Category Archives: Law

August 8, 2013 · 13:32

The Jay-Z talk

Today’s inspiration comes from a source, slightly right of the middle. It was an interview that aired on Bill O’Reilly which he (or his team) placed on Facebook. Jay-Z was warning for the dangers of escalating violence as the gap between haves and have not’s increases. This is a viewpoint I agree with, especially as I had come to the same conclusion many months ago. More important, that is a reality that is in play in both the US and Europe.

What is to blame? Well, the Financial Institutions started it all and as such they need to be mentioned. I reckon you have all read enough of this, but down the track, this will issue will pop up again. More important are the issues that have been more and more visible over several months. The Obama administration might claim that they have added 175,000 jobs, yet as you would see, this level of misrepresentation will get an ironic side soon enough. The massive spin at present is coming from the industrials. If we see the Dow index, then we look at 30 companies who ‘seem’ to be setting the trend, especially my American readers, have you noticed how 1 out of 6 in America lost their house and an even larger population lost their savings? So, if the economy is so high, then how is it that the damage remains so severe? Well, I am about to answer that.

Those 175,000 jobs, well the bulk of them are only part-time and they are mostly minimum wage options only. To be honest in such a bad economy that could not be the worst, but from my viewpoint there is more, which makes this a lot worse.

It was a little while ago on how some expert spoke with a level of pride that the Dow was so strong, and remained growing due to an increase productivity managed by a declined workforce. So basically, a 90% workforce was achieving 110% result and no one questioned it? The fact that even though these companies are getting record results, no long term hiring has commenced?

Well, here it is. The view I have is that the banks allowed for a shift of policies, which has pretty much introduced a legalised form of slave labour (a harsh reality, but not false). It is a nice irony that this has occurred during the time of an African American president. The first question I should answer whether this assessment is fair. Yes it is!

The reason is that neither President Obama nor President Bush did ANYTHING truly successful to hold these Financial Institutions accountable for the damage they bestowed on the American population and the rest of the world. The fact that even today in most nations strong bank regulations are still not a fact means that this can all happen again. So, when we get to 2020 and we all think that we are back on track, these players could play the same game all over again and we go back to nothing overnight. We might not even have to wait that long as banks all over the EU are now trying to loosen up ties with those controlling pensions of people all over the world.

So Jay-Z is correct. The gap of those who have and ‘the others’ is widening and it is widening a lot faster than you all realise. Consider the enormous debt that the American people got stuck with, with the due compliments of companies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Do you remember on how ‘something’ was going to get done? Well consider the house resolutions

H.R.1227 Latest Title: GSE Risk and Activities Limitation Act of 2011
H.R.1225 Latest Title: GSE Debt Issuance Approval Act of 2011
H.R.1223 Latest Title: GSE Credit Risk Equitable Treatment Act of 2011
H.R.1221 Latest Title: Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2011
H.R.1182 Latest Title: GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act

All these bills have been left untouched since 2011. The story does get a little worse when we consider the article from Bloomberg as published on May 8th at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/new-regulations-are-strangling-community-banks.html

The starting quote: “The wave of new banking regulations that Congress created to deter and punish Wall Street’s misdeeds is landing with much greater impact on the U.S.’s almost 7,000 community banks than on the too-big-to-fail lenders.”

This gives us the question whether there is a foul stench coming from the big boy enabling group, which is supported by the quote “Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. show that large banks have both the lowest credit quality and the lowest cost of funds in the industry.” If the American people depend on their day to day issues on those community banks, then why are these regulations pushed out in this way? Well, in my view the banks ‘own’ the politicians and the banks decided a let them all suffer until regulations are dropped again, so we can do this one more time approach. This is how I see it.

Yes, banks definitely need regulation and not only in America. However, the need to strangle certain services that caused the bulk of all the grief could be choked more efficiently without placing these community banks in a vice. That would make sense, unless those community banks go the wrong direction of course, so better options could have been found, which makes us wonder where political levels of competency currently are.

Supporting evidence can be found in this article at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-20/bank-of-america-and-the-tragedy-of-foreclosure.html

It is as analysed as a he said/she said situation. I think it is a ‘they said’ and ‘it claimed’ situation, but let us not revert to a black letter wishy washy job.

Where the bank claimed “These allegations are absurd, patently false and contrary to Bank of America’s long-standing policy only to foreclose as a last resort when other available options to help keep people in their home have been exhausted,” can be read as true, but that does not give way that this tactic has likely been used and to include the tactic as quoted “stall applications for loan modifications“. One does not exclude the other and as such it seems to me that as more facts become visible, the failed regulations and more important a wrongful push to pressure the entirety of banking, instead of certain services and strangling certain monetary reward schemes (read bonus structures).

So again, Jay-Z has a point!

This goes beyond America. The Dutch SNS Reaal bank is still in levels of turmoil, as can be read at http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/06/06/sns-reaal-verliest-netto-972-miljoen-in-2012-16-miljard-in-eerste-kwartaal-2013  (Dutch source), it boils down to the last paragraph [translated] “The Netherlands must submit a plan within 6 months for restructuring the SNS. The real estate branch must be placed in a separate organisation. On these submissions the commission will take a final decision“. This was in February and the final decisions are due this month whilst political Netherlands is on vacation.

My prediction is that these politicians will make an 11th hour decision with the humble stance that includes ‘alas’ and ‘we are forced’ and ‘this is by far the best solution’ and they will then push the real estate branch into a bad bank, which basically mean that (please pardon my French) ‘Banking Wankers’ high and low got away with it again and the Dutch tax payers will end up coughing up another 2.4 billion Euro, which comes down to every Dutch tax paying citizen paying a 175 Euro each for a mess that politicians are unwilling to control on several levels. So, these politicians are allowed a vacation whilst there is such a mess? My vacations got cut short twice by two previous employers and these politicians go on vacation making twice as much? Talk about dedication (or lack thereof).

This all boils down to Financial Institutions and Industrials are given the leeway to widen the gap of ‘those-who-have’ and the others, yet politicians remain silently in the background showing the spine of a paperback, not one hardcover amongst them.

Let us to get back to Bill O’Reilly where today’s blog all started. Many do not agree, but I admire the man. He can be right, he can be wrong and I have not always agreed with him, but he has always shown clarity of what he thinks was right. No half-baked answers! The issue with him is that he is another item of proof on the US failing levels. You see, he has a website, a talk show and he has a good (read very good) income. He donates all the profits of those website sales to what he sees as worthy causes, mostly Veteran and serving military and I am all for that. Now, as stated, his income is really good, yet nowhere near what some get. This is clearly shown as annual bonuses on Wall Street rose to a total of $20,000,000,000 (20 Billion) in 2012. So the challenge for Bill O’Reilly is to find 100 people donating to the community on that level, whilst they are not allowed to make over 15 million a year to be allowed on that list, in a population of over 325 million he will fail. So basically he makes less than a mid-level banker and donates a truckload. This man stands almost alone!

