Category Archives: Law

October 28, 2013 · 19:31

Damage through virtual nudity

Gamespot’s Feedbackula gave me pause for this issue. It seems that when you have a PlayStation 3 debugging console, it will be possible to see Ellen Page ‘fully’ naked in a shower scene. Now, this was a little issue, because when I played the game the clock in the kitchen stated 7:49, which meant that pizza and the CIA buddy would arrive in roughly 660 seconds. The buddy might arrive late, but the pizza delivery guy is not likely to be late, hence, no shower. I saw the shower footage and under normal conditions you see nothing revealing. Which seemed to be different from Heavy Rain (a game I did not play) there is complete nudity, like a decent quality movie, when she takes of her panties, Madison’s view on her thighs are ‘blocked’ by a washbasin between her and the camera. So, basically we saw nothing ‘too’ revealing. With Beyond two souls it is a different thing. Here we saw in the making, that Ellen and her co-workers were all in tight fitting black overalls with grey balls all over their bodies (like bad 21st century polka dot fashion), which means that the body they used was not Ellen (so I guess), so why is this likely to hit her career? Willem Dafoe was naked in ‘Body of Evidence’; his career did not take a hit, did it? In case female gamers are into seeing a little more of Eric Winters, which made Katherine Heigl go ‘Oh my!‘ then check out ‘the Ugly truth’, for extra giggles check out the ‘outtakes’ on the DVD.

So why this hypocrisy, more important, how was this not avoided? I think that the breasts might not have been a big issue; here in Australia we see tens of thousands of them on the beach (usually in sets of two). What is likely the bigger issue is the noisy mess Sony is making out of it all! The latest (which is a few days old), is that “Actress Ellen Page is reportedly considering a lawsuit against Sony, it was revealed yesterday“, this news showed up on more than one location, so I do not know where this is at. What is important is that this is the same glitch Heavy Rain had and as such I do not know what that status is. That nude scene was on several sites. I do not know whether this had been Madison’s actual body (played by Jacqui Ainsley), if so then we can only envy Guy Ritchie. Likely that the nude body of Jacqui Ainsley was also based on someone else, but I could not tell in either case if this was the case (just logical assumption on my part).

Should Ellen Page go to court, then she would end up with a strong case. The Heavy Rain issue was from 2010; the fact that this issues surfaces again three years later, means that either Sony or the developer was unable or unwilling to learn from past mistakes. Those possibilities tend to get expensive once proven. Jacqui Ainsley was a model in numerous glossies; Ellen Page is an award winning actress, winning an Academy Award and a Golden Globe. If she can show that this event is hurting her career, then it would be fun to read in Forbes in 2014, that a Canadian from Nova Scotia became the CEO of Sony, a company that is one of the pillars of the Japanese Economy, (an unlikely, but entertaining scenario). I got the image from http://www.allgamesbeta.com/2013/10/uncensored-pictures-of-ellen-page-from.html (it is one of several sites).

B2S_Shower1a
I am adding a censored frontal shot, so that people can see how far this scene was taken onto the disc (even though nothing was ever shown in the actual game). It does not matter whether it was playful banter, or just a little piece of candy for the male gamers (remember that only development test consoles allowed for changing the camera angles), so why was it all taken this far for a scene that was not needed for the game or the storyline?

I initially thought that this would mean that this would add up to good times for Ellen Page. The issue is that when it comes to virtual nudity not much exists. There is an interesting paper called ‘A Passive Approach to Regulation of Virtual Worlds’ by Jacob Rogers that made it to the ‘The George Washington Law Review’. It was published in 2008 Vol. 76. (Pages 405-425). In this paper Jacob observes that there is a lot of legislation missing involving virtual events. However, Ellen is not without due defence. As Jacob quotes Professor Jack Balkin “someone might bring claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Which came from “Jack M. Balkin, ‘Virtual Liberty: Freedom to Design and Freedom to Play in Virtual Worlds’,2004”. So there is precedence for this, which takes us to the world of Torts. Sony might claim that there was no intent, yet the issue three years earlier (also with a Sony game) had not been dealt with, which takes us to the world of Torts. We have Foreseeability of damage, the Wagon Mound 1 case [1961] could apply. If we consider (there are statistics), that the average gamer is a horny little rascal, then we could foresee that they would check the heavy rain option the moment a shower scene came up, if we accept (consider) that the shower scene had no bearing on the story, then we can consider two sides. First in the regard that the scene could have been replaced by a gun cleaning scene (she fires a few during the game), A hand wash laundry scene (in case the steam on the mirror was essential) or a dressing scene in front of a mirror. In the second it would have been an option to make the shower scene a non-interfering cut scene (a movie cut, not a location cut). All these options! As we are in torts, the negligent act causing economic loss is a situation that is covered in every common law nation, yes also in Japan.

So we can safely say that should Miss Page take this to the next level, Sony might be wise to give her a residency tower (to get some landlord income on the side), a small percentage in Sony Interactive Entertainment and at least 5 roles at twice her last pay to settle this issue (not a bad day for a short youthful Halifax Canadian). It is not realistic, but we can hope for her!

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

October 22, 2013 · 22:28

Patrons of Al-Qaeda

Many people have some form of religion, which is fine. To have a personal believe in something that is bigger than yourself or bigger then that what you see is not a bad thing. Many Christians have their father, their son and their holy ghost. Some go the other way and give credence to Satan, the anti-Christ and the false prophet. I cannot vouch for any of that. I agree that there is more than this in the universe, but what?

No matter how that part falls, it is likely that Al-Qaeda believes in their personal ‘information’ trinity.

They would be Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. These three people have done more to support Al-Qaeda then Osama Bin Laden ever could.

Assange, who is still hiding in an embassy, is the lowest transgressor of the three. First of all, as an Australian he did not really break any laws (although some debate should be had over hindering the actions of an ally under war time conditions). The public view is that on one side he should be nailed to a cross and on the other side he should be heralded. Information is often a lot more complex than many consider. If you want an example, you only need to look at this week’s situation where Assad is now blocking peace talks. Should there be any surprise?

I still am not completely convinced he was directly involved with the Sarin attacks; the issue here is that too much intelligence is questionable. If the USA had shown ALL OF IT publicly, the doubt might not have been there. Yet, the reality is whether they actually had hard evidence on who did it. Let us not forget that the evidence collected in the investigation was all about whether it had happened, not who did it. And guess what, Al-Qaeda was an element in Syria too, so what exactly did happen? Watching Secretary of State John Kerry go on a plane with his briefcase, shown on the news like he is some kind of rock star is not helping anyone either. It seemed as empty to me as a PowerPoint on some concept that no one wants to spend money on.

It shows two possible sides, either they have actual evidence that needs to remain a secret (which no one seemed to be accepting), or they actually didn’t have any and we were watching some version of the Punch and Judy show!

The other side is one that Assange was not into, the acts of terrorism by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not shown, we saw through WikiLeaks just one side of it and it changed the overall balance.

Then WikiLeaks released thousands of diplomatic cables, which I consider to be an act of utter stupidity, the information was one-sided, so the US opposition (all of them) get several free punches into play and as such, US recovery is still being hindered. This is the ‘bad’ side of Julian Assange. Their one sided act destabilised many events. Yes, there is a case to be made, but by not exposing the other side, we get a one-sided situation. In the end, the damage is done and even as there might not be any criminal activity by Julian Assange, we should ask questions.

