Category Archives: Law

The dangers of appeasing

We all know it, we still do it, although most people tend to be cautious of the setting where and who they appease, but it still happens and for the most there is no impact. For the mot there are no consequences. Yet in some cases there are, yet are we aware? Are the appeased parties aware? Because that side still matters, the appeaser and appeased are often, nearly always going from a place of innocence, or at least not knowing what will happen. 

And today the BBC gives us one side. The article ‘Clearview AI fined in UK for illegally storing facial images’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61550776) has a side to it, one that most are eagerly or unknowingly ignoring. 

We see “Clearview AI takes publicly posted pictures from Facebook, Instagram and other sources, usually without the knowledge of the platform or any permission. John Edwards, UK Information Commissioner, said: “The company not only enables identification of those people, but effectively monitors their behaviour and offers it as a commercial service. That is unacceptable.”” My initial answer is ‘And?’ This is a foundation of Facebook, it is granular data analyses and lets face it, the images were given to the internet and “but effectively monitors their behaviour” is merely the next step. You see, there is a side that we want to ignore. There is the setting of ‘publicly posted pictures’, it therefor becomes PUBLIC DOMAIN (in some cases), granted, not in all cases and there we need to ask Meta whether THEIR rules were broken. And then we get the whopper “People expect that their personal information will be respected, regardless of where in the world their data is being used.” Where is that set in stone? I mean, really. Where is the law that states that this has to happen? And then we get the part that matters “When Italy fined the firm €20m (£16.9m) earlier this year, Clearview hit back, saying it did not operate in any way that laid it under the jurisdiction of the EU privacy law the GDPR. Could it argue the same in the UK, where it also has no operations, customers or headquarters?” And now we see the setting “it did not operate in any way that laid it under the jurisdiction of the EU privacy law the GDPR” I am not debating or opposing, I am asking. Because if that is the case, if that is true, then the actions against Clearview are close to pointless and lets be clear Russia and China might be doing EXACTLY the same thing. It was on the internet and this is not new. To see that, we need to go back to September 7th 2021 when I wrote ‘As banks cut corners’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/09/07/as-banks-cut-corners/) there it was banks versus organised crime and the image (see below) remains the same, but now it is set in a commercial stage with connected images to boot.

The BBC article is less than an hour old. I wrote about similar settings out in the open 8 months ago. So when we get John Edwards, UK Information Commissioner stating “The company not only enables identification of those people, but effectively monitors their behaviour and offers it as a commercial service. That is unacceptable.” Consider the word “unacceptable”, he does not state that it is illegal, interesting is it not? So exactly what are these fines? On what legal transgression are they based? 

We see the data protection act parts when we are given:

use the information of people in the UK in a way that is fair and transparent
have a lawful reason for collecting people’s information
have a process in place to stop the data being retained indefinitely
meet the higher data protection standards required for biometric data

So what defines ‘fair and transparent’? I know what the words mean, but what do they mean here? Have a lawful reason? It is public domain, a collector has a perfectly valid reason, does he/she not? And when we get to the word indefinitely, we can set a stage of 100 years, because that is not indefinite, so where is the definition of indefinite given? As for biometric data, we accept that “physical characteristics — that can be used to identify individuals” there is however one side that is less clear. It is “used to identify individuals” what if the photo is not the identifying part, but the data is? I am merely stating a fact, most photo’s are not the greatest source of identification, for example (see below) how tall is Peter Dinklage? This photo will not give that away, will it? 

And this data protection act only works for the UK, if the British people were photographed outside of the UK, the photo is out of consideration, is it not? Consider ‘people in the UK’, what if they were in Rome, Amsterdam or Brazil. How would that rule apply? All questions that come up and there might be for a lot of them rules that stop certain part, but not all parts and Clearview has 20,000,000,000 images. We would need to check them all and that will take a group of 20,000 people months, if not a whole year. So who pays for that part? All whilst there are parts that rely on Public Domain. It is a dangerous setting. I get it, it is dangerous and my part of the banks, merely makes things worse, makes the dat more complete and that is not merely banks. Consider the data Dunnhumby has, the data collectors, the panel creators. Dozens of data agencies and consider that several are outside the UK and EU, what happens when that data is combined? This mess is a whole lot worse than anyone considers and it was not due to big tech, it was due to greed driven people seeking new currencies and people are currency. I am not stating that Clearview is innocent, but they got here because the laws were lacking for decades. Now that the data sources are there, it is already too late. Whatever music John Edwards, UK Information Commissioner is playing, it suits his ego and the ego of his friends. For the people it is largely too late and it has been for a while, a setting I saw a long time ago and I illustrated it last September. I knew this because I used to do this and I was good, very good at doing this. So I leave you to wonder just how protected you are, because you are not, but you will learn that soon enough.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, IT, Media, Science