That is the evidence, that even though one can be found, many are destitute beyond their control and the people in financial institutions keep on being enabled by the very people who should be protecting those in such an economic state of destitution.

Jay-Z spoke a true word!

When we see what people like Jay-Z, Will.i.am and Bill O’Reilly contribute to communities in such a degree there is evidence that there is still a level of humanity in this world. It would however be nice if the politicians in many nations step up to the plate to make their places a lot better without enabling greed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

August 2, 2013 · 04:22

Fighters to Syria

The Dutch have started a trial against an Iraqi citizen who has been living in the Netherlands for 13 years. Now he is joining the rebels to fight in Syria. In this case the trial seems to be focussing on the mental health status of the individual.

It is an interesting view. In this case it is about people who will become militant, more extreme and the fear is that these people might return to the Netherlands in a more militant and extreme state with additional fear that these events might start a wave of extreme actions.

There is a case that seems to hold water, yet will it hold water in a legal way?

1. The person has not yet left the Netherlands and as such the issues are not proven (at present).
2. If we look back to WW2, Americans moved to the UK to fight against Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

Is this a similar view?

In the second case there are additional issues. These people are joining the fight against Assad. This is an internal civil war. In the WW2 case England was under direct attack by Germany. So there were other issues in play. In addition, these people all joined military fighting units that were part of a sovereign state. That is not the case with the Syrian rebels.

The issue that does not seem to be (overly) illustrated by the news at present, is that in this specific case (in case of Syria) that no matter how good the goal, these people are joining a non-aligned, combatant army. It could be seen as a group of people that are joining a terrorist organisation (from the viewpoint of Syrian government). There is supporting evidence in this case to some extent.

If we consider Humanitarian Law, then we must also accept the laws of war, which limits attacks to “military objectives.” Military objectives are personnel and objects that are making an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. There is ample evidence that civilian targets have been fired upon. When we take that into consideration, then a government has a clear directive to stop this. It could send its own army to police and structure the events, yet, they cannot engage in war on targets that are prohibited by Humanitarian law. From that point, not only must these recruitment drives be stopped, they also have some level of evidence that recruiting for these tasks should be seen as criminal.

I must keep a little space for the chance that my information is not complete, or even worse, is to some degree incorrect (newscasts from all over the world tend to lower reliability a little). The spreader of the information that we see on the news might not be completely correct, or from a reliable source (not claiming that this is the case, but I must allow for this fact to be the case).

If we consider that then the statements of both David Cameron and William Hague are more than just dangerous. I am referring to a batch of statements that these two honourable gentlemen have made over the last 2-3 months. In that light, it is the statement by the Lord Mayor of London Boris Johnson that seems to be the correct one. (He stated “Britain could not end the conflict by ‘pressing weapons into the hands of maniacs.’“) Even though Humanitarian Law does not speak on the delivery of weapons, the fact that it is known that their weapons are used in transgression of Humanitarian law, even before these weapons had been delivered could bite any nation that delivers these weapons down the road.

The transgressions that are currently allegedly occurring are not from some obscure part of the Customary International Humanitarian Law. No, we are only at rule 1 when we find the collision with the occurring transgressions. So by allowing and not outspoken opposition of these transgressions, we are not giving support to regime of Assad, we are actually flushing our own standards down the drain. If the convoy that was attacked last week by the rebels contained goods as well as people then there is also the transgression of rule 55 of humanitarian law. Furthermore, there is every chance that these foreign supporters, as not being a national from Syria, could be seen, if arrested, as a spy, a mercenary or a terrorist by Syria’s sovereign ruling party. That would complicate matters in several ways and its unlikely that the end solution that the Syrian courts would offer is one that the supporter will be able to live with (like the firing squad).

Whatever choices the UK makes, they should be clear and outspoken on the transgressions of humanitarian law. The Dutch face a similar act to follow. In regard to the court case, it seems to me that in the British Nationality Act 1981 in section 40 it states:

The Secretary of State –
(a) shall not deprive a person of British citizenship under this section unless he is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that that person should continue to be a British citizen

This means that, even though it is decently bad Humanitarian law, that if the Secretary of state can place the fact that militants returning to the UK are not in the interest of Public good, they would lose their UK passport before they even make it past UK customs at the airport. The Dutch are less lenient here. In their case you would only lose your nationality is you are convicted for a crime against the Dutch state. It would be very conceivable that the transgressions of Humanitarian law would constitute enough transgression at this point. That part is not yet a given as the current case in the Netherlands is the first one of its kind ever in Europe.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

July 26, 2013 · 12:28

Humanitarian Law…..the End!

We have seen a few spectacles lately that give rise to acts of a questionable nature. The Netherlands had the death of a refused refugee who after some basic checks should have passed the test of being allowed to stay with the greatest of ease. It was a black moment in Dutch affairs. Yet, this is only one case and it dwarves by a landslide when we look at the issues that Australia is facing.

In 2011 the Labour government under Julia Gillard decided that it would be a great idea to ship refugees to Malaysia, to process them there. This idea was stopped by Chief Justice Robert French right and proper. The issue is seen in ‘convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees‘ (at http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html).

Article 33(1). No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

It was stated in the Sydney Morning Herald (21st August 2011) “The court’s full bench agreed 6-1 that Immigration Minister Chris Bowen’s declaration that Malaysia was an appropriate place to send asylum seekers was wrong“. I reckon that Mr Bowen might have forgotten about the convention Australia agreed with.

Even though I was never that active in Humanitarian Law or Refugee and Immigration laws, this event opened my eyes and I learned that the refugee issue is one that had been in long standing. Even though we can see that the Labour party bungled this play, they were not the only ones playing the game. If we step back to 2001, we see that it was former Prime Minister John Howard who stated On 28 October 2001, at his 2001 election campaign policy launch “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

So this is an issue that affects the political field on both sides of the isle. I reckon if we had an Australian version of UKIP, it would be a three sided spectacle. Is there an issue? Well, in all fairness I reckon there is one. As these refugees end up, or quickly move to a large city (yes, we have 5 large cities in Australia) then the infrastructure could collapse as these refugees who have limits on work skills and language skills would not be able to get ahead (a realistic view, not a demeaning one). This does not mean that I am against refugees; I am only stating that a solution should be found, preferably an urban/rural one. Let us not forget that Australia has 21,000 Km of beachfront space. There should be an option on the creation of villages where they can become farmers and build a life. Some will consider other options, which is fair enough. I believe that such villages would enable these people to take some time as they get used to life in Australia. If we consider the option of growing food for export, then I see some future in several Wasabi farms. The Japanese will eat all the Wasabi they can get their grips on and as Sashimi gains popularity all over the world, the need for Soy sauce and Wasabi only grows. If we need to look for other ways to grow the Australian economy, then what about a solution using Dutch greenhouses? Their innovation of a solution that allows the growth of all kinds of fruits and vegetables that normally will not survive the harsh Dutch autumn and winter is almost legend. So there are several options. In other directions we see how refugees could start building a future for themselves as they work and get schooled into the Australian way of life (one does not learn Cricket overnight).