In case the reader thinks that ‘actions’ against Julian Assange should be made, then consider that many in the financial industry did nothing ‘criminals’ either, even though thousands became homeless because of their ‘non-criminal’ actions.

By the way, remember the quote by CNBC (and many others), somewhere in 2010: “WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange told Andy Greenberg at Forbes that he was in possession of a trove of documents that ‘could take down a bank or two.’ The documents wouldn’t necessarily show illegality but they would reveal an ‘ecosystem of corruption’ at one of the biggest banks in the United States. WikiLeaks would release it ‘early next year.’”

They never came! So was this about intelligence, or about positioning banks in an even stronger place? Is it not interesting that Al-Qaeda’s patron number three and number one patron are all about neutering governments, whilst the banks stay out of play? Is it such a far fetching thought that these two idealists get played by those who believe greed is all?

In the middle we see Bradley Manning. This is not some ‘foreigner’; this was a member of the US military. In my view, he is a traitor plain and simple. A private, without any in depth education thought he had it all figured out, decides on US military policy. Which is interesting as many military members above the rank of Colonel are still trying to figure out what the best course of action is, even those with Ivy League degrees. The only positive thing from all this is that the military needs to seriously start to address its mental health issues, but beyond that small sparkle of recognition, this person was more than a small danger.

That part is not addressed even as the news still discusses the winner of this unholy threesome. Three days ago USA today published information on the fact that anti-leak software had still not been installed. I think it is even worse than many think it is. Some of these applications have (as any good application would) powerful log files. Even when we look at non-military solutions we see the following:

“The client’s log file is located at <user_directory>/Palantir/<version>/logs/client.log”

We can see at Palantir’s wiki what it logs, and depending on the settings it can give a lot (at https://wiki.palantir.com/pgkb/does-the-palantir-product-do-any-logging.html)

By the way, one needed only to change three settings to really log a lot:

# log4j.logger.com.palantir.services=error # package level
# log4j.logger.com.palantir.serveres.Nexus=warn # class level
# log4j.logger.MyLabeledLogger=info # specific logger

Removing ‘# ‘ on each line was all it would take.

This one warning gives a final view “Note that we do NOT recommend enabling logging below the warn level for production scenarios.” which means that all logging is possible mapping out the active military network in real time as the user muddles along.

This is not about Palantir, or even anti-Palantir. It is a software solution that part of the Intelligence community is currently using. IBM Modeler and SAS Miner are both data mining tools with similar abilities (and there are more). They all have these options as it is needed to make their products go smoothly. So when Bradley Manning gave it all away, he really gave it all away! The consequence might have (or could be resulting) in deep targeted attacks against a military server system. The question becomes how good is the anti-leak software? As many logging is set at higher levels (read administrator), many of them would be able to log events unhindered by many prying eyes (it is not realistic to monitor all logs on even 1 server). Even if it is all covered, who else has access to just read these log files? It is not uncommon to negate log files, as their users are usually vetted for use of the application. LOG files can however show more than many bargain for.

Unless the server architecture has been re-arranged, there is plenty of worry whether these servers are safe at this time, because log files are inherently their and needed, they are not linked to a password change and often, they do not get reconfigured away from their standard configuration as the case has been with plenty of application that it would hinder smooth operations.

Last on the list of the Patron Threesome is Edward Snowden. I have mentioned him often enough, so I will not go through it all again. He is in my view a traitor and not some ‘holier than thou’ protector. He is not some idealist, too much pointed to him making a getaway with the eye on some quick bucks (and many of them), I might be wrong, but that is how I see him. As he showed us how ‘naughty’ the NSA was, did he show us how unscrupulous Microsoft seems to be?

That view can be seen through an article in Techbeat just 4 days ago. The first quote is “Microsoft is developing a new technology to replace cookies. This work is similar to projects being undertaken by Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Tracking cookies have come under scrutiny recently from regulators by many concerned about privacy; certain types of cookies (Third party tracking cookies) are now easily blocked through built-in functions and extensions/add-ons within main web browsers.”

The second one from the same article is “This technology should also include Microsoft services including their search engine Bing. Tracking in mobile devices remains a key point. The big advantage of Microsoft’s emerging technology is that it could track a user across a platform.”

So basically, this reads like: ‘we the consumer used to have a little privacy, but soon, thanks to Microsoft, that privacy might be gone forever, allowing for non-stop online harassment wherever we are‘ So, That Snowden fellow never gave us anything on that, did he? Even though the NSA should have been aware of such plans long before Techbeat had a clue. Does the reader still think he is such an idealist?

Yet, on the other side, he has shown one important weakness. The US intelligence branch is on that same low level as the organisation that in the 50’s used to be laughingly referred to as ‘British Intelligence’. The question is not just how weak is the NSA seems to be; it links to questions regarding the weakness that GCHQ and its current Commonwealth peers might have. There are in addition issues with the personal digital safety of people on a global scale. Not because the NSA is scanning to identify terrorist networks, but if one person (Snowden) could get away, is there anyone else who just wanted money and gave their data download to cyber criminals? There is absolute 0% guarantee that this did not happen, so in how much danger are our details?

So, why this blog today? Many do this at the start, but in certain light this had to be done at the very end. It is not just about their acts, but also about the acts you and I undertake. We willingly give out our details to Facebook (including a beheading, but excluding exposed breasts), LinkedIn and Google+, yet many scream about ‘some government‘ seeing what we are doing and who we are doing it with (or without).

The twisted world we allowed to be created is likely to throw us at least two more curve balls before Christmas. Enjoy!

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military

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

October 19, 2013 · 10:05

A case of Gas

Yes, many of us have a case of gas; I used to have it before I moved to Sydney. Many got it as they moved away from Sydney and some have had it all their lives. Whether you prepared Broccoli, made yourself a cheesecake or just because the Chili needs to be hot. Natural Gas is one of the most common ways to prepare your food.

The topic is the foundation of high emotions in the UK.

This all got the high note after Ed Miliband made his pledge to freeze those prices. so was he right? Let us not forget that this all is a commercial enterprise, but should it be?

So a lot happened after the news broke that British Gas would raise prices by 9.2%. You can read about it at http://news.sky.com/story/1155720/energy-bills-british-gas-ups-prices-by-9-2-percent  and the Guardian had a social twist in their story at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/17/british-gas-backlash-price-hike-energy-bills

It is nice that many stayed asleep as British Gas was privatised, but that is what happened in 1986. These are consequences of it all. As for competition, that sounds like a nice idea, but when 6 players have a comfortable life not having to fight over one another, slicing a large cake in 6 pieces mean that none of them grow hungry. It is a basic fact of life. Only AFTER 2018, should China become a power supplier through their nuclear plant, only then will these 6 companies wake up. You see, having to make money as a private commercial enterprise comes with the consequence of price hikes.

The question is whether the price hikes are fair. That can only happen when all numbers become open to all for inspection. Oh! I forgot these are commercial corporations; they do not really have to, or do they?