Slippery slope

There are feelings of satisfaction to be heard, and you can hear them everywhere. The setting that ‘UK government sets out plans to rein in Big Tech’ but they are loud noises, having only negative impacts. The BBC reports (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-61342576) “The new Digital Markets Unit (DMU) will be given powers to clamp down on “predatory practices” of some firms. The regulator will also have the power to fine companies up to 10% of their global turnover if they fail to comply.” My problem is not the merely the statement, it is the clear definition of what constitutes ‘predatory practices’, you see it is nice to see “Google and Facebook”, but where is Microsoft in all this? Then we get the debatable setting of “Digital minister Chris Philp said the government wanted to “level the playing field” in the technology industry, in which a few American companies have been accused of abusing their market dominance.” I wonder how delusional Chris Philp really is. Levelling the playing field? How about the others learn a trade? How about the magpies of the tech industry grow a pair and actually set innovation in motion? Is that too much to ask for? And this short sightedness will cost the EU and the UK a lot more than they figure on. Whilst we see failure after failure by Microsoft. You remember them? The people who pushed Netscape out of business, where was the level playing field then? And in all this the setting of predatory practices is not explained, it is a mere emotional stage setting. I now have over half a dozen tech IP, you think I will share that with Microsoft morons? Do you think I will set it in the UK? Then we get “It added it wants news publishers to be paid fairly for their content – and will give the regulator power to resolve conflicts.” Did anyone consider that news agencies do not have to put their materials on Facebook? I have received all kinds of links. The Dutch Telegraaf, the Australian Courier Mail and when ever I open these messages that I never asked for I get (see image below). And they are not the only one. It is the news publishers way to advertise and who pays for that advertisement? 

It seems that we see a one sided story without too much investigations and explanations, so are we surprised that Apple, Google and Meta are not responding? 

Then we get the danger setting, we are given “It will also make it easier for people to switch between phone operating systems such as Apple iOS or Android and social media accounts, without losing data and messages.” Did anyone consider that it will be playing in the hands of organised crime? Did anyone investigate the claims of these so called critics? With complete disclosure of their identities and their educational skills? So when we are given “The UK government said its new rules could increase the “bargaining power” of national and regional newspapers.” I believe that these players are realising that they are no longer relevant and that some will vanish when Meta becomes a reality. And in that stage Chris Philp is reduced to a simple tool, a tool of the greedy who suddenly realise that before they get to the end of their lives, the well dried up. No one is setting the stage that Google Ads is the most fair and the most engaging form of advertising, it offered the advertiser value and choice, something they never had in the past. And Microsoft was nowhere to be seem and when they did come their product was just too mediocre. 

But that is not the big issue, the big issue is that it opens the stage for Chinese solutions that are nowhere in the UK and where the UK has no say over it and that stage is forgotten until it is too late. The internet is global and how long until the people go to a .cn location for their social interactions, their news and their ‘solutions’? How long until these same tech bitches start crying that the bulk of revenue is now going to China? The UK is embarking on one of the most slippery slopes and the news outlets no longer have credibility (with the exception of the Times and the Guardian), so how long until the people are smitten with Chinese glamour magazines? With Chinese news and with Chinese solutions? You think it is never going to happen? Think again, Tik Tok is a Chinese innovation, and they have a pipeline of innovations ready to deploy. So whilst the DMU and debatable ‘critics’ attack the practices of Google, Meta and Apple. Make sure you see the whole field. We do not want to switch between iOS and Android. I am an Android user and that is where I stay. I have nothing against Apple, I have their iPad Air and I am happy with it, after the 1st generation iPad this was a step up and I love it. But I have no intention to get the iPhone and I am not alone, just as there are iPhone users who have zero intentions to switch to Android, as such I see “It will also make it easier for people to switch between phone operating systems such as Apple iOS or Android” as a facilitation towards others, not users, as such the issues with this article stacks up and before I forget it, I can export my phone data to all kinds of solutions and Apple has the same, so who is Chris Philp catering to? In that stage I have a few additional questions for the writer James Clayton. We see a limited view on a stage that is kept partly in the dark, why is that? 

I will let you ponder that part of the equation.

Leave a comment

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

Return of Common Cyber Sense

So, is it the return of CCS, is it Son of CCS? With all the 60’s movie references it can go either way, like Son of Blob, Return of the Predator, the Swamp Man strikes again, take your pick. We can go in any direction. And it all starts with the NOS (Dutch News) article of ‘Hackers stole 3 gigabytes of data from Spanish Prime Minister’s phone’ (at https://nos.nl/l/2427306). There we get exposed to “The hackers who used Pegasus spyware to access the phone of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez last year were able to extract 3 gigabytes of information from the device. They also managed to penetrate the telephone of the Minister of Defense, although less data was stolen from it. The hack of the Spanish Prime Minister’s phone came to light by chance during a routine check, it turned out today. The government was informed this weekend. The telephones of all cabinet members are now being searched for the espionage software.” As such we now have two settings, the first one is linked to ‘State of what?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/04/24/state-of-what/) where some attacked the NSO on Catalan settings. Now we see that two Spanish governmental targets were out in the open, and its Prime Minister was not too intelligent and lacking Common Cyber Sense. 

So in what universe is it a good idea to put 3GB of data on your mobile? I have (by choice) 224MB of data on my phone (over 6 years) and well over 80% are ASCII files (a collection of articles I have written). 

