growing problem for the Conservatives is that like Michael Gove, more will see that the EU has stopped being a solution. Many will not be as eloquent as Michael was in his essay, as printed by the Independent. This does not matter if we are united in finding a solution. My big worry is that scaremongering is a dangerous tactic. It is also the wrong one to make for the reason that enlightening the audience creates trust, needlessly scaring them will only drive part of our party towards UKIP (or Labour), a choice that is a lot more dangerous! To govern one must be elected and the view given at present is not that encouraging.

Stephen Dorrell, the former health secretary and ex-chairman of the Commons health select committee gave us this “EU research programmes and single market legislation have greatly strengthened European cooperation in this area with substantial benefits for both healthcare and employment in the UK. It is a simple fact that Brexit would put all this at risk“, which we might see (initially), as a fair enough statement. Yet in my view, the information could be regarded as incomplete (read: speculative view). You see, when we consider Stephen Dorrell, Healthcare and Public Sector Senior Adviser to KPMG in the UK (at https://home.kpmg.com/uk/en/home/contacts/d/stephen-dorrell.html), we need to consider what KPMG could lose, apart from the NHS £1 Billion revenue solution, as one might phrase it. When we re-consider the info the Guardian gave, which is correct in the view that NHS funds will find cutbacks, KPMG has a clear danger that it will reflect on their 10 figure deal, all in pounds and a lot less on medical staff. This gives an additional weight to the view that Stephen Dorrell did not give all the information, because there is a lot more, not on the hands of Stephen Dorrell or in the hands of him mind you, but in the hands of his friends (read: associates), possibly with KPMG who are realising that Brexit will impact their juicy pharmaceutical profits, with a growing chance that India could move more and more into the UK pouch of generic medication and the expenditure cutback solutions they bring. Now, reader be warned, there is a fair bit of speculation here (the part about India), that speculation is partially because I think there are long term solutions here for the Commonwealth at large, partially because it seems to me that I (and the public at large) have had enough of fat cats (especially pharmaceuticals) avoiding taxation to the degree they have whilst selling overpriced solutions, that are being re-patented again and again.

The list of misinformation appears to be growing and I am trying to offer resistance, because my party should be better than that! After all, we aren’t the Labour party!

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 26, 2016 · 23:03

How to see ‘facts’

Brexit is one of the shiniest examples on how information is twisted and turned into many ways, especially ways to either scare people or just knowingly and willingly misrepresent the facts (as I see it). In the first degree there is the press. I think that they are on a large scale doing the deeds that those who support them are requesting them to do.

This sounds ‘misleading’, so let me explain. When the press goes on quoting sources and not investigating sources, we need to start questioning the ‘facts’ that they represent and quote. I think that the press is not doing their utmost to inform their readers and the public at large. I am not talking about the Daily Mail, the Mirror or some Murdoch media outlet. No, I am referring to places like the Guardian, the Independent and even the Times, although in the last case, I have never read it (because only subscribers get access to their website articles (the ones that matter at least). We can wonder how far the press needs to go, yet the answer as I see it should be ‘A lot further than they are currently going‘.

It is up to you to decide whether my subjective version is accurate or not (never take anyone’s word for granted!)

1. The Guardian, ‘French minister: Brexit would threaten Calais border arrangement‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/david-cameron-calais-refugee-crisis-francois-holland).

Background: Regional president Xavier Bertrand, member of the Republicans, headed by Nicolas Sarkozy. This is important because Nicolas Sarkozy is against segregation from the EU and also very much against Brexit. When was the last time anyone going against party ruling would have been allowed to continue? Now that Sarkozy is not in power, they are all about getting elected!

The quote: “Xavier Bertrand, the recently re-elected president of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie region, has repeatedly said the Le Touquet agreement would be torn up if Britain left the EU. He said: “If Britain leaves Europe, right away the border will leave Calais and go to Dover. We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if it’s no longer in the European Union”“. The part that is so ludicrous is the issue that if this falls away, everyone will get checked before leaving the train, meaning that the train could stop halfway and until every person is checked, there will not be any continuation, in the second, if illegals are boarding the train, it would mean that France already has a problem, which means that this rash statement will make matters worse for France when Frexit becomes a fact because It would need to deal with a non-existing Le Touquet agreement, meaning that Belgium in equal measure will not be performing checks. This means that the flow from the Netherlands and Belgium towards France could possibly triple, especially in Lille. Consider that Lille has well over 20,000 industry/services. Do you have any idea what level of pressure would fall upon Lille? And that is just the registered part.