Yet these ideas are all nice do face another onslaught of ‘limitations’. This was shown yesterday in the Australian Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/abbott-png-operation-sovereign-borders. Here we see the mention of Operation Sovereign Border. Yes, this time it is the Liberal side that comes with the ‘new’ ideas. There is the mention of “a military-led response” to combat people smuggling. The policy is published at http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Policies/OperationSovereignBorders_Policy.pdf

They do waste a little space to illustrate the plans from Labour that failed, yet I am more interested in the idea that works. You see, people smuggling will ALWAYS work. People smuggling is all about paying it forward. The refugee pays upfront, and then they might make it (however usually they never do). The issue is that these events need to be stopped at the start. How can they do that? Advertising on TV in the nations of departure? Most of those will never be seen. Leaflets get thrown out and so forth. So this is about stopping people with NO options left. So however these plans are presented by Tony Abbott, there is a chance that they will fail almost completely. I especially liked the idea to turn back boats if it is safe to do so (slight voice of sarcasm). How long until less secure ships will ‘accidently’ start to sink when the ADF gets too close? Then what? Let us not forget that the refugees have paid up front, so sinking a $5000 junk dinghy whilst $50,000 has been collected is an excellent ROI for smugglers. This is why people smuggle ALWAYS works. The idea to push these responsibilities towards the ADF is equally less desired. Yes, the ADF (Navy) will patrol the shores of Australia to keep us safe, yet they are people and as such they will not (and should not) act hostile against unarmed refugees. Yes, the Navy has a job to do, there is however the danger that comes with the mission when it becomes about blocking boats. It is not unlikely that any escalation will result in the world press slamming Australia for armed intervention against non-combatants, a story, which at that point could turn nasty quite quickly. The navy is likely to end up looking bad no matter what, and the refugees, who are already victims, would just end up in the middle, a place they were already in. How is this any kind of solution?

Mr Abbott quite correctly countered labours next idea on off shore processing using Papua New Guinea. It is indeed an Australian issue to solve. There are also issues with the same charter former PM Gillard overlooked. PNG currently has 7 reservations on issues that are stated to be a clear right to a refugee. It does not matter whether PNG will remove these reservations, as these reservations are presently in effect; PNG remains an unlikely solution until these reservations have been removed. So the issues should be solved within the Australian territory. The added message is that the PNG solution will cost! At http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/54587 we read:
“The government is yet to release the cost of the PNG plan, but using the Immigration Department’s own contracts, estimates of operating processing centres suggest the expansion of Manus Island from 600 detainees to 3000 would incur an initial cost of $600 million.”
Are we not better off spending that money on locations here in Australia? If we want to start new communities, creating a small town might even be cheaper and it will grow local economy, housing and solve part of the refugee issues. I agree that my view might be lightly unrealistically skewed, yet I cannot stop wondering how deep the experts actually investigated possible local solutions.
We should all consider that as we see ‘blown-out’ spending running into the billions.

So what to do?

First there is the claim that the report Operation Sovereign Borders Policy held. “The total cost to Australian taxpayers for managing illegal boat arrivals has increased from $85 million in 2007-08 to $3 billion in 2013-14. Between 2007-08 and 2013-14, the budget for managing illegal boat arrivals has blown-out by $10.3 billion.”

I agree that this is a massive cost. I would like to see a run-down of these costs. Not generic, but specific. I believe that we should find a solution to the issues, I am however not certain that the blockade approach will work to any degree, so why press for such levels of spending? Let’s also realise that unless the navy gets a fleet twice the current size, our seafront is just too large to patrol for boat refugees. It amounts to a solution no less expensive than a very high fence over the total stretch of Texas bordering Mexico. Thoughts that were matched by former chief of the defence force Admiral Chris Barrie who said in the Canberra Times: “I can’t see this making more than an incremental difference at best.”

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

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

July 25, 2013 · 19:14

The Telco is on the wall

The Dutch giant KPN is in the market to stay alive. As the message is now that they are selling E-plus to Telefonica. Consider that the sale of this company is sold for 8 billion, which might seem good. It was however bought a decade ago for 20 billion. So that means a loss of 1.2 billion a year.

So this seems not that good an investment, when you look at it. Is this turning into a moment of selling the family silver cutlery, or is it about more? KPN is not the only one in this regard. Nuon (a Dutch energy provider) is also surfing the red waves of tremendous debt. So much so that its mother company Vattenfal is now putting the Dutch energy giant up for sale. Experts have stated that some of these problems are due to the company holding on to old methods for too long. Considering that they require gas, and the price of gas is up, means that their energy is more expansive then most others.

Back to the Telecoms! In Australia, Vodafone has a multitude of problems. Due to less reliable connection issues they had, over 550 thousand customers left Vodafone Australia for other providers. That is a shift of customers that started only 6 months ago. That means that Vodafone is facing a loss of revenue approaching 20 million a month. So we are talking about a decent amount of revenue. It amounts to a loss of almost 8% of their customer base. That is not even close to the end for Vodafone Australia. They currently have a class action running against them, so that is likely to be a none too small bill, and linked to the loss of customers (at http://www.zdnet.com/au/vodafone-australia-reports-customer-losses-of-551k-7000018290/) we also see that there are currently some legal threats coming from Telstra. That can be read at http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstra-ramps-up-4g-rollout-as-3g-scales-down-7000018225/.

The quote that matters is “Riley also took aim at recent claims from Vodafone that it has better spectrum holdings than Telstra in the capital cities, allowing the company to offer faster 4G services.”

Perhaps Telstra needs to consider a few things!

First there is the article that ABC published in 2011 (at: http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/09/28/3327530.htm).

Yes, I got to hear all about it in Uni when I was doing my mobile technologies subject (party of my IT degree), so if this is about ‘marketing’ claims, then Telstra might revoice the words stated in the claim. They could read the following: “Riley also took aim at recent claims from Vodafone that it has better spectrum holdings than Telstra in the capital cities, allowing the company to offer faster 4G services” in the air of “Riley is also aiming at the mention that Vodafone is more colourful then Telstra when offering a mobile service labelled as 4G in the capital cities“. Have you seen those BORING 4G posters all over Sydney? Yup, making legal threats against opinions, that makes perfect sense to me…..NOT!

OK, it is 2013 now and there are true 4G providers now, but what is important?

4G is the fourth generation of mobile phone mobile communication technology standards. (Quick Wiki grab). When we consider the 4th generations, we see WiMAX and we see LTE (Long Term Evolution).  The ITU (International Telecommunication Union) stated the requirements on what makes a 4G standard. So when the International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced (IMT-Advanced) specification was set for the 4th generation in 2008, there was an actual next generation target to achieve. You wonder why it took so long? Well, the ITU looks forward on what the next step would be. So they set peak speed requirements for 4G service at 100 megabits per second (Mbit/s) for high mobility communication (such as from trains and cars) and 1 gigabit per second (Gbit/s) for low mobility communication (such as pedestrians and stationary users). This would indeed be a massive step forward in a time when those speeds were not even close to an option. It makes perfect sense. You have seen this before. When we went from VHS to DVD, similar steps forward were made. This step was even larger as people moved from DVD to Blu-Ray.
It is technical evolution baby!