A mobile phone is a transmitter at rest, no matter how much you run, as such it is a trove of information for any hacker with anti-Spanish sentiments. So in what universe should we see “Spanish opposition parties speak of “a very big coincidence” that the burglary into government telephones is just now becoming known. Others speak of a smoke screen. Already two weeks ago it became clear that 63 Catalan politicians and activists had Pegasus on their phones. Among them were members of the European Parliament, Catalan regional presidents, lawyers and political organisations”? Well the answer is none. You see the setting that we are a witness of shows a massive lack of Common Cyber Sense. And in this consider “Pegasus is sent via apps, a WhatsApp message from friends or acquaintances or an email. When the recipient clicks on such a message, the spy program settles in the phone. Secret services have access to all possible data such as passwords, telephone conversations, location or photos” You see, this is a side that might be on me. People like that have a work phone and a private phone. The work phone has no need for WhatsApp, Facebook, or a whole range of other social apps. Having them on your work phone is folly, extremely stupid and massively shortsighted. When you are a governmental tool (of any kind) you need to adhere to Common Cyber Sense. It applies to any Prime Minister, Defense minister, minister and that list goes on for a while. The only exception might be the cultural minister, but then that person tends to not have any classified data, or classified data of a limited stretch. So when we see “The organisation Citizen Lab, which previously revealed that the 63 Catalans were targeted, is drawing no conclusions about who is responsible for the covert operations against the Catalans. “But the circumstances indicate involvement of the Spanish government,” the authors of the report believe.” OK, that is fair, we are all seemingly nodding towards the Spanish team, but it is assumption. And when we have that stage, the lack of Cyber Sense is making it all into a farce. So whoever hacked the Spanish, might through that have gotten access to two teams for the price of $100,000 per phone. A good deal if any. 

So at what time will governmental teams (on a global setting) decide to embrace Common Cyber Sense, with the added realisation that apps like WhatsApp and several other have no business being on your work mobile? 

In this, my message to these politicians is as follows: You are (for the most) not an A-lister, a movie star or a social media revelation. For the most, you are all governmental tools and you need to take responsibility for the stupidity you employ. Keep personal stuff OFF your work phone, give the hackers a challenge, not a trip to easy street, Common Cyber Sense has reason, take it seriously.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics, Science

Blackmail as premeditation

These is a side to everything. Peace, War and everything in-between is in the eye of the beholder, in the wake of political needs some will say, but that too is a side of a mere point of view. So when I saw the Bloomberg article (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-28/manchester-city-s-owner-helps-usher-more-russian-tycoons-to-uae) titled ‘Manchester City’s Owner Helps Usher More Russian Tycoons to UAE’ we see the side that many shy away from. It starts with “Sheikh Mansour also has a behind-the-scenes role that’s become increasingly important in recent months: Helping manage relationships with wealthy Russians looking to move money into the UAE, according to several people familiar with Abu Dhabi’s engagement with Russians, who requested anonymity as the information isn’t public.” With the added “Even as the U.S., EU and other countries have blitzed Russia with thousands of new financial restrictions, making it the world’s most-sanctioned nation, the UAE hasn’t imposed any. Officials in the Middle Eastern nation have taken the stance that Abu Dhabi respects international law but isn’t required to follow measures implemented by specific countries and that the UAE has the right to adopt its own policies, several people familiar with their thinking said.” It is supported by “That approach, though, has fuelled concern among some Western officials who are worried about holes in their own sanctions programs. Earlier this month, Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo voiced Washington’s worries about Russian tycoons moving assets to the UAE in a call with UAE officials, two people with knowledge of the discussions said”. You see, the setting is even more different from what we see. You see, some places cannot be touched, some ships are unattainable and other material matters cannot be touched as the owners identities are hidden from view. There are two parts in all this. 

In the first there is the matter of his highness Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. He is from the UAE, he does what is best for the UAE, a Emiratian as it were (is that the right pronunciation?) The larger setting is not what he does, it is that there is no war with Russia in the UAE, more important, the blackmail grip on these oligarchs is not entirely legal. Lets look at the clear evidence. These oligarchs are Russians, they therefor embraced friendships with the ruler of that place (Vladimir Putin), this was never a crime. Then the Ukrainian issues started and the oligarchs were split in two teams (as Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich most likely would say) those who openly support Putin and those who do not. Take Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich he is also a philanthropist and the former owned of Chelsea FC (they might be the same). So are the acts against him valid? Consider what he did in the BEGINNING of the war. It casts a shadow over the acts against the oligarchs. And the demented statement by President Biden “We’re going to seize their yachts, their luxury homes, and other ill-begotten gains”, really? What laws were broken, what prosecution was not correctly made? I do not care either way, but there are laws and yes, Russia has to pay for EVERY kopek of damage that they created in Ukraine. But should the oligarchs? Perhaps those in Russia, but those abroad? Those who openly supported Putin’s war in Ukraine perhaps, the rest? I feel uncertain. 