The Quote: “France’s economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, told the Financial Times that the Le Touquet agreement – a bilateral relationship between the UK and France – would be threatened by a British withdrawal from the EU“, which is partially a repetition from the first quote, but by Emmanuel Macron, the current Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industry in France. He states ‘threatened‘ not ‘withdrawn‘. So when in office you need to be ‘diplomatic’. Yet in all this, there is actually no reason to get there. You see, this is an agreement between nations, in all this it can remain an agreement within nations. Let’s not forget that the checks remain the same and the United Kingdom was never a part of Schengen. There is off course an impact for EU citizens, yet in all this, the United Kingdom would soon be forced to create an almost identical situation that Australia currently has. There would be every reason for the UK to adopt the Australian 457 visa situation. As its own infrastructure would soon after Brexit be massively damaged by the lack of skilled persons. This would include most of the western European nations (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Italy).

Yet, the issue of the Le Touquet agreement will be an issue, just not the one that Xavier Bertrand states for the mere reason that France would lose a lot more soon thereafter.

2. The Independent, ‘Brexit would only bring ‘low’ cost to British national security, says former head of MI6‘ (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-would-only-bring-low-cost-to-british-national-security-says-former-head-of-mi6-a6948841.html)

Background: Sir Richard Dearlove, former El Jefe of MI6 (from August 1999 until May 2004), he was replaced by John Scarlett, who endorsed the government’s dossier on Iraqi weapons, including the controversial claim that some weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes (Source: CNN). Any rumour about Iraq ending his career seems far-fetched as Sir Richard Dearlove completed a 5 year tour, like several before him and all those who followed him. We can only argue (well, actually I can) that the Directors seat at £169,999 seems rather underpaid when you consider that you have to clean up the mess Labour made in its ignorance. The Chilcot Inquiry being the evidence here. So it was a little bit about Iraq! More important, the inquiry that ran from 24th November 2009 until 2nd February 2011, is currently being completed as parts were not to be published for several reasons. Its publication is expected to happen on April 16th 2016.

The quote: “Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights—remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque—and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the EU”

The Quote: “Britain is Europe’s leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return… If a security source in Germany learns that a terrorist attack is being planned in London, Germany’s domestic intelligence service is certainly not going to withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not an EU member“.

There are a few items here that matter. Even though the HRA could fall over, there are additional facts that would hinder extradition of a person like Abu Hamza. For one there was the case of cleric Abu Qatada, which took forever. I mentioned him in an earlier blog. I discussed this in March 2013 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/03/10/humanitarian-law-v-national-security/) ‘Humanitarian Law v National security‘, you see on 16th December 2004 the Law Lords ruled that Section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was an issue, which is now replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which is currently repealed. So, my issue here is that, as far as I can tell, the issue will remain to some extent. Yes, I agree with Sir Richard that immigration will gain control, yet at present there are a few loopholes that might not result in solving new issues from becoming a political hot potato (also known as ‘an issue not resolved’) that will give rise to new cases. In the second quote, I feel a few levels of doubt regarding the statement ‘Britain is Europe’s leader in intelligence and security matters‘. Yes the UK might give more than it receives, yet overall certain intelligence matters will dwindle as the data hub that matter is not the UK (they are in third position), it is number 2 (Netherlands) and the current leader (Germany) that are the data titans in Europe, with additional growth due to a Google data centre currently in development somewhere north or northwest of Amsterdam (latest info is that its completion is in 2017). Which would grow the Dutch data stream even further, which could grow to a speculated estimation of 6.5Tb/sec. Sir Richard knows that it is not about the amount of data, but it is about the quality of data. Yet in all this, there might be a consequence of Brexit. It is possible that access to certain data streams might not be forthcoming. Meaning that GCHQ would need to develop other algorithms to counter the lack of data (read: incomplete data). Sir Richard is correct that information would not be withheld, but the exchange of data would be less smooth and time would be lost, all parties seem to agree on that. Yet in all this, Dutch paper NRC gave us in 2013 “Achter de schermen werkt Bertholee hard aan de invulling van de bezuiniging uit het regeerakkoord: 70 miljoen tot en met 2016. Daar is kort daarna nog eens 11 miljoen bijgekomen” {paraphrased: behind the screens director Bertholee (AIVD, the Dutch version of MI5), is working hard to work out on how to implement the agreed cutbacks of 70 million through to 2016, which was shortly thereafter raised by 11 million}. So as the Dutch intelligence needs to cut back on 81 million, Dutch internet nodes will soon thereafter give passage to 40% more data. Even if the bulk of it is ‘Softly Pasting Additional Marketing‘, the intelligence ramification will be larger than expected, there is no way of telling the impact of Brexit, yet the response of Sir Richard, which was “Leaving the EU would bring only a “low” cost to Britain in terms of national security“, is not exactly a given, there is, in his defence, too many unknown factors at present.

