Category Archives: Law

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 aviation, Boeing, D66, Drone strikes, Drones, dutch police, FLIR, Gerard Schouw, Germany, invasion of privacy, Israel, Kruger park, Rejo Zenger, ScanEagle, UAV

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 Berwin, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Colin Cowdrey, Darrell Huff, David Cameron, George Osborne, Goldman Sachs, HBOS, Leighton and Paisner, Lloyds, Lord Justice Beatson, Lord Justice Elias, Milton Friedman, mr osborne, Paul Moore, RBS, rbs bank, Ronald Green, Royal Bank of Scotland, Sidney Myers, Sir George Mathewson, Sky News, SNS Reaal, UK

June 8, 2013 · 14:01

Privacy and (fake) fears

It has been all over the news. The US government has access to your email and your details. It was quite the show to read this all yesterday and the issues this morning was set in a nothing less than A-level theatre play. A play that would make Robert Ludlum envious I might add.

The issue is that the US Government (NSA in this case) is reading your e-mails. They have been doing that for some time. Basically, it was the Patriot act that opened the (back) doors for them to get access to all this information. As they were dealing with data on a lower level in those days, their task was simple. Find Terrorists! Find those who attack America and deal with them. So readers, here is your fake fear! This is one moment where I agree with President Obama 100%. You cannot have 100% security and 100% privacy. Anyone claiming different is lying to you.

The NSA is not interested in you soliciting erotic acts from a recipient on the other side of the e-mail track. They are not interested in the deals you make offering a quick buck! So those in fear (roughly 99.8932353%) you have nothing to fear but fear itself. The part you are not afraid of is the part that SHOULD scare you. You see all that data that you ‘surrender’ to Facebook, Google, MySpace, and Friendster and so on. All THAT data you gave can be crunched, marketed and sold to companies, corporations and all who would buy them. THAT is an interesting part. That is the fear people need to have when they looked at the dangers that Dutch Equens represent (as reported in the earlier blog: ‘You might soon be sold by the banks!‘).

It is not just that part, it is the possibility that data miners offer as they combine data files in one coherent file that could be a personal ‘danger’ to you.

The NSA issues are not that. They need these abilities to fight the existing and growing threat called ‘the lone wolf terrorist’. These people are guided by sources like ‘Inspire’ magazine, which is created by AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula). It is however not that simple. The real lone wolves get their ‘guidance’ remotely from sources most do not know and all that under the eyes of the Intelligence Community. To have a grip on stopping these people, monitoring the internet is essential to keeping us the common people safe. If you think that reading mails was enough, then you are wrong. The further going plans by some to monitor the internet is going to be an essential part. Do not think that this is a fun exercise for those involved. It is pricey, it drains resources and it is never ending. As people move to the cloud the need to monitor upcoming dangers will only increase.

Most readers will have heard of the soldier killed in Woolwich UK. Home Secretary Theresa May was quoted when the mention came that this attack was not from a ‘Lone Wolf’ terrorist. I am not opposing this thought. Yet, it cannot be denied that magazines like Inspire might be central to these events. As such it is no wonder that GCHQ wants to peek over the shoulders of the NSA to see if dangers are hitting their small island (I meant the UK, for those who wonder).

There were additional issues that are growing on several grounds, which give weight to the need of monitoring and in all of these cases people like you and me are not an issue.

For most of you feeling fear of this, your fear is unwarranted. Your fear should be how Microsoft and Sony are very interested on squeezing your details out of you as they are preparing and implementing their Next Gen consoles. That will affect you a lot sooner than the security services ever will. (Blog: ‘Government ministers, be warned!‘)

It looks almost sanctimonious that people are so shouting at these government actions and after that spread their visions with pictures and reveal all they can (and sometimes with way too much info) using Shutterfly/Instagram and Facebook. When their identities are stolen they will whine that it is ALL the fault of the government on how their identity was not safe.

Seems almost laughable doesn’t it.