And when we reconsider “some Western officials who are worried about holes in their own sanctions programs” we see the folly of their taxation laws, the holes are large enough to park a 500 feet yacht in. Failure after failure and the entire emotional setting does not help any, mainly because the emotional setting is not a legal one and now we see that Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan has a case to present to his nation. And if this works the UAE will see another wave of long term investments. Long after the US is deserted by too many players, the UAE will hold on. Is it fair? Fair does not come into it. These oligarchs are not involved in a war, they are not involved in bombing the Ukraine. That is the Russian government, the Russian army, navy and airforce. If an oligarch is part of those, then yes, he (or she) become fair game. And should the American government object, then perhaps they can pull the papers on a place called IG Farben and certain people that were given options in the US. So how come that BASF and Siemens were allowed to continue AFTER WW2? Did they not have factories in Auschwitz? As I see it, the US does not have a billionaire problem, it has a hypocrisy problem and the refusal to overhaul tax laws is pretty much a top 3 item in American economy. As I personally see it Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan found a way to propel his nation (as a citizen), is he to blame? I do not believe that he is. Yes, some people and a lot of Ukrainians have an issue with that and I accept that the Ukrainians are not happy, they have every right to be, but laws are laws and there is a dangerous line that the west is trying to avoid. It is a dangerous line as it leads to WW3 and these nations are either fully committed or they are not. I cannot judge here, because war is a dangerous play, a World War even more so and there could be nuclear repercussions, we need to accept that and that is the red line that a lot of nations are trying to avoid. It makes perfect sense. If there is on upside to all this (the UAE) it will be that the harbour that they hand the oligarchs is also the roof that stops them from becoming a nuclear target. It could be seen by some as premeditated blackmail. Can we blame them, or blame anyone for having that thought? The UAE must do what is best for the UAE and as I see it, that is exactly what Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan seems to be doing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Bring out your CV

The CBC had two articles last night, the first one I dealt with in the previous tory. This one can be found (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cse-candidates-hiring-cyber-1.6426275) ‘Ottawa needs more codebreakers — but spy agency says finding them isn’t easy’ and that is not even half the story. It is not a Canadian issue, it is a global issue. So when we see “Canada’s electronic spy agency, the Communications Security Establishment, is set to receive a large influx of funding to launch cyber operations and ward off attacks on government servers, power grids and hospitals.” It’s always nice to receive funding. But the reality is a little harder. I spoke about part of this in ‘Red flags’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/02/24/red-flags/) there were too many red flags and they are eager to charge a fair penny. Summits, courses and in some cases you do not even need an IT education, but a bachelor education is expected. It is a Wild Wild Cyber West out there and the problem is that there are too few stages where we can separate the good from the shallow. So when we see “CSE, which gathers and decodes signals intelligence and is also in charge of technology security for the government, says it receives 10,000 to 15,000 job applications per year. But only about one or two candidates out of 100 applicants go on to be hired after the skills testing and background security checks.” We see part of the problem. Have you seen it? It is seen in “about one or two candidates out of 100 applicants go on to be hired after the skills testing and background security checks”, the funnel needs inverting. Instead of seeking in the same place, seek somewhere else. Seek in the military and governmental technical support places. Seek in the places you overlook and hire these people. It is nice to hire that one bright light. We all want that, but who considered hiring the 20-50 that can overcome the ‘background security checks’ then start TEACHING them. Out of the 50 you educate whilst they are employed in several places you end up with 10-25 people ready to take the challenge instead of relying on the 1-2 candidates. When you need 1500 of them, my approach makes sense. Yes, you can try to get to the techies from the University of Toronto, but so is commercial land and they pay a lot better, so you need to hope to get the few with a calling, or you open the stage to a larger group and set them in all kinds of governmental fields, where there is a large shortage too. All sides that needs attending too and not all will end with the CSE, GCHQ or whatever Australia and New Zealand have, but all these governments have large shortages including their Cyber police and a few other places. It is time to change the way hiring is done all over the Commonwealth field because they are all coming up short and having different divisions that have shortages, so why are they not taking a hard look at what else is possible? If not these places will all end up in a bidding war like they saw in the 90’s and they will come up short again. Oh and whilst Amazon is desperately seeking 250,000 people and where do you think they will look next? The second plan (my crazy wild idea) gives the people a long term plan, long term employment and a larger setting of choice with one application instead of 5-15 applications. 

But this is only possible when some people take a long hard look at what they used to do and see what COULD be done. 750 application runs, or 60 application runs, what makes more sense? I will let you decide.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Science

Loser investigations unlimited

This all started the day before I wrote ‘Comedy Capers it is not’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/04/19/comedy-capers-it-is-not/) a week ago. It was about an abduction that had the Canadian police in a twist. I reckon that this is a case that almost no police force has ever seen before, so there was no blame, there were no real issues, it was one of those weird events that make no sense. I get that. So I was quite surprised to see (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ex-boyfriend-elnaz-hajtamiri-private-investigator-1.6427398) where we are treated to ‘Elnaz Hajtamiri’s ex-boyfriend hired a private investigator to watch her before Wasaga Beach abduction’, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Clowns) gives us “The former boyfriend of Elnaz Hajtamiri hired a private investigator to keep tabs on her location in the days and weeks before she was violently abducted from Wasaga Beach, Ont., on Jan. 12, CBC News has learned”, as well as “Investigations Plus Ltd. conducted surveillance of missing woman at 2 locations in December and January” and to be honest the very first thought I had was “What kind of a loser is Elnaz Hajtamiri?” More important, in light of what has transpired, why did Investigations Plus Ltd. not inform the police MONTHS ago? And in all this the statement “One of the sources said investigators with the firm conducted surveillance on Jan. 10 and 11 outside the Wasaga Beach home where Hajtamiri was staying with relatives. An investigator, however, was called off on the morning of Jan. 12, the source says — the same day three men dressed in police gear forced their way into the house and abducted the 37-year-old Iranian immigrant.” Makes me wonder if Investigations Plus Ltd. could possibly be involved. They conduct surveillance, they get called OFF the job ON THE DAY she gets kidnapped and no one in Investigations Plus Ltd. wonders what on earth is going on? There were issues with the THREE trackers, but does the police know who owns these trackers? Are they all owned by Investigations Plus Ltd.? Questions are forming in my mind and the setting that Investigations Plus Ltd. kept the police in the dark for months is a rather large one, especially when we learn that they got called OFF the job that very same day and that is also a matter that that requires a lot of thought on what Mohamad Lilo had been up to. Especially as (I personally reckon) she ended the relationship in October 2021. As such, Mohamad Lilo hires a detective months later? What a loser! 