So how did we look at facts? How about the speculations we read (in the second case). Well, they are not speculations. I added sources (all except one) and I extrapolated information for half a dozen sources. I have the advantage of languages, something plenty of journalists are lacking. My issue is less with the Independent and only slightly more with the Guardian. I believe that they should have dug deeper. They did mention the facts but the fact that Regional president Xavier Bertrand is not an elected official, he was Mayor of Saint-Quentin (was being the operative word), yet as the recently re-elected president of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie region, which was in 2010 and he is about to be replaced by Marine Le Pen (extremely likely), whilst as Mayor he was replaced by Frédérique Macarez in January 2016. So he can claim whatever he wants. Free bowls at the wicket and no official fact to be questioned. Clean given facts that were known before the article came to print. So why were these influential facts not given?

There are more articles in pretty much most papers (excluding the Times at present), which gives us the issue, because the papers should have informed us slightly better. I personally see it as cause and effect. Why a person makes that statement is one, but the position he/she is in is equally important. I have stated before again and again, never go from one source; not even me as a source. Use the information you get and form an opinion, because when the vote is due, whatever you select is on yourself, not on others. Being the non-winner is one thing, ‘I should have voted for the others’ when ‘your choice’ makes it would qualify you the voter as an idiot. Make sure you know what you select and why you make the selection.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 16, 2016 · 23:49

Sausage Party

This reference is not from the article we see in the Guardian called ‘Sony announces October release for PlayStation virtual reality headset’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/15/sony-october-playstation-vr-virtual-reality-headset), it refers to the trailer for a new cartoon, one that is as child friendly as Deadpool is (meaning not child friendly at all), It is the twisted view of food through the cartoon eyes of Seth Rogan (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7fP9q_LyDc), it is as screwed up as it gets. You see, when I see the approach of a 28 week release of new hardware, I want to see how it applies and more important to which games. After this Keith starts telling us how 230 developers are working on games for the device and ends with the quote “Over 50 titles are expected to be available by the end of 2016“. It is the quote “It will be the quality of the first VR games and applications that will decide whether the technology succeeds” that rings true, even if that is followed with the quote “the next title in the multimillion-selling Gran Turismo series of driving sims“. For Gran Turismo fans of course an immediate reason to get this updated, yet overall the 50 titles as stated for by the end of the year, there is no decent call for what we would call outstanding games. 1 in 50 is not something PlayStation should be proud of. The verge (at http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/15/11225030/new-playstation-games-list-gdc-2016) gave us this list:

  • Allumette
  • Driveclub
  • Gary the Gull
  • Golem
  • Harmonix Music VR
  • Job Simulator
  • Joshua Bell: Immersive Experience (tech demo)
  • Megaton Rainfall
  • Playroom VR
  • Star Wars: Battlefront VR experience
  • SuperHyperCube
  • Thumper
  • Tumble VR
  • Valkrie
  • Waltz of the Wizard
  • Wayward Sky
  • Xing: The Land Beyond

Which, if we add Gran Turismo too is still not something to get joyous on. Other places give us titles like ‘PlayStation VR’s launch line-up looks impressively diverse’, which is after that followed by no titles at all (Source: engadget). Yet, Keith in the Guardian does offer: “Ubisoft, 2K Games and Electronic Arts – the latter has revealed that it will release a PlayStation VR mode for its massively successful shooter Star Wars: Battlefront“. Ubisoft is still on the waning side of life with not the greatest hits at present. Even though the Division seems to present itself a true hit, like Ubisoft used to make them. For me personal, the fact that Elite Dangerous will support to Oculus Rift on the Xbox One is great news and this is the kind of title people who are into those devices would be interested in seeing. The fact that Sony is keeping their distance on several titles is little unsettling to me, but that could just be me. Eurogamer gives us a little more (at http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-03-15-heres-230-developers-making-playstation-vr-games), in addition they notice that “Bethesda, Bungie, Epic, Rockstar and Telltale are pretty big names holding out on this PlayStation VR wave“, in my view not an immediate issue. Yet, Eurogamer had more in today’s article. “A special version of Star Wars Battlefront produced by EA, LucasArts and DICE exclusively for PlayStation VR“, this implies that it could be a totally separate product, which would make decently sense in this early stage of a new piece of hardware. In addition we see: “PlayStation VR does not include the PlayStation Camera, which is required for head-tracking. So you may want to tack another £40 or so onto the initial £349 price. (It currently goes for £38.08 on Amazon)“, in all this we see that Eurogamer has the goods that the Guardian failed to deliver, although in honesty, some Eurogamer facts were only known today.