When we sit on the fence we do see that there is a responsibility to hold parties to account for what they do. In case of the NSA this is Judge Roger Vinson. So, yes, someone does take a look at what is done. When did you last hear a loud scream on what Facebook is doing with your details? How about never? Only when Facebook had certain plans involving Instagram did the inner demon of personal greed scream out stating that the pictures were not to be open for business. Again we see a show of double standards. Judge Roger Vinson, born in the state where the delicious Forest Reserve Bourbon is from (Kentucky). He is the Federal Judge for the state famous for Pina Colada and cool Mojito’s (Florida). He approved the data request that the NSA made. So, yes there is oversight on this. It is however not needed for foreign requests. Is that bad? We give it freely to Facebook, so why are they stopped from sharing that with the government. Are you having that drink yet?

The NSA, GCHQ, DSD, CSE and a few others need these data streams. They would like to prevent people who are eager to get other people blown up. For you and me to stand on ‘principle’ on one side and then we give away our identity to be marketed and spammed to commercial content is just way too weird.

The world is now visibly changing. It is in my mind a little frightful as we are soon to become part of something different. As the finance markets were not contained, and soon no longer can be contained ever, we see a move away from nations and nationalities. We are about to be reduced to a metadata tag. With an added weighting that is soon to be set to ‘useful’ or ‘waste’. This was not instigated by governments and not even by the intelligence community. It was instigated by corporations behind Social media; and as we openly surrendered our details we are now placed in boxes where we can be approached. When we have moved through all the boxes and we are no longer an asset in any box we will be given the ‘waste’ tag. Then what?

These are my words, but funnily enough I was not the first one to mention this. In the Netherlands there was a New-Age entrepreneur called Luc Sala. Even from the late 80’s he evangelized the dangers of the groups “have” and “have not” and how we were allowing ourselves to be placed in these boxes. I wonder if he ever realised that not only was he correct, but that it could even fade national borders? Consider what you heard over the last months, what we will see in the next 13 months. Prime Minister David Cameron was strong about keeping the UK identity safe, to protect it. He was not willing to step out of the EU for this. That step is now being sought after by UKIP and their leader Nigel Farage.

How are these related? This is a valid question that is forming in your mind. And I have been fighting with these thoughts and especially evidence around this. Without evidence all this is nothing more than a bad level of Conspiracy Theory. You see, all these messages we read in the last few days and the next week are in my mind a smokescreen to some level. We are all so shouting about privacy. Yet, who was up in arms when MySpace started to sell their data in 2010. (Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/191716/myspace_selling_user_data.html).

Did you stop to think about your data on Facebook? Did you think ‘whatever’? So what other ‘evidence’ is there? In that case I point to several blogs I wrote, but more important you should look at more reputable sources like the Guardian and the Wall Street Times, where we faced stories in regards to the pay outs by all towards Greece, Cyprus and other nations to keep the economy ‘alive’. Whilst now we read how the IMF made errors. How a train line sucks up over 7 billion and is presently still not operational in the way it should be. This is a time and place where other nations are now giving aid as budgets are not met in various degrees by nearly all EU nations. So is it such a far stretch to see National borders fade as these issues are ‘resolved’ (read: ‘put on hold’) by group driven options. All this happens whilst we hear ‘voices’ that seem less and less aware of consequences or claim ignorance and error afterwards.

For this train of thought we need to see three parts

In the first part there is last year when this was quoted “The slight uptick is largely due to Europe, which is expected to return to very slow growth of 0.3 percent after the -0.2 percent contraction in 2012” (Source: http://www.conference-board.org/data/globaloutlook.cfm). Yet the guardian in two articles where the 2012 version stated in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/07/eurozone-growth-next-year-ec the following “with the 17-nation Eurozone eking out expansion of just 0.1% in 2013”. However 6 months later we read in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/06/ecb-eurozone-recession-deepen, where it states “European Central Bank says the Eurozone economy will shrink by 0.6% in 2013 as it considers unconventional policies to kick-start growth”. Numbers change and get adjusted, but the game can only be one of profit by those who have the right numbers (read the better data source). This game is played and replayed, again and again. This has bearing on all the privacy issue in the form of the collected data these predictors require. If the power of voicing the future is based upon data then your privacy is a thorn in the eyes of commerce as they do react to data, but whose data and created how? So as companies are making less, as economic values go down, other paths to revenue must be found and this does have bearing on your privacy, as you are data. This means you are commercial currency, not government currency as such.