What is a factor is possible comparison to a historic event. The Phoebus cartel! It was a group that all made certain agreements based upon the 1000 hour light bulb. They had a global control on the price of the light bulb. You might not think much of it, but in those days you had to consider that light bulbs would have to be replaced every 3 months. In an average house you might have 1 dozen lights. Now consider that 200,000,000 (over a few dozen countries) people needed to buy 50 light bulbs annually. It might not seem much, but that is the beauty. It is too low an amount to be noticed. Yet, the arranged additional profit of $3-$5 a year (in 1924 that was a decent amount), this still adds up half a billion to a billion dollars for 15 years split three ways. That is a massive amount. This is all a low estimate as I did not completely include businesses. Now getting back to Gas, the entire UK split 6 ways all connected to the same system. So, switching will not hamper any person. Is it so strange that these 6 are playing nice?

So, if there is an unwritten agreement between these 6, then it is important that the numbers are opened up. I am not against profit; I am not against companies having a buffer. I am against people getting bled dry by 6 corporations in agreement. Yet, at that point it is important to have all the facts. I did not agree with Ed Miliband making a half-baked ‘promise’ about freezing prices.

What was the reason for my view?

Oil is getting more expensive, all natural resources are getting more expensive. Can you freeze prices as the providers are getting charge more and more? To ascertain this, the numbers should go out into the open. As for arranging prices Philips has been in deep waters more than once. The recent $1.9B fine as they were one (of several) involved in price arranging for CRT monitors, does not mean that this could not be the case that this is happening in the situation of your gas line. The fact that the gas prices are close together does not make them guilty (they all go to the same network in the end), to not look into such matter would however be extremely irresponsible.

As for the dream Ed Miliband had? A dream to some, a nightmare to corporations!
They have rights too!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , ,

October 17, 2013 · 16:16

A new third World continent

At the final moments we see the news that in the 11th hour an agreement had been reached. Should we be happy? For now many will be happy, for now the Financial industry is relaxing and happy that their rent is safe, but the stress will return soon as the next ceiling will be reached in another 18 weeks.

So what is wrong with the USA today?

It sounds all fun and games to blame either the Democrats or the Republicans, yet overall, both have some level of guilt. Yes, at present the Democrats are wearing the hoodie of blame and shame, but the Republicans are not without issues either.

Consider that the government has maxed out the USA credit card. They have until now REFUSED in any way to take responsibility for the utter irresponsible spending. No, taxing more will not solve anything. That story is old, stale and redundant. If America would like to be taken seriously ever again it would have to cut no less than $350 billion in 2014. So, NOT more taxation, but LESSEN spending. That means if all was equal that every American will get $1000 less in support, which means that it would not impact the top 3% of the nation, but the others will have to pay. This is not me supporting the rich, this is me placing ALL politicians in a limelight where every spend dollar will be shown in the spotlight.

The Democrat story will be that they have a solution, and if these people pay just a few dollars more than….. It is nothing less than utter Bullshit! (Pardon my French!) With a debt of 17,000 billion dollar, a budget drop of 350 billion would mean that the interest of the outstanding debt could not be paid for.

On the other side, the Republican side will have to stop this ludicrous boast of less taxation. That is not, cannot and will not be a solution (for at least a decade). The debt must go!

But there might be a solution with the UN. When America has  been diminished to a third world nation, then perhaps the UNDP will offer support to the USA. I know, the irony of it all, go figure!

I have remained in favour of the US remaining strong from day 1; however, the Democrats refused to step up to the plate to do what needed to be done. The Republicans had stepped up to the plate, but in hindsight, the result was almost nil and they have not endeared themselves to anyone.

The voiced speeches by the Democrats as they are shown on TV stations all over the world today seem to be in bad taste too. I will make an exception for Democrat Harry Reid from Nevada. He had been in the middle in of what might be called a ‘small hell’. If the Navy Seals are used to be between a rock and a hard place, then this man outclassed them to several degrees these last two weeks, as a Republican minded person I will admit to that. I will go further to say that should Harry Reid go for the oval office, then he stands a chance to convert a decent group of Republicans too. Values like respect and moral coming from Nevada? What a tangled web we see!

For many non-Americans it is not about the pure Democrat versus Republican fight, it has always been about the massive debt and the risk they push upon many other nations. It is even a case that the voice of many non-Americans should be heard. When a nation like America has so many corporations that operate their business outside of the USA and as such put hundreds of thousands of workers on the spot as their futures are linked to the status of the USA, then they must realise that accountability remains an international factor.

On Sky News there is a hilarious movie, shot in old fashioned silent movie style explaining the debt ceiling. It is fun to watch and it tells the story nicely (at http://news.sky.com/story/1155554/shutdown-senators-pass-bill-to-avert-default), I do however disagree with one part of it. At 1:53 Ed Conway states one part I do not agree with. “If America was to default, it is not because it cannot pay its bills. It is because their political system would not allow it“.

That is the part that has been my major issue!

It is what I disagree with. If we consider the T-Bill rate of 2.66 (as it was this morning), to get the 16,700 billion in debt, to pay it back, if it was all in T-bills, then the US had to pay an additional 444 billion dollars in ‘fees’. This seems very very little. However, this was not done in one day; it was over many many years. The problem is that as risk grows, the people will be offered a higher return, because if the debt cannot be paid, those bills will become null and void overnight. In the end, that money must be paid and overall, even though for now it is paid, the outstanding debt as it grows and grows, will mean that the chance of EVER paying it all back will become less and less. Consider that the following amounts are due: 2022: $1276B, 2021: $1228B, 2020: $1652B, 2019: $1885B, 2018: $1017B. So from 2018 onwards, the returns will have to be paid to those T-Bill owners. The amount will be in access of 1 Trillion dollars a year. Can anyone explain to me how that payment can be met 5 years in a row whilst the on average the collected annual taxation in 2013 will be an estimated $1.9 Trillion dollars? This means that from 2018 onwards 53% of all collected taxation will go to people owning T-bills. How unrealistic a goal is this?

This is part of the reality politicians ignore (as they will not be in office when it happens) and the people who gets settled with the bills will not have anything left.

Consider in addition that the Tax evasion bill has not been pushed into effect (which means the rich will continue to have additional tax shelters this year) and the Dodd-Frank Act is STILL not active, giving the financial sector too many non-accountable freedoms (which will make sense late on). If you want to know more about the Dodd-Frank Act, take a look at the next link, it has an interesting cheat sheet on the latter one. (at http://www.mofo.com/files/uploads/images/summarydoddfrankact.pdf). Morrison & Foerster is a global law firm. It might have been for internal use, so send them a thank you note if you download it. It is the easiest read in regards to this topic I have ever seen. They also have Patent and Trademark litigation, so I should send them my resume when I get my MIP after my next semester. Cool!

If you wonder about that reasoning after my strong voiced disgruntlement, then remember that the US is a great country. In my mind it was sold down the drain by politicians and exploiters. If we muzzle the first and neuter the second, the US could be a great nation quite quickly again, which would be good for Europe too. A win-win solution I say!