Now, we can blame some police members, but it would be wrong. I reckon that they will have to hold a rather large limelight on Investigations Plus Ltd. and their activities and also why no one from there made ANY mention of the investigation. In addition there are the trackers and who owned them (the timeline of the trackers) becomes a larger item in this. And more important where they all owned by Investigations Plus Ltd.? 

As I read the article, I see question after question come forward, and I reckon that they are on the mind of Ontario provincial police detective inspector Martin Graham, in addition to this, I reckon that there will be a lot of questions on the investigators (at https://investigationsplusltd.com) You see “We are dynamic professionals with a flair for solving complex cases that has been recognised by the insurance industry, law firms, large corporations, small businesses.” I reckon they forgot about the part of “losers and stalkers who might have criminal intent” I reckon it should be on their website, so if you want to become a part of that ‘renowned team’ you might need to reconsider what kind of work you could get involved in. And if you wonder why my view is so negative, the idea that investigators keep silent for this amount of time is a very different setting and anyone making claims towards ‘confidentiality of the client’ in a case that could involve them in capital crimes is debatable to say the least. 

Detective inspector Martin Graham had no chance from the start, the dice were weighted and stacked against him. Several factors are not adding up and the police is not to blame here. But we should all keep our eyes on Investigations Plus Ltd. Their setting is definitely not on the up and up as I personally see it. But that is it, it is merely my view on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military

Inclination of letters

We tend to act in certain ways. I am no exception (as you are about to find out). Yet, before we have a go at the BBC and another go at the ICIJ, lets take another look at how Microsoft has FAILED its audience. Now, this is not out in the open and I do not really reveal what has happened, but I am making a jab at it as it will set fortunes to Adobe and this is for their eyes only. So, there I was watching several presentations in the last 24 hours (from several sources) and something occurred to me, it was the third time when I heard something. My mind started to race and suddenly I wondered why Microsoft had left all this in the open, unsolved, unattended for a DECADE. It was so out in the open that I was wondering what on earth they were doing. Yes, their 365 solution is all about making sure their customers pay, and that I fine, but to leave gaps in their office solution out in the open for over a decade, how stupid is that. Yet, no fears. Adobe will fill up that hole nicely with their adjusted suite of programs which will start a new age in corporate needs and Microsoft will be looked at with the look of ‘How could you have been this stupid to such a degree?’ Yet I will not care, I will be giggling in a corner. Watching the wannabe’s seek jobs and seek solutions. 

So now we get to the main event. It is the BBC article ‘Hidden wealth of one of Putin’s ‘inner circle’ revealed’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61028866). There is so much wrong here, I almost do not know where to start, so the beginning it is. 

We see from the start “They reveal how a Swiss tattoo artist was falsely named as owner of a company that transferred over $300m (£230m) to firms linked to Suleiman Kerimov. They also show how $700m of transactions – and the secret ownership of luxury properties – went undetected. The investigation exposes failures of the banking system and the obstacles impeding Western sanctions.” It sounds nice, it really does. But lets take a closer look, shall we? 