Yet, Telco’s are all about marketing, and Telstra was really clever. From the information that WAS then, they basically offered 3G+ and named it 4G, but that does not make it true 4G. That is how I personally see it! When I think of a power Telco offering 4G, I think of NTT DoCoMo and TATA (India). DoCoMo has close to 60 million customers in Japan, which is well over 45% of the mobile user population. How many Telco’s can actually make the claim that 1 in 2 connects to them in the Mobile community? In India there is the Tata Teleservices group with over 75 million customers, and NTT DoCoMo owns 25% of this.

So when we think Telco, Telstra and Vodafone Australia do not really measure up. Yet the interesting link here is that NTT DoCoMo had Billions invested all over the world, including in KPN in the Netherlands. Is it not interesting to see how these Telco’s seem to cross pollinate? This raises an issue that many people forget. If we consider the Vodafone class action, and if we consider the reasons of bad connections, then what is going on? Our little Island has 20 million people, which is less than a third of the active Japanese mobile phone users. So why are our connections failing (I am only considering the large cities)? It is clearly not about technology, but about infrastructure and implementation (in my humble view). Yes, we should not forget costing here either, as it all costs money, but consider the income in India and Japan, consider the amount of users. NTT ended up with a net income (after expenses and licenses) of roughly 5 billion dollar last year, which is almost 12% of the total revenue. So we see three things.

1. A ROI of 12% is not that bad.
2. Several nations are competing against giants with means we cannot fathom.
3. All of them seem to be writing off ‘losses’ on massive levels.

Is this about losses, about write offs or about something that is not here?

I reckon it is mostly about the not being there bit. When we look at incomes then we see that the Vodafone Europe CEO (Vittorio Colao) made 2.2 million Euro, whilst David Thodey, CEO of Telstra makes a mere 7 million dollars. So, yes they make decent coin, yet nothing more a mere mid-level banker is likely to get as an annual bonus, so the money is not draining away in that direction either.

No, I personally see the issues as a side effect of devaluation of technology. This is a side that has been ignored by most members of the public from 1997 onwards. You see, technology providers saw the benefit of the armistice race and went the same way. Every year we see a PC, laptop or tablet that is better, faster and newer, but how much faster? The impact with computers is not that big as it hits the individual. They deal with slightly larger programs, and that is pretty much it. Your text file is not that much larger. If you consider a 3000 word document, then that file remained relatively the same over the last 10 years. For electronic devices like TV’s it is also the same. We get the same signal and beyond that it only looks nicer, all this did not impact the provider.

With telecom it’s a different cattle of fish (pun intended). When we upgrade our phones we also attach to that an almost exponential growth of data needs, as such as Apple sold around 25 million mobile phones per quarter, we see that the need for an almost exponential growth of infrastructure is needed (a lesson Vodafone is learning the hard way). Even as the large Telco’s are installing the need for hardware on a continuing base, and as we see the replacement of equipment, we see that the life time of current facilitating hardware is likely less than 40% of its actual life cycle. It is either that of build more places with facilitating equipment, with a connected drain of ‘revenue left’ as well. The last level is one that is not that apparent at present, but will hit Telco company values on a massive scale soon enough. This side can be read at http://www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/global-view/registered-patents-devalued-by-outdated-ip-laws-6786253. Considering the issues at play, then the assets of Telco companies are about (read 2-4 years) to hit a certain basement value. I reckon that there will be consequences down the road. In my view it will be that the truly big boys will continue, the smaller packs will no longer be able to compete in a field where they will get charged for services needed and then some.

What is the solution? Not sure, it is in the end a business answer. Yet, voicing a 1.2 billion loss a year cannot be that good for the ego, and as the amount of players increase, these levels of ‘bad’ news will continue. It will not hit your taxes, but consider that services falter, where will you run to when your mobile phone leaves you with the message ‘searching…’ from your provider?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law

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

July 21, 2013 · 23:12

The law to hunt them down

Both Sky News and the Guardian come this Sunday with stories on how Prime Minister David Cameron is calling on web companies to block certain sexual child abuse searches.

That sounds nice in theory and I am all for hunting down these groups. Yet, that request is at least 10 years late and in all honesty, I reckon it is a massive waste of time and resources. How long until these perverts come up with ‘other’ search terms? We would even be allowing for some to get away scot free as they searched for “yummier candy” or whatever other code they would be using. The Judge would have to let these people go as they were truly looking for a place to dunk their bagels in jelly?

As stated, I am all for hunting these people down. Yet perhaps other means should be (should have been is a lot better) employed. Google had been so innovative in avoiding corporate taxation, are they not aiding the police (not just in the UK) hunting down these people? They have the hardware, the software, the expertise and more options on their shelves. In addition the PM should actually stop that gap which allows Google to only pay 0.0025% in taxation (but that is a story for another time).

No matter how quick we stop this gap of non-taxation. Google has in my view and strong belief a moral duty to train the police and other units in search and track knowledge (perhaps they are). They have no issues in teaching/aiding bosses to track their employees. Yet, hunting down criminals is not in their scope? (At http://business.time.com/2012/06/27/google-maps-now-helping-your-boss-track-your-every-move/). It was stated in the article that “the cost to workplace privacy would be serious“. Is that true? If you get paid by the hour, should you not be working? In the office, one is supposed to sit at their desk. There are always reasons why we need to go somewhere, yet we should be at our desks for a certain time. So it is easy and perfectly OK to track employees and we cannot track criminals? I get the issue that there might be some level of privacy in play for an employee (for example, his lunch break is his and his alone), but finding those hurting children are allowed protection so that they can hurt children? Such methods could aid the authorities in actually getting some protection to the children that needed it for a long time.

If we relate the options to track these child abusers to the boss tracking actions, we definitely have the technology to find these people, so what Is stopping us?

In addition, the legal side is also in play. If we consider the “Protection of Children Act 1978”

If we consider: “Section 1 (c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs [or pseudo-photographs], with a view to their being distributed or transferred digitally or shown by himself or others; or”

By adding three words we now let the issue no longer fall into the issue where the responsibility was, we now give pressure on the ISP to report this immediately. If not, they become part of the chain. Now, if we look at the defamation act, then we know there are issues, especially when we consider operators of content.

In Australia the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) states:

32 Defence of innocent dissemination
(1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that:
(a) the defendant published the matter merely in the capacity, or as an employee or agent, of a subordinate distributor, or a facilitator [or ISP] and
(b) the defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known, that the matter was defamatory, and
(c) the defendant’s lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant.