This gets us to the title, is this s sausage party? Is Sony dicking around now? It seems a crass way to state this, but if there are 50 supported titles, the ones we have seen so far (bar 3) do not encourage a $700-$800 investment. I would have thought that Sony had learned from their PS Vita mistakes, or is that PS Vista?

The initial which I hoped for was that No Mans Sky was initially delayed due to the VR interface for No Mans Sky, which would have been an absolute killer combination to own. It turned out to not be the case (that rumour was stated to be false), but I have high hopes for PlayStation VR, even if that inclusion comes after the initial release at the price of a DLC extra. Consider the feeling you as a RPG player will have when you walk through Fallout or Skyrim. The idea to see space like you are really there (Elite Dangerous) or explore No Mans Sky whilst having to look around to see it all is overwhelmingly enticing, likely to gamers all over the world.

There is however opposition, also from within me. Should we switch to VR all the time? No! Of course not. I do not believe that a VR offers an addition to Diablo3. It will give a jump to Minecraft, but I doubt that this feeling will be present when I play something like Need for Speed, Assassins Creed or Tomb Raider for that matter. As we play more games, as we see new innovation in gaming, a VR set will become an essential option for some games. Consider that as the VR evolves, more important as the VR and gaming evolves, we could see the evolution where the controller and our eyes become medium for interaction in a game. Take for example the old arcade Sniper, or the CSI games. There were depending on the mouse to interact, if the mouse pointer changed, we knew there was something. What if we must rely on seeing before we can act? The ultimate Sniper game, if we cannot spot the sniper, we cannot shoot him/her. So as such we get to see an entirely new iteration of Battlefront games. Consider the game Thief. Their brilliant slogan is one thing: ‘What is yours is Mine‘, when it becomes ‘If I see it I’ll take it from you‘, it ups the ante for the player. It would give a new level of player detail. Now in all honesty, I doubt that at present the VR can be the perfect RPG optical device (for now), yet what happens when that changes? What happens when the elder Scrolls gives us the boost that we see what Ogres, Wood Elves or Khajiti see? A new level of gaming, not just for us in general, what if the bedridden child can see abroad, see places they could never visit like they were actually there? This leap is not that far a leap. The simulators like a train or a truck simulator becomes a very different experience when those who cannot go could still experience. You might think of this as a weird side jump, but let’s not forget that for decades gaming was on the edge of technology. Until serious gaming came, hydro cooled graphic cards were not a needed reality, the mouse would not have evolved the way it did and the controller would remain a concept at best.

The VR will open doors and it will open different doors, but for the most it will open doors many did not consider, because there was no need for it. I reckon that the travel idea’s I gave earlier could spawn a new ‘Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego’, a game that has an educational and an analytical side to it. Hugh Jackman did sing it in ‘the  Boy from Oz’, where he sang everything old is new again and that is the truth, because some of the initial ground breakers that gave life to the Commodore 64 could see rejuvenation through the combination of new hardware and new avenues to explore the story that games offered. Elite Dangerous (Elite in those days) will support the headset. Yet what if the VR does not replace, but complement? Consider the legendary X-Com games. What if the screen is for the gameplay and the VR is for tactical base management? There are plenty of other games where that show promise by adding a new dimension. Some will work, some will not, and the more you like a game, the more receptive you are likely to be for the addition if you can afford it (one will hope).

No matter how we twist or turn this event, VR, is becoming a reality and it will impact games, it will impact the future of gaming. So in all that, when we see the start of this new device, it is my personal view that Sony bungled the ball. Even if there are still 28 weeks to go, the absence of a list of given AAA titles means that the ‘real shit’ won’t be getting here until 2017, perhaps even later. Now, all this is still speculation from my side, because there are 25+ titles to be confirmed. However, if you are about to give a show, when you start to give visibility to the new show in town, you advertise No Man’s Sky, Deus Ex Mankind Divided and For Honor, not Gary the Gull, Golem or Driveclub. This could just be me, yet I wonder how many other gamers feel that way?