Transactions worth $700m linked to Suleiman Kerimov and his closest business associates were reported as suspicious by banks between 2010 and 2015” So was anything done? Were ACTUAL crimes committed? ‘Suspicious’ is merely a word that shows no side towards legality. Then we get “Swiss accountant Alexander Studhalter posed as owner of properties actually owned by Mr Kerimov” So were laws broken? Was anything illegal done? The BBC shows itself to be as big a loser as the ICIJ shown it is. And when we get “Mr Kerimov was the secret owner of properties on the French Riviera and in London, including the most expensive terraced property ever sold in the UK” we see again the small setting ‘If he was a real secret owner, how did they find out?’ But the larger stage is whether LAWS were broken. The BBC does not really inform us of this, do they? They merely illuminate how useless journalists have become. Who is Suleiman Kerimov? I actually do not care. He is not part of my life, I never expect that to happen. But the BBC, the player claiming to be so trustworthy, where are they? Where is the list of broken laws? Where is the EVIDENCE showing us that laws were broken in Switzerland, the UK, and France? We can grasp at the Oligarch foundation all we want, but if we are a nation of laws we need to be shown the laws that were optionally (and allegedly) transgressed upon. So when we are finally given “Experts say Western countries have a lot of work to do because, for years, they have taken a lax approach to the fight against dirty money and failed to hold banks to account.” We see a clear path to something I have been stating for DECADES. Internationally tax laws need to be overhauled and politicians were lax, politicians were all about inaction and now we see the BS tap turned open all whilst we are not given the real deal. What laws were transgressed upon? I reckon that the answer will be none. I cannot tell because I am not a lawyer, I am not a tax lawyer and I am not an attorney. I have my Master of Intellectual property and when (or if) Amazon (or Google) buys my IP, my ship will arrive and I can retire nicely. Yet in this I have questions and the BBC answers none of them, so when we are finally given “In 2020, Swiru Holding accepted its involvement in evading the tax and was fined €1.4m and made to pay another €10.3m to settle the case. Mr Kerimov’s lawyer put out a statement saying that the French courts had “officially dismissed the allegations made by the former Nice Prosecutor against Suleiman Kerimov of having carried out money-laundering operations.”” We basically see a fine less then €12,000,000 for avoiding a taxable amount of €127,000,000 so as it seems crime pays and that is the part we do get to see. So when we are given how $700m of transactions were seemingly ‘undetected’ were laws broken? We are shown the transgression of 20% which was dealt with, but we have no information on the large amount and whether laws were broken. How come? We are given “The transaction was just one in a series of wire transfers carried out from 2010 to 2015 totalling $700m reported to US authorities as suspicious”, yet there is a large gap between ‘suspicious’ and ‘criminal’ and neither the ICIJ or the BBC give us anything on that, merely the alleged indignation. So is the BBC as useless as the ICIJ is showing itself to be? That is my question and I feel that this is not on James Oliver, Nassos Stylianou or Steve Swann. I believe that it is Francesca Mary Unsworth, chief editor of BBC News that needs to come forward and do some explaining on what should be seen as reporting and what should be seen as trivial filtering of news. 

I will let you decide what is what, but I reckon that the entire ICIJ mess needs a long hard look by a few people in all kinds of business walks.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

57 seconds until the next sucker

Yes, I have heralded Meta as the next setting that will bring them billions. That is if they do not screw it up beforehand and the BBC gives us two examples. The first (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60789802) was given to us last night with the byline ‘Australia sues Facebook over scam ads impersonating celebrities’. In that article we see “The tech giant had engaged in “false, misleading or deceptive conduct” by knowingly hosting the ads for bogus cryptocurrencies, a regulator said. The US company could face financial and other penalties.

Meta is yet to comment but has previously said it is committed to keeping scammers off its platforms.” We are also given “The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says the ads in question used Facebook’s algorithms to target susceptible users and featured bogus quotes by Australian celebrities.” All elements of deceptive conduct, all because Meta does not properly vet the people advertising, and this is on Meta. There is no excuse, there is no “We need this advertisement to be completed today” that is merely evidence that the advertising party did not properly time manage their project. I have seen decades of stupidity that way, decades of people on the phone “I am on route, I will be there in 5 minutes” all whilst we know that it takes well over 15 minutes to get there. No time management, no proper project management and decades of excuses sees the wrong people enabling stupidity. And now Meta will feel the brung of that impact. And that was merely example one.

In example 2 (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60348334) we are given ‘‘Dangerous’ tanning products promoted by influencers’ influencers are a different story, it will still hurt Meta, but there will also be a larger station for Google. Influencers will need to feel the brunt of choices. I am not talking about people like Georgia Love (see yesterday’s article for that) but people that use their influencer status to promote “It is illegal in the UK to sell nasal sprays or injectables made with “melanotan-2”, an artificial hormone that can accelerate tanning.” Here these influencers need to learn the lesson of not doing their homework. I say that all their video’s are at that point set to zero counter, they lose all their revenue and their channel is removed. Now this is a harder setting. We see “It is illegal in the UK”, so if this influencer is American? We get it and I do not know whether this is illegal in the US, Canada, or the EU. But influencers are so driven to numbers, they do not check where they are watched. There should be an impact, but fairness remains part of this. Yet, when we see “BBC News has spoken to 20 people who have experienced complications, including lesions, fungal infections and abscesses.” Is it truly about fairness? Lives were put in danger and the influencers do not have a really good excuse. I reckon that influencers need to abstain of any product that could impact the health of another, but how to recognise that? There is a dangerous stage, so to stop it in it track now before there is a full 5G network seems essential. Personally I believe that there is no social media source that gives proper investment opportunities. An actual opportunity is for a chosen few, not social media. Social media is for blanket media solutions, get in as many as you can, as quickly as you can. As such I feel a little less for the person with “a consumer who lost more than A$650,000 (£360,000; $480,000) due to one of these scams being falsely advertised as an investment opportunity on Facebook.” Someone who does that does that is too stupid for words. Vetting goes both ways and any investor vets the sources they have and Facebook (Meta) is not a source, neither is Twitter and neither is YouTube. All three could open the door to a direct location that is optionally a good investment, but the chances of that are slim, very slim. Consider the people falling for the Facebook apartment? Someone has a rare option for an apartment in location X where finding a place is hard. Now consider that this person has friends, would you not offer it to your friends first? Would you prefer that a personal friend has a nice new place instead of a person you do not know? That is the stage and it applies to investments a much as it would apply to housing. When dealing with strangers it is in that same setting, direct and to the point. Why? Because I want to make money too, you have got to give a little to get some. So when I offer the options to Randy Lennox and Gary Slaight it is not a shakedown, but it is because they can see the solution that could drive them forward and they can see the benefit of a $50M investment that could bring them in excess of $600,000,000. It is a simple execution of math. This solution could just as easily apply to Amazon, Google a little less so. These people will not now, not ever get such offers, such real offers from Facebook, Meta, Twitter or YouTube. That is how life is and anyone trying to sell you the goods there is fooling you. 