This is the other side of data. Many corporations decided to ‘store’ their backup data in some High-Tech solution off-site facility, not unlike the hosting solution Peer1. Peer1 is a Canadian corporation with hosting locations in for example San Antonio (when they acquired ServerBeach). That is corporate data and as such there is an issue in this place. There had been soft voices of concern in those early days on who gets to access these data servers. American linked companies implementing off-site storage options in America from all over their European locations. Was local management realising that they gave their customer base and (financial) details to US insight?

There is NO; I say again NO evidence that these data files were ever ‘violated’ for commercial gain. If we consider the dangers of greed and in the light of what we read earlier, can we be certain that this did not happen, or even whether this is not likely to happen in the near future?

It had been clear that parties like the NSA had access. There is however a side we do need to take proper heed of. If they have access, then who else has access? From corporate documents from these hosts, corporations would have likely read how impossible access was, and how they never give out access. If that part was shown to be ‘violated’, then what other dangers lurk that these companies did not expect? (In this concept violated does not mean a legal violation as the data storage company would have been adhering to their government rules, yet the fact that corporations might not know this is a question for many and as such legal questions should be asked).

So think again, as social media is in their right to sell the data they have in some shape and that it is the price you paid for all these ‘free’ abilities that these places give you. Most do not worry, but then worry about information the government has/looks in to.

For private individuals all this is simply a fake fear.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as AQAP, CSE, current-events, Cyprus, David Cameron, DSD, Equens, Facebook, GCHQ, google, Greece, IMF, Instagram, Judge Roger Vinson, Luc Sala, Microsoft, MySpace, Nigel Farage, NSA, Peer1, President Obama, San-Antonio, ServerBeach, Sony, Theresa May, Woolwich

June 1, 2013 · 00:50

Government ministers, be warned!

This is a call, not to the gamers, but to the finance and Justice Ministers in those nations. Whatever plans you have to boost your economy/security, as present indicators go, Microsoft and likely Sony too, are uniting to make it a lot harder for you.

They will come with all kind of presentations, half-baked spins and flat out misrepresentation. The goal is for some of the fat-cat executives, who are already on 6 and 7 figure incomes to get more bonuses. Guess what! They will not pay taxations, and your economy will become harder challenge if you do not act NOW!

So, here are the facts.

Currently game shops buy games and resell them. This is called the sale of pre-owned games. There is nothing illegal; the original purchaser is getting rid of his/her game. Often this does not even go for money, but for credit in the same store. This has been going on for at least a decade. With game shops living on the minimal margins as is, this boosts their shop enough for them to get by a little better. If this falls away, these shops will have to let go of more staff members and as such it will hurt the economy. This is what some would call: ‘the margin of the little guy’.

The last one is almost literal. Most kids, and at times also their parents cannot afford to buy new games all the time, many not even some of the time. A new console game is often between AU$80 – AU$139 (or equivalent). So, to be able to buy their kids a pre-owned game is a way to stop piracy. Personally I think it is a good solution.

This has been a thorn in the eye of some game makers as they imagine that their revenues are down because of this re-selling of games. Simply put, they are slightly nuts (yes, they might lose a little revenue, but nowhere as much as they claim). The overwhelming part CANNOT afford the amounts charged for new games. They will often buy 1-3 new games a year, but that is it. So if they want to play a little more they will have to rely on a few pre-owned games. That market is now more under threat. In addition, the solutions that will come into play, is that these people must buy an ADDITIONAL fee to unlock such a game. Interesting enough, that fee part is likely to be nicely arranged through a non-taxation nation, which means YOUR economy will not gain an inch, it will lose a mile.

There are two parts to this issue. 90% is the simple pre-owned game that is played by one person. The other part consists of games like Mass Effect 3, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed and a few others. They have a specific additional option to play online. Now often, these games have a voucher to freely unlock the multi-player part. This is only for the original buyer. Whoever buys a pre-owned game would need to buy such a seasonal pass. I do not object to that part. I think it is fair that these resources (server connections) are intended for the original buyer. This option often also affects the sport games. Information has been spread all over the gaming sites that indicate that Electronic Arts, Microsoft and likely Sony are now price arranging certain affairs to force people to such fees. This is an arrangement that is so unacceptable that Finance ministers need to step in.

Their intervention is required on two fronts!