So why aren’t more people nervous about the entire deficit and debt ceiling? That is the part that does not make sense to me. Rolling over debts is a dangerous habit. The definition is clear enough, the dangers on adverse percentages is even more risky as politicians played 11th hour resolution makers. The second part is one that many more are ignoring. This is all based upon 100% of the due payments rolling over. What happens when another nation has a slightly stronger return? What happens when only 80% is sold? Is that such a hard concept? So at that point, where will the required $200B-$275B come from, additional raise of the debt ceiling? I have no actual facts to work from, so I do not know what the level of risk is, but consider that between 2018-2022 no less than $1T in investments are needed, and that the larger wallet friends (like the UK, FR, DE, IT and AUS) many of them at the maximum tapped out amount. How long until THEY (read governments) start the ‘swap’ game? Is that not how we lost most of what we had because we could not control the banks, now we let them advice on the same game, but now with full government budgets? So, we will not be looking at just a few trillion, when that game goes bust (and such a game always goes bust), the population will be stuck with a bill between $70T and $90T. How will we survive that?

Let us not forget that all those actions are taken in closed rooms with only a few insiders fully in the loop. If the next election causes reasoning for full disclosure on such events and only a referendum will allow for this, then the game will not just change fast, it will leave the USA on the outside looking in. A fact is that this risk grows almost exponentially each year the deficit is not dealt with. If Germany has been under pressure for the EU issues from Bernd Lucke and the UK from Nigel Farage from UKIP then we should expect additional players who will be fueling these fears. The upcoming price fight might not yet be the main event, but the debt ceiling issue that comes after the one on February 9th will be a main event and it will likely involve more players then just the US, several of them are unlikely to be one of the 18 Bernanke disciples.

So here we are, and only hours after Jill Treanor wrote her article ‘Financial Conduct Authority launches currency markets investigation‘ on the Guardian at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/16/financial-conduct-authority-currency-markets-investigation-benchmarks.

This is a must to read!

Guardian’s Youthful Young City Editor, all complete with her own copy of SAS Miner plugged into her brain started today with “Suspicions that the vast global currency markets may have been rigged by major banks and traders has sparked the City regulator to launch a formal investigation into the £3tn a day market.”

This goes way further than just the LIBOR scandal. Earlier this year I had some doubts on all of this. My doubts were not on the interest part; my thoughts were that the main amount involved, which the percentages were based upon had also been tampered with in some way as well. I still expect my $1T bonus when that gets to be proven!

So what if the benchmark is not JUST the foundation, but part of more. You see, if we consider that governments have been involved in T-Bill Swaps, then the tradeable amount involved is not correct. More precisely, if the volume of T-Bill swaps is to the amount deficits go, then in which direction are the percentages rigged? It might accidentally involve the ‘accidental’ mentioned group of larger wallet friends. Now consider that Germany at present is the only one with an economy more on the stable and positive side then all the other players. So, would there be additional benefits for them in the long run? I actually do not know this (self-confessed lack of economic education), but the fact is that these issues go far beyond the banks themselves. Perhaps that is why the Dodd-Frank Act was never activated? It is just a thought.

So my advice for today, instead of long term investing your $5, this morning, have a pastry with your coffee, because at times there is nothing better than short term gratification and pastries will usually do the trick.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

October 16, 2013 · 17:08

The irradiated Geisha

It is the Guardian that inspired my thoughts today. They come slightly easy as I was naughty/desperate enough to skip my medication last two days for a law essay (sorry doc!), so I actually feel awake today. It was the article “Plummeting morale at Fukushima Daiichi as nuclear clean-up takes its toll” (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/15/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-cleanup) that is the fuel for my inner fire today.

I covered part in my blog ‘Glowing in the Dark‘ on world animal day (not the worst date for upper management of TEPCO). The Guardian, of course always loaded with good reporters, touched on a part I had not looked at before. (Those reporters do cheat as they got to go to Japan). The moral issue, especially in light of the 20% pay cut the TEPCO workers took. Which is interesting considering that the company still made 4.5 billion last year (according to their own presentation, linked in the other blog). So, almost 4% leaves, rest working on 20% less, in a country that is expensive to begin with. And morale issues were not predicted? Hah!

I still remember my old days of learning and the exercises from the Dutch 101 NBC Decontamination Company. I still remember the wash streets and so on. I might actually make some decent pay over there, and if I start to glow in the dark, I can personally cut back on electricity costs.

But in all seriousness, the 4% the workers lost and the cut backs they face, TEPCO has more hard times ahead. If they keep on being this careless with their options, more people will walk out and it would make it possible for competitors of TEPCO to walk in. Even though the site JapanToday stated ‘TEPCO too big to be allowed to fail‘, we should seriously consider that future. Even though it is disastrous to consider the short term effects of a failing TEPCO, the issue does remain that too many acts by the high board of TEPCO is in my humble view too much about rolling out ‘gracefully’ with a golden Geisha instead of fixing it all, is cause for major alarms. If Japan wants to fix this, then perhaps it needs to take another approach, one that is actually in line with the old ways of Japan and very much a proven strategy. I do believe that, at times the old ways remain the best. Allow the new hungry Chubu to walk in and get 50% of TEPCO, they must in return accept the cleaning burden (with government financial support) and the government should use the other half, for now in government hands to keep it all rolling and to slowly hand off to the other power brokers as to not upset the balance of energy. It would also create a competitive edge in Tokyo allowing for energy prices to remain competitively low. So, like the Dutch did with SNS Reaal, just nationalise TEPCO overnight and change the locks.

The comforting kicker? Make a mandatory sentence to the TEPCO board of directors of no less than 2 year serving in this troubled era to serve as junior consultants for Chubu at 1 yen a week, a public way to saying to these boards that what they did was utterly unacceptable.

You see I have a few issues with the article in the Guardian, not on the Guardian side; they did roll out an excellent article. But consider the following quotes: “Another worker, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he had seen hungover colleagues collapse with heatstroke just minutes after beginning work.” and “In the long term, Tepco and its partner companies will struggle to find enough people with specialist knowledge to see decommissioning through to the end, according to Yukiteru Naka”

If we look at this statement in regards to the previous two “For Tepco, money is the top priority – nuclear technology and safety come second and third. That’s why the accident happened”

From those three statements I see a strategy grow. If you cannot walk away from a situation, then make sure the system collapses on itself. It is my personal view that this is what is happening. The pressures, hardship and the continued drive without moral care is exactly what will happen if no fast change is made. In the end, my bank account would love the idea of me going over there as a senior consultant, but in all honesty, if the Japanese government does indeed want this all fixed, and preferably long before 40 years, then an entirely different approach will be needed. This view is actually supported by Ian Fairlie, a London-based independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment gives voice that TEPCO is not convinced the current situation is genuinely voiced by TEPCO (as mentioned by the Guardian). He sees a system that hides behind pride. Even Japanese government officials are considered less than welcome, if we can believe the information we could all openly read. I see, not a company claiming in pride that they can do this. I see a worried and scared board of directors, wondering what skeletons will show when outsiders will dig into their systems. If the Japanese government and the world gets to see more then the mere glimmer I saw, they will turn around and publicly obliterate these members. The two years that followed the disaster shows gaps on several layers. The 20% cut was the biggest of all errors, they should have given those people in Fukushima a 10% raise and add mental health consultants. This would have fired them up to be motivated to be long term members of a clean it up team.