But that is the stage Meta faces, a stage that is drowning in deceptive conduct and there is seemingly no proper vetting in place. There are laws and when the Australian ACCC makes its case Meta could face massive fines and once the first one is there all the others will come calling. The influencers are a different issue, connected to some extent, but there we see that influencers need to be stopped and removing their channel and setting their count to zero will do the trick. When they lose that much money once of twice over these people vanish, a simple equation. It does not sound fair, I get that. But these influencers decided to endanger people and there lies the rub, whether that danger exists in nations where these materials are legal, that becomes a different setting, and I will be happy to admit that I see no easy workable solution here, it starts with Meta. That much is a given at present.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Science

Doubt favouring speculation

This is what we have at times, we see the news, we do not completely trust the news but we see what we see and we think we are being deceived. This is not at the front of our minds, but it is definitely in the back of our minds. I a not different, I tend to check several sources, but in the end, this is not always possible. So the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60525591) ‘IPCC report warns of ‘irreversible’ impacts of global warming’ you would think this was serious enough, and you could (not would) be wrong. You see, we see “the authors of a new report say that there is still a brief window of time to avoid the very worst”, is there? We are also given “there’s hope that if the rise in temperatures is kept below 1.5C, it would reduce projected losses”, now for the bad news. You see on the 11th of February the BBC also gave us “The number of trees cut down in the Brazilian Amazon in January far exceeded deforestation for the same month last year, according to government satellite data. The area destroyed was five times larger than 2021, the highest January total since records began in 2015”, as some might say it, that weasel Jair Bolsonaro was so eager to be seen ‘positive’ at the COP26, yet we also get (from the HRW.org), ““The Bolsonaro government now wants the world to think it is committed to saving the rainforest,” said Maria Laura Canineu, Brazil director at Human Rights Watch. “But these commitments cannot be taken seriously given its disastrous record and failure to present credible plans for making urgently needed progress in fighting deforestation.”” The Brazilian government (those connected) are eager to fill their pockets before some deforestation commitment will more and more likely be delayed by 3-5 years. So matters will go from ‘worst case’ to ‘worse then worst case’ soon thereafter and most reports seemingly do not take that into account, so when I see “a brief window of time”, I wider what window they are talking about, we are being buried alive and governments are letting this happen. Although, my sense of humour tells me that Vladimir Putin could save is here. If he presses the nuclear button, we will see a global population drop of 60%-85%, at which point the problem is solved. There is no deforestation required when no one needs wood and what forests are left will be enough to give oxygen to the 15%-40% remaining. You think I am kidding? You thought that America would intervene? They did less then that, as I personally see it they are more likely filling their credit cards as we are given “the Biden administration recently announced the creation of a taskforce that will take aim at their lucrative assets, including yachts and mansions”, the media does not give us the list of where those ‘registered’ assets will go. I doubt that 100% will go to the Ukraine. Yet I am diverting. You see, the article also gives us “Coral reefs are being bleached and dying from rising temperatures, while many trees are succumbing to drought” which is inaccurate, in Australia, the delicate balance was disrupted for some time through pollution and overfishing, all whilst the lame reactions to overfishing and the Australian super weak legal responses is making that happen again and again. Then we get the angering quote from the UN ““I’ve seen many scientific reports in my time, but nothing like this,” – UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres”, you see if he never seen anything like this, then the United Nations have a much larger problems, because environmentalists have been saying issues in this direction for a decade, so someone (or a collection of grapes) at the UN is not doing their job, most likely they are given a too specific brief and waste year after year (with a high income) on that brief and whose fault is that?

So far the only truth at the COP26 was given by Greta Thunberg with the accurate setting of “just more bla bla bla” And when I wrote about it, I already predicted it (well not Putin pushing the button). And in the end, did anyone pause at “since records began in 2015”? Perhaps I was asleep, but was the environment, pollution and deforestation not a larger stage for well over 25 years? We could of course go for the extreme solution and just get rid of 95% of the population, it solves employment issues, agism, population, housing issues, deforestation, overfishing issues, and carbon footprints. If a person is not there, they have a carbon footprint of zero. You see, the worst could be just around the corner and you won’t see it until you wonder why you are glowing in the dark. Nuclear winter will clean up the rest, that is now becoming an actual possibility.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Red flags

We all have them, we all see them, it is what comes next that matters. For me it was a visit to the introduction of a cyber course. There were so many red flags it was weird. The first flags came two days before the presentation, two emails to set the stage, one with the option to delay payment to six months after the course was done, the first sales pitch. Now there is nothing wrong with sales pitches, but here it seems misplaced, cyber space os pedantic to say the least. So I went to that presentation, even though there were already red flags going up. Then there was the event. To be honest, it wasn’t all their fault. There were IT issues and IT couldn’t figure out what was wrong. This happens, the moment sucks, but that is part of the game. 