When the Boy from Oz was done, do you think it would have been the success it was if Rick Astley instead of Hugh Jackman played Peter Allen? This is nothing against Rick Astley, just as I have nothing personal against Driveclub, but we all know that the VR will not make it as a Driveclub option. Yes to Gran Turismo and definitely yes to For Honor, so why is Sony silent on those AAA titles that actually matter?

That is the part that got to me in the Guardian, loads of writing, but lacking the data we all needed to read, like the data Eurogamer gave us. Yet, is this the fault of the Guardian, or is Sony playing the wrong game? That is in the end the question that comes to mind, because 6 months is almost nothing in the gaming industry and the lack of AAA titles is an issue, more important, by keeping the people in the dark, Sony is only cutting its own fingers. You see, the bulk of gamers cannot afford to just shove out $700 that is without a game (or camera for that matter), so plenty of gamers pay it forward and shell over $100 a month so that they are ready to shine with their device on day one of the release. Which is not that appealing at present. On the other hand, it is also likely that Sony would, to keep the books interesting, to show the revenue some bigger bosses need, to lower the price of the device and add the camera for free if they want to look good when Tax year 2016 ends, if not, there will be a larger change in management at Sony, but that again is just speculation on my side. So from my side Sony, I reckon you should not throw a sausage party, leave that to Seth Rogan!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

March 8, 2016 · 21:58

Of mice and rats

Today news reached me that has me a little baffled. News that seems weird to say the least but, it is news and it is a reality. The news: “Microsoft is cancelling development of Fable Legends, Lionhead Studios’ Xbox One and Windows PC game, and is “in discussions” to close the Fable developer, according to a statement released by Hanno Lemke, general manager of Microsoft Studios Europe“, from several sources gives us the issues at play. In the 10 years running, between 1996 and 2006 we see Lionhead being created by visionary creator Peter Molineux. The man who created Bullfrog, sold it to Electronic Arts and got serious with Lionhead. During his reign, he created Black & White, Fable, Black & White 2, Fable 2, Fable 3 and so on. Each of these titles would shake the foundations of gaming. The originality and vision brought towards these games would continue for a long time to come. Fable 2 and 3 were made as Lionhead had been sold to Microsoft, but now, the curtains are closing. They had one more cash cow by remastering Fable into Fable: Anniversary and that was it.

In the same time that Peter grew Lionhead in the 10 years, Microsoft broke it down to what it is now. A cancelled brand, IP wasted and no look towards the future.

The quote “The free-to-play spinoff of the Fable franchise was intended to be cross-play compatible between Windows 10 and Xbox One” is perhaps the most interesting one. You see, people would have lined up around corners to get a next gen Fable 4, and they would have paid full price for it. Even though Fable 3 was not the jump forward we got when Fable became Fable 2, but the materials created had left plenty of options for a new story, a new storyline in somewhat familiar and accepted surroundings.

What is it with large corporations, especially non-gaming ones, to think that their business solutions will work in an area that is all about art?

On one side there is all the benefits of a separate and different Fable game, yet we have clearly seen that Fable 1, 2 and 3 worked. In an age where good titles are everything, the massive delay Fable: Legends brought is one that gave despair to the gaming community. Consider that both Fable: Legends and No Mans Sky would have been late, yet a multi-billion dollar operation like Microsoft could not get their act on line, whilst Hello Games, a party of 15 people (and roughly £1,827.43 in the bank) are about to release one of the biggest ground breaking games in gaming history, can anyone see my reasoning here?

Gaming visionaries are rare, really rare, I am at least able to recognise those people. It seems to me that Microsoft failed on several levels. The IP that could be transformed and the IP that is still out there is worth billions. Someone like Richard Garriott is sitting on IP that could rival and even surpass Bethesda (this does not reflect negatively on Bethesda). Hello Games has created IP that can revolutionise RPG gaming and sandbox gaming as we know it, whilst Ubisoft, Electronic Arts and Microsoft are barely getting by.

Now in case of Electronic Arts there are still irons in the forge and it is possible that the silent kept Mass Effect 4 could break barriers too, we will find out much closer to the end of the year. I am not taking a look at Ubisoft for now. Every MMORPG has a start-up phase and a game with millions starting within 24 hours will create entirely unseen levels of bottlenecks. Let’s give them a little space!