Here I added 5 words (those in bold), which could give additional levels of options to the claimants. It is nice to give certain services out for free, yet in that case, the facilitators will need to adjust their ‘terms of service’ to protect themselves and give aid in finding those using their services to further certain criminal goals. The reason to mention this is because when we look at the UK “Defamation Act 2013“, as narrated by Forbes we see the following (please read Forbes article as linked below).

The next part was in progress, when I detected this Forbes article (who had pretty much done what I was trying, at http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/05/09/uks-new-defamation-law-may-accelerate-the-death-of-anonymous-user-generated-content-internationally/)

It seems that the known issues of the ISP had been avoided here as well (an issue that had been in play for at least 8 years). There is a valid defence that  an ISP cannot monitor the massive flow of content, which is indeed a valid defence in my book, yet the cooperation required by the police to do their jobs is too often too slow or at times likely even completely lacking.

When we add ISP in the Australian case, then their lack of negligence would overturn their defence in court. So when we consider 32.1.d, then they will need to get active, creative and corrective really fast.

This translates to the UK defamation act by changing “5 Operators and/or facilitators of websites and/or virtual locations“; this would change the game immediately. Of course, prosecuting an ISP is not productive in the end, yet this part will give them the ‘negligence‘ label and as such, serious headway might be made in hunting down these child abusing criminals as the ISP is now seriously motivated to aid the police and find these criminals. The change would go further than those seeking materials. It would also give way to look at providers and mapping out these people far beyond the UK national borders. So as the map, with names, locations and acts will visibly grow, we might actually get the information the police needs.

I personally believe that law changes will get us a lot further then just blocking a search term.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

July 19, 2013 · 15:44

The Setting of strategies

The danger of any person trying to look through the mud that we know as political strategies related to ‘what is real’ and ‘what is unlikely’. There is no ‘non-reality’!
We know that certain steps have been staged (as a good politician would). This staging is not unlike the game ‘GO’ where we place the pebbles in such a way that entices to other to place their pebbles, completing our strategies.

This I discussed in last week’s blog involving the fading pension plans. Yes, and as suspected, whilst Dutch politicians are in vacation mode, the Dutch pension funds are now filling the Dutch with dread of a possible 10%-20% loss of retirement. That is some fear in their world of quick rising prices. (www.nos.nl)

Today is not about that, even though there are possible links! Today it is about renewed issues on telephone taps and how the powerful Murdoch gets another painted target. Yet are his words so wrong? We had the phone tap probe, we have seen the Leveson report, and instead of actually acting on the Leveson report as much as possible. Parties involved seem to be having another go at Rupert ‘the Piñata’ Murdoch. A lot or the press is getting a little sour as words are hashed and rehashed into statements of whatever they could be called.

You see, is this an ACTUAL criminal investigation, you know the one with barristers, judges and both parties taking notice of the evidence act?

Or is this another inquiry that has gone on for two years, giving more visibility to Chairman Keith Vaz and a few other political head honcho’s? Do not think that I am on Mr Murdoch’s side. I will instantly stand by the views of Hugh Grant and Lord Justice Leveson in the attack on the events that surrounded phone hacking, and not just the Sun/News of the world.

There is however the valid thought that cooperation is required and should be given. However the following quote “The committee has heard from the Metropolitan Police’s assistant commissioner Cressida Dick that since May ‘voluntary co-operation (with News UK) has been significantly reduced’ and that police have had to obtain court orders regards ‘requests for new material’“.

Is that the issue? This has gone on for 2 years now. Is thus the statement by Mr Murdoch “totally incompetent” when it comes to describing the acts by the Metropolitan Police entirely wrong? If this has gone on now for 2 years, then yes, I think it is time to look at the questions being asked, and asking additional relevant questions to the investigating offices.

Not doing so could turn this entire phone hacking scandal into a fair label of ‘Witch hunt’ and as such, I would see this as the premise to attack the Leveson report. This is because the two are linked. I remain in favour of implementing the entire Leveson report. Not because I am so much in the know of things, but because I have utter faith in the wisdom of Lord Justice Leveson. Those who claim to know and judge the report as invalid, whilst not in possession of a Law doctorate are required to remain very silent on the matter, unless they show actual valid documentation! I admit that this is slightly strong wording, yet having listened to a few people blatantly attacking the Leveson report in favour of unmonitored freedom of the press, after which I asked in regards to the reports footnote 417 in regards to the accuracy of information, their….. ‘emotional repartee’ in my direction gave me what I needed to know. (They had no clue, or better stated, having never read the Leveson report).

By the way, that footnote is “Clause 1(i) of the PCC Code requires the press to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures” (page 673, Leveson report).

If we could only apply this requirement to advertisements at times! (Big Smiles).

So we must prevent that these events to ‘evolve’ into a witch hunt. I am NOT stating that this is happening, but after 2 years that image is starting to linger and that is wrong too. My issue is with the statement that was in that same Sky news article (at http://news.sky.com/story/1117618/murdoch-phone-hacking-probe-excessive)

“In his letter he set out how the company disclosed 500,000 documents after 185,000 man hours at a cost of more than £65m.” When the coffers are at minus 1 trillion and student costs are growing and growing, these costs are only excessive if the government is not able to make Mr Murdoch pay for these costs.

I personally have always been to mind that once we need to focus and stretch the actual letter of speech, we lose facts of what is the goal. Basically, in these words I am wondering whether the committee has lost the view of the Big picture. (My apologies if I am incorrect).

So where is the issue of strategy? Well, if we read the “The Leveson Report: implementation” (at http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06535), then at 6.5 (in the full PDF version) we see some additional delays in implementing the Royal charter. I quote: “Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, my briefing says that it is not appropriate for the Privy Council to consider more than one royal charter at a time on the same issue. The noble Lord may consider that the Press Standards Board of Finance has therefore been extremely clever in what it has done and may draw his conclusions from that – and that accounts for some of the delay.”

So we have more delays. Granted that they are procedural, but I wonder how many papers have reported on that delay? I reckon not many! Out of sight, out of mind is a valid strategy that has been in long standing with politicians and corporate spokes people all over the world.

So is this a strategy by Mr Murdoch to keep the focus away, or is this an investigation that is getting stretched in a very expensive way to stop your privacy from getting chartered protection? Not non-privacy by government (aka GCHQ), but by those who are making money out of side stepping commercial reasoning for ignoring privacy for the simple reasons of greed?

The issues of strategies are actually wider set then most will think. Against the Dutch pension issues, there is the view of George Osborne, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is viewed in the subtitle “A majority of directors at the Washington-based International Monetary Fund disagrees with its own advice on UK fiscal policy.” which is part of the article at http://news.sky.com/story/1117069/imf-board-disagrees-over-uk-fiscal-policy.