Then there was the space, 2 attendants, the rest via zoom.  I was one of the two, no drinks, not even water. If it is a sales pitch, you want people relaxed, so how does a thirsty presentation go? They had bought water for themselves. Then there were no handouts, in case of a training you want people have the information, hand outs are a great option for them to have the slides and make notes. The presentation was not updated and was still saying November 2021, remember I stated pedantic? Then the presentation, so much mention of “You do not need to be from IT” and then all the examples of people who were from another education, there were good parts, but so much a sales-pitch. The number of red flags were passed and I left. 

So was I wrong?
There is no indication that they weren’t what they said they were, they were in a decent place, they did this with a well known University, so this was all on the up and up, but the hairs on my neck were up, it was about revenue, it was about sales and the approach was wrong. You see the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60387324) gives some of the goods. It was titled ‘the con that tricked dozens into working for a fake design agency’, the BBC gave it two days ago and there we have the problem. The BBC gave us “those who had turned on their cameras didn’t know was that some of the others in the meeting weren’t real people. Yes, they were listed as participants. Some even had active email accounts and LinkedIn profiles. But their names were made up and their headshots belonged to other people.” The enforcing of a sales pitch. As such we see “the real employees had been “jobfished”. The BBC has spent a year investigating what happened.” You still think that being pedantic is something else than a virtue? Yes, we get “the job represented more than just a pay cheque – but a UK visa too. If they passed their six-month probation period, and met their sales targets, their contracts said Madbird would sponsor them to move to the UK” and there is the real pitch, exploitative slavery, hiding behind a piece of shit hiding behind “I have put 16 hours every single day for months and done the best that I could to make this work. I should’ve known better and for that I’m truly sorry.” No he isn’t and I feel that people like that should get one bullet through the back of their heads. We get “By February 2021, not a single client contract had been signed. None of the Madbird staff had been paid a penny”, we are given “Some recruits ended up leaving after a few weeks, but many stayed. Many had been there for almost six months – forced to take out credit cards and borrow money from family to keep on top of bills” that should have been a big red flag but in this world of pandemics, too many feel the pinch of desperation, but an agency that cannot pay you? That is an agency that has no real clients, no revenue and no real future at that point. We are given “a photo showing an open issue of GQ magazine, with Ali Ayad modelling a blazer in a full-page ad for Spanish fashion brand Massimo Dutti. “Hustle in silence, let your success make the noise,” read the caption.” As well as “a post claiming he had modelled for Massimo Dutti in British GQ which received 4,000 ‘likes’”, “Ali Ayad has over 90,000 followers on his Instagram – in his bio he describes himself as an “influencer”” as well as the stolen identities, I personally see a clear case for targeted killing. You see this world is changing and if State players can do the games they play, going after created leaks on Credit Suisse, hack and spell the goods through Pandora Papers, I can make a clear case that some of these exploitative nut-jobs are in the market for targeted killing. It is time that we clean the streets on both sides of the isle but not merely on red flags, that does not constitute evidence and for the Cyber setting I might be wrong, it is more than a gut feeling, it is more then small pressure point, it is more than a sales-pitch (which was never invalid) and the half dozen red flags I do not mention here is because they are personal, they are based on the corporate and university world I have faced over decades, and based on what THEIR bosses see as proper etiquette. The red flags does not mean wrong, it means that the pedantic levels I have seen in the cyber world does not constitute evidence, it does not and I know that. The BBC shows a different version, a version that it takes a year to get to a piece of shit like that. So when we see “We contacted all 42 brands Madbird had listed as former clients – including Nike, Tate, and Toni & Guy. None of those that responded had ever worked with Madbird.” We also see that this is becoming a much larger problem. And I have over 50 people for my case, some who lost thousands. I feel decently certain that the image he used is optionally not him, the stage of “Whilst Madbird and Ayad have seemingly vanished”, as I personally see it, the NSA/GCHQ better get fucking active, if players like this can play their tax the rich approach, they can also hunt down people like Ali Ayad and prove that they are serious about stopping certain crimes. The 50 people have rights and their rights were trampled upon. It was not mischief, it wasn’t some prank and it was not to do “the best that I could to make this work” it was exploitation, it was mislabeled slavery and it needs to stop. We cannot blame some of the social media on how people like this do what they do, but we can execute them. I prefer long term prison but so far Ali Ayad has vanished, and making him run in fear is better than him walking away to restart the scam somewhere else.

That is how I see it but here too is the problem. I am the problem on the relying of red flags, the setting of expectation regarding a pedantic setting, I get that, but between the two events is a borderline, I am not certain where it is, or where it should be, but that border needs to be created, governments have sat on their asses for too long and the wrong people are left with the bill of scammers, that is not completely on social media and more on governments, but that is merely how I see it and I admit, I could be wrong.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media