1. In your own benefit, if these fees are forced, they are to be arranged, not only on a local level, but these fees are to be TAXATED! That means that Microsoft will start paying tax on every unlock they charge, in addition they will have to mandatory report all numbers in this regard. It might make the price of a game unlock a $3-$5 more expensive, but it is the only way to force these numbers out. These three companies are bleeding people dry and no-one is stepping up to the plate to protect them from this entertainment Cartel, because, simply put, that is pretty much what they are now.

1b. for decades the console industry has been numbered away in the margins whilst this is a multi-billion dollar industry (on a global scale). People get taxed, taxed and taxed again, whilst those big companies are taxed less and less, because it is all virtually done somewhere else. It is time that if new Digital legislation is passed in their favour, then it will not be allowed until the rights and duties on the consumers site is agreed upon, including setting the transaction location at the BUYERS location, not at some vague transaction point. Any minister looking at a deficit, well here is a possible option for more taxable revenue.

2. All the indication point to a certainty that these two companies are now expanding into data collecting on a massive scale. Soon, people will have no longer a private identity, but a digital one at the mercy of Microsoft/Sony, to use as they see fit. I think it is now becoming essential to protect your local business environment that also depends on collected data to prevent 2 companies to freely have access to hundreds of millions of records with no accountability to anyone. I feel that it is important that a digital identity must at any given time be free from all identifying marks before it is collected, not when it is cleaned. In 2011 Sony lost millions of account details including credit card details. The moment these events allow massive data files to come into the hands of cyber criminals, we will experience additional dangers to identity theft, large scale fraud and banking hazards. I regard that legislation in these fields are not ready on a global scale. When this happens it would quickly escalate to a point where the banks will no longer be able to take such damaging hits. What happens then? What happens when people lose all their money because their safety is now in the hands of 2 companies whilst the consumer has almost nothing to control in the matter?

Microsoft and Sony are both playing on hypes and marketing to unleash a sincere danger up on the world. Many will trivialise this, but when these consoles start to link to the social media, an abundance of data will be collected, including all kinds of personal details, including banking details. Should you the reader think it is all a joke, then question why Microsoft announced a growth from 15000 servers to over 200000 servers? This is a cost unlike any company has ever seen, and Microsoft does not do things from the goodness of their hearts (Neither does Sony for that matter). Whatever the business purpose it has, we can be certain that several segments of business all over the world will feel that result. It is important that business or not, it is the individual that has the right to switch these intrusions off without that hurting the option of playing a game.

It must be stated clearly that not all is known yet, however as both companies will release these systems on a global scale within 6 months, it is clear that not doing anything now, will mean that these companies will get free reign soon enough. Issues that must be properly investigated and it must be made clear to the consumer what they are in for.

First Source Gamespot (http://au.gamespot.com/news/xbox-one-has-preowned-fee-report-6408671): “Microsoft today confirmed with Wired that all Xbox One game discs must be installed to the HDD to play and that while installs to other hard drives are allowed, users will need to pay an unspecified fee to do so.”

– In this scenario a person cannot give an old game to a family member as a present. This is unacceptable. In the scenario I mention it is clear that only ONE system can access this game (as it should be). Again, I must underline that this is for single player option only. It is fair that the second person has no free access to an online option, options that cost resources and it is not fair to make these providers give away such resources for free.

In addition, as Microsoft calls their system an ‘all in one entertainment system’, whilst only adding a 500Gb drive, with all these installations and downloads, it becomes a debate whether such a system is properly equipped to deal with customer requests without forcing people to download under expensive broadband plans. An issue I raised in a previous blog (Source: https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/05/24/spin-dryers-by-microsoft).

Second Source (source: http://au.gamespot.com/news/german-commission-calls-out-xbox-one-privacy-issues-6408935): “Speaking with news site Spiegel (translated by Games Industry International), Germany’s federal data protection commissioner Peter Schaar likened the next-generation console to a ‘monitoring device.’”

– There are several issues involving the privacy of a person. If this is no longer a gaming console, but an all in one entertainment system, then this system is supposed to go to a much larger audience, and as such, monitoring activities of these advanced nature where all our actions are registered on the cloud (as some vaguely report) should raise a lot more questions then they currently are. In this case it was the German magazine Spiegel that had the inside track, yet it seems that many options to evade privacy remain possible. In another article the following quote was placed “a Microsoft representative said that the machine ‘is not always watching or always listening.’” So who decides this? Many people will not know the intricacies of such settings and as such we can paraphrase Nietzsche by “And the data collectors, they collected on”.