Yet in all this gamers should see the premise that exists, because two small time developers (David Braben and Sean Murray) have achieved IP originality and growth that none of the large developers have achieved for some time. Large developers have been forgetting that art is the focus, a view Jason VandenBerghe has shown, which is why I have faith that For Honor will be the success I expect it to be. It does not matter that this is an Ubisoft title, I expect it to be a great title! Even though it is not my cup of Tea, it is very likely that I will get this game regardless. For the same reason that I will never part with Bloodborne, even though I am hopeless with this game. It is one of the most amazing titles to play, it shows excellence from the very first moment I started to play; everything regarded for Honor showed the same slither of uniqueness and excellence. The fact that Ubisoft confirmed that For Honor will have a complete single player campaign (perhaps even three, which is a speculation from my side), makes me more and more interested in this game. The release date is TBA, but when we look at the overall score, there is a worry (not specifically towards Ubisoft), the large players seem to have ignored (for the most) the creation of truly new IP, they rely on remastering of franchising, whilst there is still a massive area to explore. In an age where the next gen war is in full swing and the winner decides what platform makes the cut, in equal measure as Microsoft broke its own foot on claims regarding the initial Xbox One, we see a change due to Windows 10 that is fueling additional dangers and fears, herding a massive group of undecided players towards the corral of Sony. This is of curse good for Sony, but that means that Microsoft is either pulling out of the gaming front or transposing gaming for ‘generic entertaining downloads’ that is all about Digital Selling. It is their choice to make, which would allow Sony to become the unopposed winner for 5 generations of console.

In my personal opinion, all due to a ‘business’ core that looks at a spreadsheet and does not understand the gaming business. Sony will regard this as no great loss. The moment that Microsoft realises that the power given to Sony also deflates the future of the ‘Xbox Two’ (or whatever it will be called), we will see many overreactions and no resolution. This last part is not due to Lionhead, this is the beginning downward spiral as we are getting exposed to the ‘carefully released leaks’ of a next Xbox with changeable graphics card. The move by Microsoft to remove the gap between computer and console. As I see it, it will be the end of Microsoft gaming. The issues that graphics bring, often due to open drivers might give a better resolution, yet in addition it brings issues too. You only need to look at Arkham knight and how it is no longer a reality for PC’s, whilst running nicely on Consoles (in my case on the PS4) to see the dangers of this step. With Arkham knight there is no blame towards the developers. One source (extreme tech at http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/224216-is-nvidias-physx-causing-amd-frame-rate-problems) gives us “Ever since Gears of War Ultimate Edition came out last week, there’s been a rumour floating around that one reason the game runs so poorly, with so much stuttering on AMD hardware, is because Nvidia’s PhysX is actually running on the CPU“, which is now impacting Microsoft’s own product “Microsoft has launched the PC version of Gears of War Ultimate Edition, but the characteristics of the two titles couldn’t be more different. The new Gears of War is catastrophically broken on Radeon cards“. So how long until you get a card that makes old games trash and new games rubbish? This is the core that gamers will get to face. In addition, how will you enjoy your console when you end up buying a new graphics adapter at $1200 every other year? There is a reason why I decided on consoles. Yes, I accept that 4K gaming is not an option. However, the equal reality is that I have never stopped loving playing Diablo 3 on the PS4, as well as the fact that Minecraft has ZERO hardware requirements (regarding the graphics adapter) and is every bit as fun and addictive as those needing the Nvidia GFX 980 TI.

Was this ever a consideration for those in charge of making the call of change for the future?

The end of Xbox is not in sight, neither will that be the case for this generation (unless Microsoft goes lopsided on DMA issues). So what about the mice? The mice are the independent developers who softly walk by delivering awesome achievements, may we see many mice on our way to great gaming. The rats are the executive business ‘leaders’ who gotten themselves in a $$$ environment, not understanding that world they move in. Good luck I say! One of these mice is Tom Francis who is on route to bring us a game, currently not yet finished as far as I know. A game that given its size could become a desired game for both PSN and Xbox Live. No matter who gets it, it will be a winner for that brand. I believe it requires ‘better’ graphics and a little ‘more’, but in its basic setting it is as appealing as many ‘hi-res’ games currently for sale. The title is called ‘Heat Signature’ and I hope it will be playable this year. Did you count with me? Three original games, with the larger players showing indecently less promise and in addition the possible upcoming console dangers Microsoft might bring its consumers will impact the gaming scene in even larger ways. That market could shift towards Sony, with a market worth billions for the next real visionary.

Let the games begin!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 22, 2016 · 19:44

Within the realm of privacy

We all have an inherent need for privacy, we want things to be at our leisure of contemplated sharing. Yet, what is privacy? On one side we want privacy, but the next moment ladies will share whether their carpet is a landing strip or a martini glass, I for one do not care. If they want to share certain parts that’s fine with me. I am not too much about sharing. On the other side, apart from a few MP3 files, there is nothing interesting on my mobile. I reckon that my mobile is one of the dullest ones around.