Even though this sounds good for the Exchequer, the issues of no tax rises in the upcoming years (or after 2015 as he states it) is not just short of wrong (at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/george-osborne-deficit-tax-rises) , I feel that this could only be kept if a play is made to the pension funds (like the Dutch are trying now), as well as the shale gas approach which is seen as ‘frackalicious’, yet, we should not forget the issues that the Dutch county ‘Groningen’ is going through as it has seen a rise in small earthquakes giving home owners massive costs to repair and additional losses in house values. These issues are to some extent denied/ignored as the investigation is going on, yet the damages that the people see in the news on a regular bases tells another story. At present corporations are now claiming for millions in damages from both the Dutch gas company (NAM) and the government. (at http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/groningen/article9972913.ece/Corporaties-claimen-miljoenen-bij-Nam) there is also the claim for compensation to be awarded for the loss of housing value, which adds up to over 10,000 houses for up to 25000 Euro. (Yet one house in the newscast has a value decrease of almost 150,000 Euro). Let us not forget that these were only test drilling, the actual drilling has not even commenced. If the exchequer is depending on these numbers then he might be in for a rough ride. In addition, even though Isla Britannia is decently larger then the Netherlands, there is enough evidence that these issues will have a serious impact on housings and the environment.

If this is all about strategy, then playing the cards close to the chest seems a debatable wisdom. Because when this all goes south, it is not about the Isle politicians are sitting on, but the issue whether there will be a nation left to serve.

Should you doubt that statement (which is fair enough), then consider on how ‘well‘ the US claims their economy is getting. The fact that Detroit is now bankrupt should be enough concern that the American way is not a solution.
We, the Commonwealth nations must stick together to stay afloat and survive, fight together to become the nations of true prosperity again.

None of these strategies are ready for that essential need!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

July 13, 2013 · 21:00

Control and Censorship

I am a simple person. I use an iPad, and I use it in a standard way. I synch, I play, I read, I listen! (Yes, I know such a selfish user I am). So when I read about the jailbreak issue I was actually surprised. Most of us never bothered with 3rd party software or other solutions. Yet, overall I do understand that some people might want to. I also do not see the issue for Apple or others to intervene. Some valid reasons might exist, and some might want this to develop their dreams, all valid reasons why a jailbreak system might be needed.

So the issue I read about today was that a game (Deus Ex) would not function on a jailbroken system. This might have been a simple issue with compatibility. No, this was not the case, as it was stated in the article the non-functionality was intentional. The person gets the message “We are sorry but you can’t fire on jailbroken devices.” So it is not just a bug but an intentional act to ‘sift out‘ certain users.

This does not make sense to me. So a person wanting the freedom to do certain things is now punished? I think it is high time that both Apple and Enix have some explaining to do. (Source: http://au.gamespot.com/news/deus-ex-the-fall-disables-firing-on-jailbroken-devices-6411343) the reader should especially accept the idea that there is a group of ‘legally jailbroken devices’ and they are in the same predicament.

It seems that the IT field is changing. This field is now more and more about personal data collection, discriminating groups and limiting the freedom of choice. At least, that is how I see it. But is this true?

When we see the jailbroken system then the following had occurred. The IOS has been modified. When we look at Apple support we see the following at http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3743. This is fair enough. It is nothing short of a person disassembling a television, then wanting it fixed under warrantee. So, I cannot fault apple for not fixing it. Yet the software gave us another issue. This is intentional intervention against those who ‘altered’ their system.

There are two sides to these events. On one side, I can understand why a system might be jailbroken. The immediate reason is that I was in the past the victim of Apple’s short-sightedness and their own party line flaws. It actually costed me thousands of dollars, so at that point, I feel that I am justified when I state ‘Apple Get Fu$#d!‘ (In regards to the lost $$$$).

The first part is the one some might remember from the PlayStation and PlayStation 2. Because some people were unacceptably greed driven, they forced many in a place where they decided what we were allowed to have and when. In the early days, games would appear in US and Japan almost a year early. To circumvent this, a ‘mod chip’ was available and as such people could order their games on Amazon in the US. Not only were the games up to a year early, in addition these games were 40%-65% cheaper, which was a massive benefit for many. Weirdly enough, the first reason was to many gamers more important than the price issue, but they happily took that benefit on board.

The second part of the ‘mod chip’ was alas less noble. It allowed people to copy original games and they would work on any modified system. For the most on the PlayStation 1, yet it had a large following in the PlayStation 2 as well. In my mind the second part was mainly due because of greed driven marketing, to exploit every person, wherever they lived to the fullest. The same was evident in the DVD market, however, there was a valid issue that Asian copyright violation was so strong that something needed to be done, yet overall the events seemed to have made little difference.

Are these dangers the same for jailbroken systems?

Because of the term ‘legally jailbroken devices’, I wonder what those were. The answer was found at the core of all hardware knowledge, a magazine called wired (at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/). This is the interesting crux! This verdict came out in 2010. So the fact that Enix had been adding a certain ‘limit’ could be read as intentional discrimination.

In the end, the quote I personally cannot disagree with Natalie Kerris said Apple won’t change its policy that voids iPhone warranties if a phone has been jail broken. “It can violate the warranty and cause the iPhone to become unstable and not work reliable”, this is fair enough, and should a jail broken system be used to play games people did not pay for, then this would be a violation, yet that was not the case in the game Deux Ex ‘the Fall’.

There is a new side to all this. Even though no longer an issue (likely only temporarily), the Xbox One with their need to connect, the Apple with jail breaking and all kinds of likely issues the PS4 will have (because even though we do not know at present, they will have their own issues), we are looking at new developments involving Digital Rights Management (DRM), deployment on the cloud via UltraViolet and the Keychest system. You the users are about to get hit by levels of user-based licensing and limitations unlike any w have ever experienced. More important, users are likely to get hit a lot harder on user license agreements then companies have ever faced over the last 15 years. In my view 99% of the population will press an ‘I agree‘ button and have no clue what they agreed to. The fact that the users who signed the apple user license and then ‘jailbroke’ their system should be ample proof of that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law

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

July 2, 2013 · 15:38

Microsoft Mattrick was not alone

Anyone who has any view on the gaming world, then that person might have heard about the Xbox One and also heard the scary announcements that were made by Don Mattrick. Views that had to be altered only 2 days after the E3, the most important event in the Gaming industry. Do not think it is a small geeky thing. The E3 is massive. The gaming industry has grown in 15 years from ‘sizeable’ into a multi-billion dollar industry, so those who are there are there for plenty of reasons. The E3 is next to Comic-Con seen as the place to be to bump into Hollywood stars. Funny part is that they get to revere the geeky guys who come up with games like Mario, Metal Gear Solid as well as leagues of sport stars when they announce the EA sport line.

In this environment the Xbox One was launched, and the following revolt by gamers all over the planet gave Microsoft the scare of their lives. As a result Microsoft did a 180 degree on their policy, giving their new console the nickname Xbox 180. That was not the end. Even though things are announced to be back to what they were, their market share is not. It is not unlikely that Microsoft is now at risk of losing 30% of their market share and most of that to Sony. That, in a multi-billion dollar industry is a lot, it could be the biggest drop in market share a main player has ever experienced by its own plans.