I did mention in the very beginning that Electronic Arts is involved. How so? (Source: http://au.gamespot.com/news/ea-killing-online-passes-for-existing-games-6409065). In this article titled: “EA killing Online Passes for existing games” it was stated that EA was no longer charging for online gaming. I do not see this as an act out of the kindness of their hearts. I read this personally as an act to smooth the way for pre-owned charging. EA needs these two consoles and it is playing nice to smooth the way for certain people to charge in the field discussed earlier. That is my personal vision. The quote read: “We heard the feedback from players and decided to do away with Online Pass altogether.” This sounds great, but those online services cost money. Normally a new game gives access; so again, it seems to me that these passes are all about the pre-owners. This is likely to evade a future discussion of double dipping the credit card of this consumer group.

The question remains, what exactly will Sony do? Until the biggest console point in the year (the E3 in America) happens, we will likely stay in the dark. It is however likely that Sony and Microsoft have completed deals; as such an advantage would not be given to any competitor to avoid a massive global shift of the console market. Such an agreement could be seen as evidence to price fixing and a Cartel approach to a consumer market. Since when has that EVER been an acceptable step?

So, now it is time to get personal in this blog.

Australia
To Mr Wayne Swan, our current treasurer and Mr Joe Hockey, our current shadow Treasurer. Australia has a deficit and we are always looking at a solution that allows for the growth of our nation. Should these issues be allowed as they are? We all pay taxation, and as such it is in all our interests that if businesses get hurt in the way they are by charging for pre-owned gaming. No matter what solution Microsoft comes up with in regards to these charges, it is revenue, and as such it should be taxed in Australia. To Mr Prof John McMillan, Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), how protected are we from this level of data collecting? I would like to raise the case R and Credit Reporting Agency [2011] AICmrCN 12. Specifically Section 18G(a) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Even though this is not just about credit information. These consoles will hold all kinds of information as well as in many cases Credit Card details. Specifically “(b) ensure that the file or report is protected, by such security safeguards as are reasonable in the circumstances, against loss, against unauthorised access, use, modification or disclosure”. There is no way that this can there is any reasonable case of security and as such a case could be made that many levels of data collection should be controlled. I would like to add that this goes beyond normal safeguards to allow the case where an option of “Feely handed over details” is to be allowed as a defence by the collecting companies. If we consider that I showed from past events that these details can be obtained, then a clear option to block access to all these data segments should be clearly documented and should initially be switched off on all levels, so that access must be specifically allowed. However, apart from the normal credit card option, these systems should allow for alternative forms of payment (like the prepaid credit vouchers as they are currently sold by Microsoft and Sony).

United Kingdom
As our good old Australian point of historical origin, the UK also embraces the Common Law, and as such the financial parts would fall into the laps of The Rt Hon George Osborne MP and The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP. I reckon with well over a trillion pounds in debt and the additional issues they had with Google and Amazon they might be interested in a group that would not be able to get away with this. Consider that the UK has 400% more people living on an island decently smaller then Australia, the amount of revenue that this affects would be interestingly more than the numbers Australia has to deal with.

In the UK, data privacy falls in the lap of Christopher Graham who is the Information Commissioner. His office keeps eye on many issues, including Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. Both might have issues with these new next gen consoles and the information they could be gathering. How complete has these checks been in regards to the privacy of UK citizens?

Netherlands
Even though the Netherlands is based on Civil law (not common Law), they have their own issues with deficits. In addition, a massive source of revenue in the past from a national icon called the Free Record Shop (which is now bankrupt and also sold games) is no more, so it is even more pressing to keep a balance of affairs as they lost to all kind of on-line traders, many not operating within the Netherlands. Even at only 0.5% the size of Australia, it has the same size of population and many of those play games. They too deal with deficits and several issues where people are just too intensely taxed, whilst loads of online revenue gets away from them. In this case it involves funds that Jeroen Dijsselbloem loses as Finance minister. A man who likes the Dutch treasury coffers to be filled a lot more then they currently are. This is the man we all know as the Chairmen of the Euro group. As such he could even make a case that this is an issue that floats far beyond the Dutch borders.