So when I initially heard about the FBI wanting to access the iPhone of Syed Farook, I shrugged my shoulders and went ‘whatever!’ meaning that I was not opposed and I did not care. It was the techdirt site that has an interesting fact from the court case.

“Footnote 7, on page 18 details four possible ways that Apple and the FBI had previously discussed accessing the content on the device without having to undermine the basic security system of the iPhone, and one of them only failed because Farook’s employers reset the password after the attacks, in an attempt to get into the device“, so the boss went into ‘auto-moronic’ mode and did not check? He acted without knowing? So when we see “The ‘owner’ of course, being the San Bernardino Health Department, who employed Farook and gave him the phone. Basically, what this is saying is that if the password hadn’t been reset, it would have been possible to try to connect the phone to a ‘trusted’ network, and force an automatic backup to iCloud — which (as has been previously noted) was available to the FBI. But by ‘changing’ the password, apparently that option went away“, should we consider that his boss was stupid, or that his boss was scared he had done something wrong and this was his/her way of covering the mess up? (at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160219/17463033656/footnote-reveals-that-san-bernardino-health-dept-reset-syed-farooks-password-which-is-why-were-now-this-mess.shtml).

For the record, that was clear speculation on my side!

What happened was that Apple, the firm that initially ‘screwed over’ its customer base with error 53. A few days ago, the Guardian reported ‘Apple ordered to decrypt iPhone of San Bernardino shooter for FBI‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/apple-ordered-to-hack-iphone-of-san-bernardino-shooter-for-fbi). In there we see the important quote: “In 2014, Apple began making iPhones with additional encryption software that they said they could not unlock, even if faced with a court order. Apple said this was done in the name of consumer privacy and cybersecurity, but the company has been locked in a public feud with the FBI since“. I understand that there is a need for privacy. My issue is why THIS level of privacy is needed. One could speculate that this is to keep the financial adviser’s customer base happy. I reckon that those people look for other means the moment their actions could be monitored, or investigated afterwards. Again, speculation from my side.

You see, I do not comprehend why law abiding citizens are so in fear, of what the government finds out. Most people can’t stop selfie themselves, their fashion and body parts to social media on a global scale. They tend to Facebook all details, especially when they are far away from home to ‘all’ their friends, so that the department of discreet entry and removal operations can empty their homestead in the meantime. With so much sharing, what privacy do you think you still have?

So back to the Granny Smith of automation, the next article (again the Guardian) gives us ‘FBI escalates war with Apple: ‘marketing’ bigger concern than terror‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/fbi-apple-san-bernardino-shooter-court-order-iphone), here we see the subtitle ‘Court filing from Department of Justice says Apple is more concerned with ‘its marketing strategy’ than helping FBI unlock San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone‘, which is fair enough when we consider that a failed marketing equals an alleged death in those houses. The quote “Cook called for public debate and has been backed in his fight by some of tech’s biggest names, including Google’s chief executive Sundar Pichai, WhatsApp and whistle-blower Edward Snowden“. I think that this is less about Americans and more about the 7 billion non-Americans that have this false fear of the CIA and the NSA. Yet in all this, the only true group to fear this is the 0.0001% of the population, I do not even register and in that regard most do not even register. Like the previous mass surveillance marketing ploy, simple fear mongering.

Now, let it be said that I have nothing against a person’s privacy and there is nothing wrong with wanting privacy, yet when we consider the 1.5 billion on Facebook, the 100 million on Instagram, the 307 million on Twitter and over 100 million users on Pinterest, we have well over 80% of the iPhone users on social media all sharing from mere events attended up to the grooming of the most private of parts, Which makes the shout for privacy a little too hilarious.

So how does this fit legally?

Well first there is the part that the DoJ is now relying on. It is the All Writs Act of 1789, which states “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law“, which sounds rather nice,

Yet the fact that the DoJ needs to rely on an act that has, according to several press sources, only been used thrice is a little too novel.

When we consider that the ‘self-destruct’ was enable by Farook’s boss (making the device useless to thieves), only leaves the DoJ without options. What is interesting is when the last cloud backup has happened, had it happened at all? Too many question that are all in the realm of speculation and none of it gives way to legislation. The question becomes should it be? I am not opposing the FBI, CIA or NSA. Yet these alphabet groups do know that they are fishing in murky waters. You cannot expect a corporation to set a product meant for 1,000 million to have options for the internally build exemption of 5,000-7,000 users. The math just does not add up!