So the following news I saw today that Don Mattrick is leaving Microsoft for Zynga (the people behind Farmville), as I read it, I saw many messages drop by. Some making fun of Don, some leaving a ‘happy you leaving’ message to Don. Gamers can be so emotional!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/07/01/report-microsofts-don-mattrick-to-leave-microsoft-considering-zynga-role/

The reality is that this is far from over. Do you think that this is over? Do you think one man like Don Mattrick actually sets the trend to a market THIS BIG and you think he is alone? No, he took one for ‘the team’, and it likely comes with one hell of a golden parachute. You see, the picture that seems to be intentionally missed is that data gathering is big business. I am not talking about what the NSA might be doing. This is about market research, customer metrics and product predictions. Gathering certain key factors makes all the difference. That is the multi-billion dollar industry that Gamers are not interested in, but one that Microsoft is adding and as such the Xbox One is not a gaming console, but a Home entertainment system. It will be offering TV, Movies and games. All that info will help them finding the holes in what we desire and cashing in on it. Information that is worth millions! Now this data would be grabbed on a scale of many million consumers and on a global scale. The value that it would represent is beyond what you can imagine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/microsoft-expands-gathering-and-use-of-data-from-web-products.html

So, I was not the first to state it, and I will not be the last. It is important that you realise that these claims do not come from some conspiracy theorist wannabee, but from Journalists working in some of the most renowned newspapers in the world.

So Don ‘you have to go on-line daily’ Mattrick is not alone in this game. To start this all with the Xbox one would have been only the start in achieving gathering on a much larger scale. That is how I see it, and that is also why interactivity with other devices was so important. The more interaction there is, the more complete the picture becomes. Smartglass is only one part of interaction, the fact that they are letting you interact with your home system with iPhone and iPad means that they would be getting even more of your available data.

Do not think I am just making this up. The privacy issues, as reported initially, were reported by IT experts in privacy in Germany and several other nations too, amongst them Peter Schaar who is in charge of Data protection and freedom of information in Germany. In the German magazine ‘der Spiegel’ he mentioned the dangers on privacy that the Xbox One could be. http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/games/ueberwachung-datenschuetzer-peter-schaar-kritisiert-microsofts-xbox-one-a-901893.html

Do not think that you are suddenly getting downloaded. No, that would be illegal! This will be a smooth transition over the next 2-3 years. By interacting you will get many cool little extra’s you normally would never have. Like movies behind the screens on your iPad (as they showed on CNet). Soon it will interact getting your mobile to Skype directly to TV, to switch information through your pictures and events. Before you know it, you will move all data to the cloud for ‘free’ backup services; you will only need to agree with the terms of service. That is when it will happen. A new form of business and it is enterprising on a new level. Where business sits in the centre of the web and we are all like a fly, just going into their web. We do this because of the benefits we are offered, like an exponential multimedia interacting form of Facebook. We by ourselves have no value, but their return comes a million fold as we all accept their terms and conditions as we are offered free extras.

Why is this situation so dangerous?

You see, initially we think that there is no difference, but consider that these numbers are all used to find the points of profit. Where we are subjected to what 98% likes. By that reckoning cult series that grew over time will now get cut suddenly or after a few seasons, as the results are not up to marketing standards. Consider that series like Firefly, Pushing Daisies, Veronica Mars, Jericho, Dollhouse, Heroes. These series got all cancelled on ratings. In the new set-up they could get cancelled in half the time. An interesting part is that the writers of Veronica Mars set up a kick-start event, and the funds for a third season were achieved in 10 hours and will launch early next year. So one in several series gets another shot after the ratings. What series will you lose because 98% prefers sports or Glee? You see artistic creativity is not about numbers. Remember, that because of fans the original Star Trek series got another season, now that series and what came after is now the biggest milk cow in the history of Paramount. There is no way that this could have been predicted.

We will miss out on series after series, limiting views and artistic growth, because it does not confirm to what people expected initially. It is not initially an issue for most, but these events will add up and we diminish ourselves accordingly. It is a danger I do not want to see, because those who will be given the power to decide will always act on greed. We have decades of evidence in that regard.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media

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

June 27, 2013 · 20:53

Opportunities to lower spending

The Dutch have a new observation drone. It is called the Scan Eagle (by Boeing). Unlike the Raven, this little pretty pretty can fly at 1000 meters for 17 hours and is able to observe and find those who they need to find. Even though some are now overly screaming privacy, it is not about those people. This Super Drone as Gerard Schouw from D66 (Dutch Democratic Party) called it. It needs legislation. Who will it observe? For which purposes will it be used? Where is the data stored? There are no answers at this point. To some extent this part surprised me. The Belgium police had been working with camera mounted helicopters for a while (DSAS). They have been doing this for almost 10 years. The Dutch were not? These questions have never been raised before? Nope, Mr Schouw seems to be correct (not that his statement was ever in doubt). Even though as was observed by others that section 3 of the Dutch Police act gives them leeway to use this solution, with these current levels of assumed invasion of privacy, legal questions would and should be asked. (Thanks to blog by Rejo Zenger at www.rejo.zenger.nl)

Yet, is this just about this observation drone, or just about privacy laws? We see a massive growth in the deployment of drones, some with weapon capacity. What are the real issues? The Dutch like many other nations have CCTV, they have helicopters that could observe and with the eye on admissible evidence in case of prosecutions, the idea that the issues of digital image capturing has not been a legal issue before is slightly puzzling to me at present.

No matter how we see these drones. They are not toys and these devices have a clear need. It does not initially matter whether we are dealing with an armed version, or a mere observation version of the drone. The idea that nations have an effective air force without the need to endanger troops is more than just appealing. In addition, in an age where we MUST lower costs, where a predator costs under 5 million and the average fighter jet is almost 1000% the cost of a predator, can we even consider NOT implementing such options? An option that will keep pilots safe, and in addition offer a solution where extensive costs of training fall largely away. How can this solution be a bad thing to consider? Questions will remain, no doubt and we will always need pilots and actual planes, even if it is to get goods and support systems into place. This little pretty pretty can easily be launched from a small launcher and does not need the infrastructure the Global Hawk needs, making it very versatile and could be a great additional asset to non-military support needs.

My first thought was to take these Scan Eagles, add Israeli FLIR technology and the result could be a first actual effective line of defence that South Africa needs to hunt down Ivory poachers. Especially considering the current dangers to the elephant population and their almost assured future of extinction.

The issue of privacy laws remain as Dutch politician Gerard Schouw observed. That need should actually be considered on a European scale. If these drones are making headway, then exploring the laws and rules of observer drones and the current privacy laws then we see the need to address it from both Civil and Common law views. If we can believe last month’s news, then these issues are very much in play in Germany too. Even though they are now dealing with the issue of US drone strikes as these drones seem to have been operated from Germany, issues on privacy laws as observation drones are operated in other countries will be food for legislation in more than just equal measure, especially as several European defence forces are now in talks/finalising stages for acquiring drone technologies.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

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

June 20, 2013 · 12:42

RBS of the Clan Goldman Sachs?