Perhaps that is the worst of the nightmares for the TEPCO directors, not that it must be cleaned, but that after the cleaning is done, it will become empty land with no value to use. Spending fortunes into a land that will serve the future, not the present, that is the fear of greed and it is too visible in this case.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , ,

October 9, 2013 · 13:03

Diplomatic Disbelief

Even though the economy is about to take a weird leap, which will be discussed in the next blog, the events as they unfolded on last night’s news by the NOS is taking a weird step to say the least.

So, on Tuesday evening, the NOS decided to release information on events that happened last Saturday. Now, these things happen. Whether it is just average news, or embargoed news, the fact that diplomatic grounds were transgressed upon, whilst as far as it seems with an utter lack of viable reasons is something that seldom happens. It might actually be a Dutch first, but there it is, the Dutch police thought it was to some level a good idea to enter the premises of a member of the Russian Diplomatic Corps.

Since when is that not major news?

So let us go over the facts for as much as we can.

As the NOS reported, on Saturday the Russian diplomat Dmitry Borodin was arrested in his apartment. This was due to neighbour complaints about the safety and danger to his children.

So, here

  • First, diplomatic grounds were violated.
  • Second, the diplomat was taken away, even though, according to his statement, he pointed out his diplomatic immunity.

Subtotal: this fiasco at this point involved the Dutch home office and the Dutch foreign office.

There are additional issues with the Vienna Convention on Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes, but about that part later.

So let’s look at the time line.

This happened on Saturday evening, which means that the police commissioner should have received a phone call that scared him to death before midnight. He then wakes up the Dutch ministers Ronald Plasterk (Home office), Frans Timmermans (Foreign Office) and Ivo Opstelten (Justice). The simple reason is that when you miscommunicate from the top, you want that list to remain as short as possible. At that point, the arresting officers will get the picture that it will be a long weekend for them, as they get grilled and checked on every piece of paper they create.

The Russian side was simple; the man was released after three hours.

So at this point, it is Sunday, it is way too soon for lunch. Those four individuals are (or should be) earning their pay. However, did this happen? It seems not, as Kysia Hekster, NOS reporter investigates her story, I see none of these matters. The fact, that after the trivial matters that the NOS reported on Sunday and Monday and, this Tuesday story smells like Hamlet, (a foul stench that is coming from the news).

Important to realise that in the first, we do not know whether the policemen were morally wrong, they were definitely legally wrong to enter diplomatic premises. I wonder what their side is on all this, as I would want to hear this. The fact that Sky News did not seem to have picked this up and the Guardian picked it up only after the Netherlands did seems to indicate that several levels of embargo in place.

I have to admit that several facts do not add up. For one that only after arrival at the police station people learned that this was a diplomat. The fact that the address did not raise flags is an issue on several levels. You see, partially I am all for a new cold war. However, it would be nice if we start being clever about it on how we start this and not give away the cheese on these levels of ‘silliness’. The statement by Annemieke Vermeer-Kunzki is acceptable. She stated that ‘the Dutch are likely wrong’. She is holding out for space as she might not have all the facts. There are of course issues if the children were clearly in danger. I am not claiming that fact to be true or false, I just do not have viable data on that claim.

What is, however really clear, is that this circus, which started on Saturday, is only now getting into the visible light of newscasting. So interesting to see how this evolves, especially as news agencies, who are always claiming ‘the people have a right to know‘ seem to remain to be in the dark on these events? I reckon that at present it sucks to be a minister (one of the three mentioned that is).

There are more considerations. No matter how right or how wrong, President Putin will not take kindly to this. The Russian Diplomatic Corps is his shiny horse and officials messing with this will get the wrong side of the lime light. It will be interesting to see what Director Bartholee of the AIVD (Dutch version of MI-5) will do. No matter how morally right the policemen might have been, they might be in hot waters in more than one way. The response on NOS news by Foreign office minister Timmermans is also out of bounds (to some extent). It is nice to ‘await the report‘, however when this information is released three days after the event, then it is time to ask questions in these matters, especially with such an international event. In addition, the NOS was really not that active in asking the ministers involved the questions that needed to be asked, especially when most of the ‘news’ is about budget meetings that are not moving forward (about that part more in my next blog).

We will see this unfold, yet the lack of visibility whilst CNN reports on a couple who survives a near-fatal hike, how BBC world release information on 4 Spanish members released in Mexico. It seems to me that there was nothing on this event on any of those stations. Even Sky News seemed to have nothing, just that a ‘New Dreamliner is on its way‘. In a time when our privacies seem to be blowing in the wind, as we see a headline like ‘Regulation will be imposed on press as politicians reject self-regulation’, where the quote “Tom Harris, a former minister, warns on Wednesday that his party is undermining freedom.” and at the same time, those Journalists do not act on a story of diplomatic trespass gives more than one indication that the PRESS seems to have lost view on the things that should matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

October 4, 2013 · 00:26

Glowing in the Dark

OK, for now enough of economies who are on their last legs. It is time to take a look at something completely different. Whenever I see any news on nuclear reactors, my first thought is on an old sketch by Benny Hill. “Would you like to see your children to glow in the dark? Feed them Windscale porridge!” I thought it was hilarious. Of course, as I was still growing up in the Netherlands, I did understand the nuclear reactor part, but what I did not know was that the joke was linked to the “Windscale accident, accident in 1957 at the Windscale nuclear reactor facility and plutonium-production plant in the county of Cumberland (now part of Cumbria), in north-western England, that was the United Kingdom’s most serious nuclear power accident.” (Source: Britannica).

But issues at present are not that funny. Less than 24 hours ago another leak was spotted at TEPCO’s famous new place called Fukushima. (At http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/03/japan-fukushima-water-idUSL4N0HT0BW20131003) Quoting Reuters, we get the following facts: “Leak probably flowed into Pacific after worker misjudged tank capacity” and “Tepco’s efforts to improve water handling not sufficient, govt says“. Really? The word ‘Misjudge‘ is used?

In addition there are these two quotes. “Tepco has been relying on hastily built tanks to hold excess cooling water flushed over damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site” and “Tepco said the water that leaked contained 200,000 becquerels per litre of beta-emitting radioactive isotopes, including strontium 90. The legal limit for strontium 90 is 30 becquerels per litre.”

Fortunately, I am a technologist and not an economist. Yet, when we judge the news article Reuters comes with, which was DEVOID of the name of whoever wrote it, then I have two issues.

1. Was TEPCO actually this stupid? (Until later in the article I was not completely convinced that this was the case).

2. The Reuters article contains ‘misjudge’, ‘hastily build tanks’ and ‘strontium-90’, I want to see a clear identity on the source. The partially implied information that the ocean is receiving 6666 times the acceptable dose of radiation is leaving me with too many questions. The article ‘implies’ I said, because the wording leaves in the middle what the exact radiation source is. In addition, the fact that they are relying on hastily build tanks 2.5 years after the event is not just unacceptable, in my eyes the non-acting by the Japanese government needs to be questioned on EVERY news station on this planet. Just in case Tim Burton was right, we need to transmit that newscast to Mars too! (Before it attacks)

I know it is ‘only’ a day old and covering bickering US politicians seems a lot more sexy then radiation leaks, the fact that both ‘event‘ and ‘news covering‘ is a little out of whack, the leak should get the spotlight it deserves.