The issues involving their privacy is set in “Wet bescherming persoons gegevens” (translation: “Law to protect personal details”). The law came in effect on September 1^st 2001. Their Article 76 comes close to what we have in our privacy act as states in Section 18G (a). The question that rises again is on protection and security of these facts. We have learned in more than one occasion that the required level of security falls in the range of illusionary, hence again the question becomes, why allow it in the first place. (Did I oversimplify the issue here?)

In the Netherlands these issues seem to fall with the Justice department and as such it falls on the plate of Minister of Security and Justice Ivo Willem Opstelten. Another interesting fact is that his wife is Judge Mariette Opstelten-Dutilh. So these issues might make for an interesting conversation on more than one level. The second reason for adding the Netherlands in this regard is that their minister of Justice is also responsible for the coordination of counter-terrorism policy, which again gives thought to these data collection issues on another dimension. If these levels of collection enable an easier access to identity theft, then each of these members would need to take a stronger look at a danger they are trying to prevent on one side, and ignore them almost completely on the other side.

As mentioned earlier in this article. What Microsoft claims on their stated security measures comes from their ‘marketing and sales’ divisions. Their stated interest is never what we need it to be, do these politicians realise that?

Sweden
Sweden is one of the most liberal nations in the world, with a quality of life that is second to none. Civil law gets a new level of comprehension as you experience the politeness of the Swedish police officer (beyond the mass riot times we saw recently). What is interesting there is that it is regarded as one of the Nanny states (US expression), yet when we consider the Swedish Minister of Finance, Mr Anders Borg, we see a slightly different view. He is seen as the man who has been slowly dismantling the social democratic welfare state, giving it a more business like character. I think it is fair that he takes a look at this as well. Like the other nations, Sweden is dealing with unemployment rates. If we see business going the way it is on-line, whatever they have must be protected. In addition, Sweden like the UK has a sizeable segment on video games. Sweden has produced its share of games and is after the UK one of the larger producers in Europe. They have over 2 dozen developers, in a nation with a population less than half of either the Netherlands or Australia. So keeping that industry safe is in their interest, and personally, with the unacceptable steps currently under review, that industry could feel pressure.

When it comes to data matters you can see why I mentioned that if we take the previous mentioned issues. For Sweden there is the following statement in regards to data matters “Generally, it is prohibited to transfer personal data that are being processed to a country outside the EU/EEA that does not have an adequate level of protection for personal data, unless the data subject has explicitly consented to the transfer.” It is the ‘unless’ part that becomes interesting. So in these nations we have seen broadly similar, yet specifically different issues that are affected with personal data.

The Swedish data inspection board is run by Mr Hans-Olof Lindblom, Director General. Their public office takes into account the Personal Data Act (1998), the Data Act (1973) and the Credit Information Act (1973). It is important to note that these acts are at least 15 years old. There is decent question rising on technological issues that were not even an option until 5 years ago. So it stands to reason that there are concerns on issues when it involves security and cloud. Some parties have stated long before these consoles became an issue that the expressions ‘data cloud’ and ‘firm data security’ should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

In the end, this is not about just a pre-owned game. We seem to be embracing new hypes and new technologies without thinking through the danger we burden ourselves with. These new systems are about to set new levels of digital rights and new forms of data collection, where we become the marketing product on several levels. In addition, there is more and more moving towards some cloud we know not of how secure. In an age where identity theft can have a debilitating factor on us for a long time, serious questions must be asked to several companies and a non-marketing answer must be coming our way publicly, long in advance of any official hardware release. With their release dates now less than 26 weeks away, several parties on levels of government, commerce and Justice should be asking questions.

Perhaps they are, but apart from Microsoft Marketing we hear much spin and decidedly little final details. And what will Sony do?

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as Anders Borg, Christopher Graham, Ed Balls MP, Electronic Arts, gaming, George Osborne MP, Hans-Olof Lindblom, Ivo Willem Opstelten, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Joe Hockey, justice ministers, Mariette Opstelten-Dutilh, Microsoft, Peter Schaar, pre owned games, PS4, Sony, Wayne Swan, Xbox One

May 27, 2013 · 10:46

The Data Intelligence bill

The events that occurred in Woolwich have sparked more than just one debate. The new debate is involving the additional powers that Home Secretary May wants to hand to the intelligence branch. It involves a data bill that was vetoed by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. He stated that it was too much of an invasion of privacy.