I was talking about the legality, so let’s continue there.

In McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd,’ and the appeal, British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Cowell (Representing the Estate of McCabe (deceased)), exposed some of the difficulties that plaintiffs who sue large corporations may face in litigation involving access to documentation. The Victorian Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision which had struck out the defence of a tobacco company (‘BAT’). The basis for the first instance decision was that BAT had systematically destroyed documents that might have been relevant to the plaintiff’s case. It important to state WHO destroyed documents. You see, in case of Farook it was the boss who ‘destroyed’ the options for information retrieval. The important issue is that INTENT becomes near impossible to prove. In addition that case gives us: “The High Court declined the opportunity to clarify the law in this important area by refusing leave to appeal. The effect of this case, absent statutory reform, is that corporations may destroy potential evidence provided that their actions do not constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice or a contempt of court. These are notoriously difficult to establish” (source: Playing for keeps? Tobacco litigation, document retention, corporate culture and legal ethics by Matthew Harvey and Suzanne Lemire. The reason for going towards this case is that the entire approach to mobile architecture and auto-backup could instigate updates where the mirror is encrypted extern from Apple. Which means that any phone would have an XML set-up and data object, but the object would be irretrievable. The ‘responsibility’ for proper password maintenance would be kept with the ‘client’ or end user. Taking Apple out of the equation leaving the DoJ with the apple pie made from the famous Granny Smith (AKA Janet Abigail Doe).

This takes the entire cyber conversation towards Spoliated Evidence, where we see “a party is faced with the fact that certain key evidence has been destroyed, altered, or simply lost“, destroyed implies intent, but proving that is next to impossible (which got us the tobacco case. Altered is basically what the DoJ faces as the boss decided to reset the password, again malicious intent becomes next to impossible to prove, whilst lost is not in play in this case but could clearly complicate the issue if that was the case, as the DoJ would have no implied evidence at all.

This entire endeavour goes even further south when we consider Federal Insurance Co. v. Allister, 622 So. 2d 1348, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), where the Fourth District decided to set forth five factors to consider before imposing sanctions for spoliation of evidence. They were:

  • whether there is prejudice;
  • whether the prejudice can be cured;
  • the practical importance of the evidence;
  • the good faith or bad faith surrounding the loss of evidence;
  • Possible abuse if the evidence is not excluded.

As bad faith is now linked to the degree of wilfulness, we get back to intent. If mere ‘negligent loss’ does not cut the cake and the cake cannot be devoured without the essential evidence, the entire issue goes nowhere really fast. Basically, it boils down to the boss of Farook having one set of glasses on with the limiting mindset of cost if his mobile was ‘abused in usage’, leaving Apple in the clear shrugging their shoulders going ‘not my problem now’, whilst in all this we are left with no evidence linking to intent or malice. That small scope that was available will in all expectations to be diminished further. It basically solves all of Apple’s problems.

In the need for privacy we have gone from exceptionally rare to just hilariously ridiculous. The Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/20/apple-fbi-iphone-explainer-san-bernardino) shows in equal measure another side. Which comes from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat from Oregon. Here we read “Some are calling for the United States to weaken Americans’ cybersecurity by undermining strong encryption with backdoors for the government,” he wrote on Medium on Friday afternoon. “But security experts have shown again and again that weakening encryption will make it easier for foreign hackers, criminals and spies to break into Americans’ bank accounts, health records and phones, without preventing terrorists from ‘going dark’“, as such correctly implying that the medication will end up being a lot worse than the disease they face. In addition to that, should Farook have relied on another path, for example receive orders and message a ‘guild’ within a Facebook RPG game, the wasted time on the iPhone becomes nothing more than an iconic episode of the Comedy Capers. With these games receiving billions of messages a day, parsing though 1 of a dozen games would take years. The fact that none of this required any encrypted android or IOS system, just a mere desktop like millions of students use makes for the case against the Alphabet teams. When looking at Extremetech, we see a quote that is important in all this, the quote: “how terrorist organization uses social media to spread its message and radicalize curious readers. GWU’s research found that while ISIS uses a wide range of services, including Facebook, Google Plus, Kik, WhatsApp, and Tumblr, Twitter is the social media site of choice. Twitter already patrols and bans the accounts of ISIS supporters“, it casually forgets the 3-4 dozen accounts that do not raise any flags, the accounts that ACTUALLY bring details of the attacks to the transgressors.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,