Why is this an issue? Well, in 1945 the Japanese population was set at 71,000,000. After the bombs there, Japan had massive issues, especially food shortages (not sure how much was due to radiation). Now consider that Japan consists of 121 million people. Even though Fukushima in one place, it dumped radiation into the ocean and it seems there is nowhere near the needed levels of control in play to prevent long term damage to fishing waters.

TEPCO does not seem to have its game face on and Reuters implies that it will not change for the better any day soon. As soon as the government walks in, the TEPCO execs will clamp up and the Japanese people will not receive the answers they are entitled to. The implication from Reuters that hastily build tanks were never improved upon within 3 years, so this implies that the problems the Japanese face are long term and might include long term health issues.

What is so upsetting?

In my mind I see a few. First the fact that places like TEPCO did not learn anything from Tsernobyl. Even though nature was the reason for what happened in Fukushima and the damage to any solution due to the tsunami is not their fault, but when I see that people ‘misjudge’, that hastily build tanks were not replaced within mere weeks by a less hastily solution gives me the shivers. If we look at TEPCO’s 1st Qtr. earnings for 2013 (at http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/corpinfo/ir/tool/presen/pdf/130731_1-e.pdf)

We see a consolidated ‘Net income’ of almost 4.5 billion dollar, so the ‘hastily build’ tanks are no way an acceptable excuse.

Now, we must realise that the Reuters source is not known and no way to check who wrote this, but either it was written by someone now in his/her last week of journalism EVER! Or, the TEPCO board of directors need to be openly arrested and get immediately placed in front of the honourable Hironobu Takesaki, Chief justice of the Supreme Court of Japan, with every Japanese TV news camera in that same court. I would like to see the faces as they answer in regards to those hastily build tanks, misjudgement and still report a 4.5 billion dollar net income.

I could accept issues when the net income was ‘ZERO’. I would understand that they are facing a disaster due to natural causes. I would understand that they got financial support from the government in such events. I do not understand the combination of 4.5 billion and utterly lacking acts!

Perhaps it is just me!

The engineer in me understands the nightmare that these engineers face today. The impossible conditions, the lacking resources and no clear solution. But these lack of results in 2+ years draw all kinds of questions, many of them not very positive.

This is not about Japanese worker ethics; this is not about the size of the challenge. It is that the combination and the time passed give nowhere near the lack of results. I do not envy them and no matter what will be done, it will be an expensive and time consuming endeavour. Whether they look at a Dutch water dike system to insulate the area, place 2-3 tankers next to these hastily build tanks to collect water, whether they freeze it all solid with liquid nitrogen. Something else needs to be done.

Last week Bloomberg had a much better article. (At http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-25/russia-offers-to-help-clean-up-fukushima-as-tepco-calls-for-help.html)

“‘It was clear for a long time that TEPCO was not adequately coping with the situation’, Asmolov said. ‘It looks like TEPCO management were the last to realize this,’ he said. ‘Japan has the technologies to do this, but they lacked a system to deal with this kind of situation’.”

It seems that the implied blame towards TEPCO sounds more justified then I thought, and in this case Vladimir Asmolov is the man who runs the state owned Russian Nuclear Utility. So the man would know his non-glow in the dark solutions.

What the article shows is the one part that many might not know “Russia repeated an offer first made two years ago to help Japan clean up its accident-ravaged Fukushima nuclear station, welcoming Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s decision to seek outside help. ” So Russia was there to help, but (and I am assuming here), TEPCO had a pride issue for 2 years? I get that they will weigh it all for the first few days, even the first month, but the first 29 months? I reckon it is time to ask questions.

No matter how I feel, I do wonder how members of the board of TEPCO can get home safely every night from  Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan to wherever they live, having to get past 9 million Tokyo residents and many of them with likely not that great an appreciation of these board members as they have to live with the consequences of that glow in the dark mess.

Perhaps we will see a new Sketch in Japan soon:
あなたは暗闇の中で輝きたいのですか？福島フィッシュ
Do you want to glow in the dark? Fukushima Fish. (Via Google Translate)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Science

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

September 22, 2013 · 19:04

NSA linked to corporate dangers?

The Netherlands are facing a new issue, one that they had not bargained for. It is my personal view that the matter at hand seems to be getting misrepresented, so I need to do something about it.

First let us take a look at the reported facts.

On Saturday 21st September the Dutch NOS reported on TV and on their website on how the Dutch are opening their doors to the NSA (at http://nos.nl/artikel/553680-nederland-opent-deur-voor-nsa.html) The issue is that on business grounds the Amsterdam Internet Exchange is considering opening an office in the US, which would under the FISA all their servers open to investigation by the NSA. In that scenario all of the Dutch internet traffic can at that point be monitored by the NSA.

The first question that comes to mind is what the exact benefit is to open an American office. I wonder why that step is so essential. That reason might be very valid, I just do not know.

The danger is not ‘privacy‘ as such. So many people keep on blabbing on how their privacy is so much in danger. I think that remains to be grossly exaggerated. The additional issue raised by the NOS on their Saturday broadcast (which was not on their website) is a different matter. In there the mention was made by Nico van Eijk from the University of Amsterdam, where British executives from an online gambling site, something that is perfectly legal in England, is not legal in the US and when these executives were in the US on business for other ventures, they got themselves arrested. This info can be found at http://www.cato.org/blog/uk-gambling-ceo-arrested-us-airport. The important quote here is “the U.S. has exploited those treaties to effectively kidnap British citizens who broke no British laws, and extradite them to the U.S. for trial on charges of violating U.S. law“. There is of course another legal side to this. Did David Carruthers actually enable these transgressions of law? Connected to this is the Mark Emery case, which involved a Canadian ‘evangelist’ for medical Marijuana. Did either enable US business?

A quote from the UK’s Daily Mail gave us “Investment bankers Goldman Sachs says that the clampdown by the American authorities could mean ‘that the US could cease to be a viable market for online gaming companies.’ That would be tantamount to destroying the earnings of the main firms since 70% of them originate from the United States.”

The two sides here are that in the first degree these companies do rely on their American market. Knowing that the events were illegal, going to the place looking out for you was not really that bright was it? The second was that the statement came from Goldman Sachs. Bringers of the popular gambling option ‘soon, because of our bad judgement, you no longer own a house‘. Seems a little warped doesn’t it?

We could of course come to the notion that the NSA executive is riddled with spineless paperbacks, not a hardcover amongst them! But the reality is not that clear. In actuality, the game they could end up playing is a lot less appealing for those outside of the US.

For that part we need to take a look at the NSA website (certain parts of it) and to start we need to look at a document that came from the Defense Technical Information Center in Fort Belvoir Virginia. This document called “2009 National Intelligence, A Consumer’s Guide“, where at page 52 it states “The Act specifies that OIA shall be responsible for the receipt, analysis, collation, and dissemination of foreign intelligence and foreign counter-intelligence information related to the operation and responsibilities of the Department of the Treasury.”

Now add the information on the mission statement from the treasury as displayed by the white house. “Support the Department of the Treasury’s mission to promote economic prosperity and the financial security of the United States” this is only part of that mission statement, but by itself it is just as valid. The two now give them additional possibilities through the NSA.