Well today the light shines a little brighter. As I was watching Sky News, I now see a stronger and more enthusiastic run to get these bankers under some kind of rational control. Will it work? Time will tell, however there is a start, and it might not take long until a strong voice could stem the tide of greed to a small extent.

We are however nowhere near a good solution. Mr Osborne (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is about to take a page from a legally valid solution to divide the bank into 2 parts, a good and a bad bank. Yes, Mr Osborne, that will really help to take these billions of bad debt and add them to the tax payer’s burden! Not really a solution, is it?

To add other news moments that the UK economy is out of intensive care is not just wrong; it is a bad insight close to that of the Titanic playing chicken with an iceberg. No, I stand corrected. This decision is worse. You see, the Titanic had a few survivors; this approach might leave people alive, but destitute for a very long time.

So yes, there is a chance that the Royal Bank of Scotland will join Clan Goldman Sachs.

The idea of shares, making public and so on are ideas. I am not in favour of them, but perhaps Mr Osborne does not have a choice. You know, it is unfair for me to just complain, lay blame and not have a solution. What could be done is to keep the RBS nationalised, and remain an operating bank. Do a proper bank job by giving out small loans, do banking functions for those with jobs and create jobs. Also, the money that the RBS bank makes is used to pay off the debts, the bad loans and even create tax fortunes this way. Why not?

It is not like the banks at present are doing anywhere near a decent job.

The so called stated fact that the economy is in a better shape by stating: “Nothing better signals Britain’s move from rescue to recovery than the fact that we can start to plan for our exit from Government share ownership to private ownership.” is in my view horribly wrong. The fact that the UK is not in the red at present is just fortunate (and at less than 0.5%). The fact that most of Europe is down and there is no realistic view that this will improve within 18-24 months is not realistic. I read the claims that some made over the last two years. Good news was always bad news in the end and results had to be corrected downwards every single time. To rely on that a belief that the UK is now in a stage of recovery is in my humble opinion a case of really bad judgement.

How about playing it safe? Instead of quickly selling the good bank so that irresponsible banks can continue to endanger the lives of too many, hold on to it, make it stronger and get it into a shape where it is worth a lot more than it is now.

The current ‘noise’ that bankers are being chased for criminal charges are nice claims to make, yet the true culprits did what they did, and they never broke the law. Until the law changes, they are out of reach. The small fry we do get to prosecute will get nowhere near the punishment that is due. It is best reflected by Paul Moore, former head of Risk, HBOS. “The banking crises drove 100.000.000 people into poverty“. He is correct, what was done should be criminal and those involved require insane levels of punishment. Yet, as I reflected earlier, that will not happen. Lawyer Sidney Myers seems to be in agreement (or more precisely, I am in agreement with him). Mr Myers is not just a somebody in this field. As the head of Berwin, Leighton and Paisner this man wield a formidable legal cricket bat. It would make Colin Cowdrey instantly humble. Mr Sidney Myers is listed as one of the top 500 lawyers, this in a field that has over 120.000 practising lawyers, so we are in well informed top tier company.

To get a person convicted is near impossible. Getting the group convicted must proof all guilty, neither seems to be a realistic possibility at present. So we need to see a legal overhaul that changes the game, and selling of Lloyds and the RBS before that moment is in my humble opinion not a good idea. Sir George Mathewson, former CEO of the RBS has that same view (in regards to the legal prosecuting). He did however state an interesting line. “Where the information is made clear to the board and the shareholders” this comes to collected responsibility. The interesting part is what information? To get a clue on that, we should look at a book called ‘how to lie with statistics‘ written by Darrell Huff in 1954. It is a gem, an eye opener and it actually shows today’s problems. If we react to numbers and if numbers are ‘not incorrectly’ tweaked, then how is managed risk not anything less than misrepresented risk?

The bulk of data miners will look at profitability, but profitability of whom and how?

Uniting the views of Paul Moore and Darell Huff gives us part of this problem. Separate the data miner from the board of directors and we create a Star Chamber situation that lacks accountability for the simple reason that no laws can be proven to be broken. That danger, until countered gives reason for the now nationalised banks to remain as they are. SNS Reaal in the Netherlands is in that same scope. Until legal secure measures are firmly in place, protecting the taxpayer from irresponsible risks, other banks should not be allowed to continue, especially AFTER they move part of their failures into a bad bank.

The idea that the PM David Cameron has mentioned about selling the RBS at a loss is just not an option in my view. They should continue in the setting they are now, offering financial solutions to the UK citizens at lowest base +1% could over time turn the RBS and Lloyds into banks that are no longer in the red. Other banks have no reason and right to complain. They have been making customer services nearly impossible. To get a grip on that, take a look at The Netherlands where getting a mortgage reads like a tale no less imaginary then ‘the Hobbit’. As banks have been banking on higher levels of return on investments, smaller businesses and individuals suffered. They have no issue with credit cards as they charge 11-12%, however getting a mortgage seems to be a lot harder. So as customers come to the rescue of the RBS as they switch credit cards for 6-7% which will aid the government to get RBS back on their feet and even add some coinage into the treasury’s coffers (with a 1 trillion deficit), this could be a possible good solution. Are there any banks complaining? Well, that is the way the cookie crumbles. It is time for them to face the consequences of unadulterated greed.

The issue of holding bonuses for 10 years does sound nice in theory, however, how about appellant case HQ09X04007 and HQ09X05230. A case settled in the Court of Appeal by Lord Justice Elias and Lord Justice Beatson? A case where 104 members, were due their 50 million Euro in bonuses.

In that case I found this: “Bonus awards for all front and middle office employees who received a letter in December stating their provisional award, which was subject to Dresdner Kleinwort’s financial performance targets, will be cut by 90% pro rata to the stated provisional amount.”

However their contract had this little hidden gem “It is common ground that all the claimants, including the three whose employment agreements did not contain any provision with regard to payment of a discretionary bonus, Messrs Sacre, Honeywood and Daley, had a contractual entitlement to be considered for the award of a discretionary bonus.” (Source: Case note)

How soon will that case get quoted in another court case to get a bonus freed up? Some miscommunication through contracts where no one is accountable, yet the bonus is immediately payable? Another option could be that these senior members will start playing musical chairs with friendly banks, switching each year all protecting one another stopgapping large bonuses on an annual basis (in their favour of course).

So how long until we get some level of miscommunication going on? If we accept the journal of Ronald Green from 1993 ‘Shareholders as Stakeholders: Changing Metaphors of Corporate Governance‘ and if we accept that banks and financial institutions fall in that category, then their responsibility is to profit, not to accountability, which means that their acts will focus on non-accountability to endure ruling of profitability. The latter part would be my take on the works of Milton Friedman.

There is the crux. Until serious changes are made to separate the banks, the profit in regards to  stakeholders and shareholders, whilst increasing a banks social responsibility, the cut-throat business they now do and the taxpayer currently pays for will continue.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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