That part is seen on the actual website of the NSA and specifically a department called the ‘Information Assurance Business Affairs Office‘ (at http://www.nsa.gov/ia/business_research/ia_bao/index.shtml), here we see the following parts:

1. The IA Business Affairs Office (BAO) is the focal point for IA partnerships with industry. It also provides guidance to vendors and the NSA workforce in establishing IA business relationships and cultivates partnerships with commercial industry through demonstrations and technical exchanges.

2. The benefits of working with the BAO are (two of them):

  • Increased product marketability
  • Assistance in the development of next generation solutions

These are only part of the mission. They do a lot more. So in the upcoming age where the world will revolve on big data and parsing information, US businesses might get the option to get access to Exabyte sized data, marketable, distributable and sell-able. The intelligence side of the US was never the problem. The corporate side, for which I have tried on several occasions to warn others about (like ‘the Google’ and ‘the Facebook’) will get access to information and innovation on a global scale.

When we consider the utter inability by the US government to get their own spending under control (not just them mind you). As they are now closer and closer on the edge of bankruptcy (17 trillion in national debt will do that to anyone), their own treasury will only need to receive just one mandate ‘to grow and assure the continuation of the United States and its economy‘, which is already part of the treasuries mission statement. In the age where the current president is so polarised against his opposition, where he is adamant that spending is the only option, he will not hesitate to speak these words (can’t really blame him, can I?). It is decently likely that this would give specifically assigned parts of corporate America the option to market Petabytes of data. Outside of the US, the industrial age would then collapse in a way you cannot even imagine. They could globally sell lists on scales no one can compete with. Consider the future to have one provider in data; the ripple effect in the industry would be devastating. However bad you think you have it is nothing compared to what happens if the thought I am having is a reality. Consider the data files people created. The issue I was confronted with yesterday is that someone saw a nice design on a 3d printer and he wanted to use it, but it was not his design. The help file contained the info I expected it to have. All files from that program were to be considered shareware/freeware and could be used and distributed freely. The software maker had done this to avoid liabilities. It made perfect sense. He made a program he wanted people to use, he did not charge anyone for it and to avoid people coming after him for being nice, he made it all freeware. But whoever designs in that program, those data files are freeware too. So anyone can use it. How many programs do you think are out there built on that principle? Now consider those artistic idea’s, traded freely and there is nothing you can do about it.

That was part of the fear I had and as almost EVERYONE gave away their rights on social media, who profits? It seems to me, not the creator!

But then those in social media opted for that, however those on corporate networks and business internet connections did not opt for such futures. The question is, how protected are they from misuse of their data?

So how long until it is no longer about finding terrorists?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

September 2, 2013 · 00:20

FISA? Gezundheit!

 

In a column for ‘all things D‘ (democratic I guess), Arik Hesseldahl wrote an article called ‘Microsoft and Google Will Sue U.S. Government Over FISA Order Data‘. A decent article! I did not completely agree with it, but the man wrote a decent story of his view and he was not playing the ‘spin’ game. I can respect that, even if I do not agree. The same could be said for Bill O’Reilly. I do not always agree with him either, but his clear and clear outspoken views are valuable to hear. So, in the case of Hesseldahl I responded.

The response (from another reader), which was “Your analogy is accurate, but your point is misguided. The government was afforded specific rights by the people via FISA laws. Not only were those rights abused, but activities outside the scope afforded them were taken, and are therefore illegal.” was interesting to read. There was more than that, but basically I was the misguided one.

Fair enough!

So let’s take a legal look at this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), especially the amendments which are extended until July 2015. It is the work of Edward Liu, who is currently the Legislative Attorney at the Congressional Research Service.

The initial find where this all starts can be found on page 4 of that work “National security letters, which are analogous to administrative subpoenas and are authorized by five federal statutes, require businesses to produce specified records to federal officials in national security investigations.”

I will ignore the footnotes, as they will just delay. The important one for this quote refers to “Legal Background and Recent Amendments, by Charles Doyle“. The person not agreeing with me relied on the quote “but activities outside the scope afforded them were taken“. Was it? Let us not forget, this is about Foreign Intelligence. Google, Facebook, MSN are global organisations. Collecting and servicing billions (with 330 million US citizens, we can clearly state that there is a massive amount of foreign involvement).

The next part is how this is about transgressions on US citizens. Is it really? These Americans, mostly innocent people, include a fair amount which are playing fake identities, often trying to impress women showing the sexiest outfits. This is not wrong, illegal or questionable (actually, that might be a case), yet many of those profiles are linked to people not being those people at all. Some are criminals collecting identity details, some are simple scammers and possibly 1 out of roughly 734 will really be that woman, 1/734 is not that good an odd. The alphabet groups do not really care about these parties, but when we consider that some of these tactics are employed by the very terrorists and the supporters they are trying to find it becomes a new ball game.

Page 5 of that document gives us the next little snack “During the examination of the events leading up to the attacks, it was reported that investigations regarding Moussaoui’s involvement were hampered by limitations in FISA authorities.“, so accepting that, then finding these dangers require a little more than they are now getting.

That gem is presented on page 9 of the aforementioned document.

“In United States v. Petti, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was presented with a challenge to a roving wiretap under Title III alleging that roving wiretaps do not satisfy the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The court initially noted that the test for determining the sufficiency of the warrant description is whether the place to be searched is described with sufficient particularity to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort, and whether there is any reasonable probability that another premise might be mistakenly searched.
Applying this test, the Ninth Circuit held that roving wiretaps under Title III satisfied the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment. The court in this case relied upon the fact that targets of roving wiretaps had to be identified and that they were only available where the target’s actions indicated an intent to thwart electronic surveillance.”

The latter part was also a footnote link to United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1124 (2nd Cir. 1993) (similarly holding that a provision authorizing roving bugs under Title III was constitutional)

So why are Americans so set upon claiming illegality?

My initial response was about people bragging on Facebook the 243.1 ‘stupid’ things they do to every Tom, Dick and Harry and then nag about the fact that the government takes a look. It was never about them, but about finding those attacking America. It seems to me that many of these people are way too eager to complain when they are asked to help keep their nation safe.

From my point of view all Americans should hand their on-line ‘data’ to the NSA.

Why?

Well, consider the field of predictive analytics. If we are to flag a terrorist, then we need to know the data that makes for non-terrorists too. Whether this profile data concerns a horny student, an adulterous husband/wife, a fence not the one in the garden), a carjacker, a geek or an average parent. If the system has ALL the facts, the more we know, the more pronounced an identifying flag becomes. If predictive analytics is about finding the odd one out, then basing the search on grey people alone will not do, or at least will result in many flags that need more checks. So if we accept that this is about the need to analyse current and historical facts to make predictions about future or otherwise unknown events, then we must have all the data. If we know what a US Apple Pie eating and cuppa Joe drinking person does, then we can see many more elements. This all reflects on our acts on-line and off-line. They will give us a line that raises flags. Flags based upon things we do and even more flags on things we are not doing. That results in a picture!

Now wonder, why are you against helping your nation?

Is this about your privacy? If so, then why are you on Facebook/Google+? These places are to share with friends and THEIR friends (so often your data is shown too many more then you anticipated/expected. In addition, many seem to incorrectly use Facebook a lot more often then they think, which in turn means that your birthday party invitation went to 17 million connected people (it happened in the US, the Netherlands and a few other places, and it happened more than once).

And those so called ‘criminals’ claiming privacy? Well the previous case actually left those in power as Amendment 4 transgressions were about “intent to thwart electronic surveillance.” we are not talking about the level the ordinary criminal goes through. This is avoidance on levels that require highly advanced router hacking skills. Can it be used by both? Yes it can, but let us not forget that the court judge could throw some of these facts out in court at a moment’s notice, giving the alleged bank robber a free out of jail card on the spot. The NSA (and peers) know this and they have ZERO interest in these types. They care about the next attack that will come at some point. They just want to figure out when, where and by whom!

If you are still worried about all this, then consider the amendment as discussed on page 14. “a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to a [foreign intelligence, international terrorism, or espionage investigation.]” So in case of those ‘excited’ students fearing privacy, when was the last time you tried to C-4 her lingerie drawer so that your date arrived without panties? If not, then why worry? (Apart from the small fact that you should not be having access to C-4 to begin with).

So, I disagreed with the assessment made on my response, which remains fair enough. I believe that intelligent people on both sides of the isle can come to wisdom. Whether you stand next to the NSA council, or you side with a civil-libertarian. The origin of UCLA proves the need for civil liberties in no lesser degree. I personally believe that the wisdom is somewhere in the middle. The only part that I never agree with are those blindly hiding behind the quote from Benjamin Franklin “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The quote is wise, but based on another age where there were clear nations, clear missions and where life did not revolve around greed. Because considering the events from the past few years we see more and more correlation with terrorism enabled through desired greed than anything else, for the greedy will only remain loyal to the currency they worship, a simplistic life without true values.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military

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

August 30, 2013 · 14:23

Tactical choices of inactivity

I reckon that many are awaiting the events as they are unfolding currently in Syria. Will we be investing in Boeing Defence stock, should these missiles be used? (At $1.2M a pop that would mean a nice increase of revenue for Boeing). Will we change our investments in oil and gas as the Syrian situation continues?

These are the questions that matter. The hundreds of deaths because of a chemical attack do not seem to matter.

Are you wondering why I have that opinion?

Then read the BBC quote in regards to these attacks. “The United Nations Security Council said it was necessary to clarify what happened in the alleged attack, but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team currently in Damascus, following an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening.” This was published on August 21st.  So there was a chemical attack and the UNSC did NOT demand the immediate investigation in regards to chemical attack deaths. The worse matter was that the bulk of the casualties were all civilians.

But where is the case of what matters?

If we look at the UNSC charter we see the following “The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.”

So clinically we see that they are not an issue. Peace was not an issue in Syria at all. It stopped existing well over two years earlier. The UNSC is set in a charter. They are called the “Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council” (at http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/rules.pdf). They actually do not help that much, only to illustrate certain steps. Yet, this is about the procedures of the UNSC, this will not help at all. So where is their decision making tree? For that we need to take a look at the charter of the United Nations. I took a specific look at Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.

The premeditated crux is set in Article 45 which states: “In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.”

So we need to look at Article 43, which actually does not help us that much. That part is about making available troops “in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security“. I think we can agree that that part is at least two years late, and nothing here gives us a pass to start anything AFTER chemical attacks.

 

Yet we see in that same chapter that Article 51 (partially shown) states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” This is all very nice, but Syria is not a member state, which makes this all a little moot. In addition, this is a civil (local) war, so other member states are not in question.

So let’s take a look at ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules‘ (at http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf).

Rule 11 states “Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Even the rules of war have some level of distinction, yet for the most; this is all based on the previous Article 51, as is quoted “The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.” Darn! I am caught in some sort of looped program. It reminds me of my very first program I wrote on the Commodore VIC-20 in 1983.

10 PRINT “You are crazy!”
20 GOTO 10
RUN

Ah! The simple old days, how I miss them at times.

The same book lists an interesting part on page 38. “several States invoked the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks in their assessment of whether an attack with nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law.9 When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syria) replied favourably.10”

9 See. e.g., the pleadings of Australia (ibid., § 65), India (ibid., § 77), Mexico (ibid., § 85), New Zealand (ibid., § 86) and United States (ibid., § 99).
10 See ICRC, The International Committee’s Action in the Middle East (ibid., § 139).

Yes, I agree that a chemical attack is not a nuclear attack, yet when I was taught the elements of NBC (in army days long ago), we tended to count the Nuclear and the Chemical similar to some extent. The Biological element is one that might be considered to be one worse than that as it can continue its damage and even transcend borders.

So we can now add a look at additional protocol I, especially as Syria was one of the parties who replied favourably. As such, we could see Syria as a party that accepted these rules (to some extent).

You see, these parts underline the part as set in Rule 13 (from the IHL), which states “Rule 13. Attacks by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.”

This my dear readers includes ANY level of chemical attack, as that form of attack that is utterly indiscriminate as well as encompassing the area as one military objective.

Taking into account these elements, why did at that point did the UNSC, as stated by the BBC in the first mentioned article “but stopped short of demanding“. The stopped short in these elements were utterly unwarranted, in my humble opinion.

Now we all watch a political runaway train disaster where politicians stop short of acting in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and France await ‘evidence’ which they can deal on. The one cowboy state (the United States) would be at present the only hope the Syrian population has for now. Are these nations correct in holding of? Well, they do have a case there. However, the evidence as UN investigators were delayed, the possible evidence on how the chemical spread started. If we take the elements we have, then we need to consider the firing mechanism. That part had been made near impossible with 5 days of bombings. Yet, in all honesty, did Assad do this? The question is important for two reasons.

1. If he did not do this, was it an intentional act?
2. What other intelligence has Assad silenced?

The two are related, because the earlier fear the US had is now truly coming to fruition. If these missiles were inadvertently fired by the opposition forces, the theory I have is that as they lack military expertise, they might have known and partially learned how to fire a SCUD, but did they know about the payload? Let us not forget that many fighters are anything but military trained. Even those who had training, it is possible that they had too limited knowledge on how to work and identify these types of equipment.

The danger is that they might have found chemical payloads, so here is the danger. Al-Qaeda is currently helping the opposition forces. We now have a trained AQ with support from people lacking knowledge, and they gave AQ access to a chemical storage area. Here is where it becomes dicey! Assad knows the assets lost, he is playing high stakes poker by keeping these locations a secret. For him it is a win-win. If the opposition figures it out they have a time-bomb they cannot use. AQ will use it no matter what and preferably on Israel. Whichever of those steps happened (when they do), the world would have no option but to remove his enemy for him.

Proving that Assad did the actual firing is almost non-provable. The evidence is scattered and at best we can see that NBC components were used, but by whom is less of an option which will leave doubt.

Time is on the side of Assad and elements stopping activities to attack, whether justified or not will only strengthen Assad’s position. I can side with the politicians when they claim that they do not want another Iraq, yet when we look at the initial quote from the BBC “but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team” we must more actively wonder what it would take for them to get anything done. It should be seen as tactical inactivity of the very worst kind!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

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