Is he correct?

Initially I would side with that part. Yet, you cannot have it both ways. There is a plain and simple need to keep England’s citizens safe from radicalised attacks. The issue of Home grown terrorism had been an issue going back to Sir Jonathan Evans reign of MI-5. He was more than just a little concerned with outside influences on the British way of life. This now falls firmly on the shoulders of both Andrew Parker, who is well aware of the issues as well as the needed response and Sir Iain Robert Lobban of GCHQ. As this is Signal intelligence and as such it falls in his lap as the data would be needed for MI-5, MI-6 and some parts of local law enforcements.

I would think that part of this bill will start with Lord Carlile. His involvement in this goes back to the Terrorism Act of 2000. Current issues are ‘tainted’ by two reports and as such they both are important. First there is the National council of Civil Liberties that drafted a response to the definition of terrorism, which seems to have been the work of Gareth Crossman and Jago Russel. You should take a look at it (source: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy06/response-to-carlile-review-of-terrorism-definition.pdf). It is an interesting work, and important to read is how they see this all. Part of the weakness is the approach on page 3 where they state: “It is vital that the definition of ‘terrorism’ is drawn as tightly as possible“. It is a decent stance to have, yet in the light of fear against home grown/lone wolf terrorism it is actually counterproductive. Terrorism is a shifty acre of quicksand and the strict approach is not only going to fail, it will get the people involved stopping this drowned. Not a good thing me thinks!

I feel uncertain to the point 6 they make on page 5. Yes, they do state that it is outside of the scope of the document, and as such they only raise the comments made that Terrorism should be dealt with under Criminal law. Here is where I might be the dissenting voice. The law should cover all, I do believe in that, however, what part of law? We are dealing with a group that does not seem to be categorised as such. These people are not transgressing in a way where we approach a normal person, or even the average person. Whilst we approach these transgressors in one way or another, even when if possible their defence starts going into the Mental Health act we will see a case where the court is drawn into years of litigation and dealing with a case that as such should be seen as a non-combatant involved in hostile military actions against civilians with no allegiance to any nation and as such it becomes a mess where each case locks down the justice system more and more. Consider the American situation (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act). This comes from a special report by their Justice department stated in June 2005.

“This allowed the use of FISA information in a criminal case provided that the ‘primary purpose’ of the FISA surveillance or search was to collect foreign intelligence information rather than to conduct a criminal investigation or prosecution. The seminal court decision applying this standard to information collected in intelligence cases was issued in 1980. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). In this case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the government did not have to obtain a criminal warrant when ‘the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,’ and ‘the surveillance is conducted primarily for foreign intelligence purposes.’ Id. at 915. However, the court ruled that the government’s primary purpose in conducting an intelligence investigation could be called into question when prosecutors had begun to assemble a prosecution and had led or taken on a central role in the investigation.”

This shows that the narrowness of the scope would be the obstacle we should be trying to prevent. The issue is NOT our privacy at that point; it is all about them having access to go after the right people. This requires them to blanket us with collection of data. Even though the data is all collected, it will turn out that 99.9% might never be accessed. Having it is however essential for their success of stopping terrorist attacks. So when the Sky News UK reporter Stephen Douglas mentioned “are they playing politics with fear” then he is in my humble opinion incorrect. This data bill has been needed for a long time. It can even be safely speculated that MI-5 could have intervened with the Kenyan involved in the Woolwich murder at an earlier stage as more flags would have been raised. Their interview with him would have led to other questions, confirmations of danger. That seems to not have happened at this stage.

So from the civil liberty document we move to document cm7058 from June 2007 which holds “The Government Reply to the Report by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C. Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation The Definition of Terrorism“. (Source: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7058/7058.pdf). My issue is with point 5 on page 5. Idiosyncratic terrorism imitators should generally be dealt with under non-terrorism criminal law. This is the point that shows the need of the data bill. Especially when we consider Lone wolf or Home grown terrorists there will be the issue whether the person was a mental health wannabe, or a more intelligent individual being allowed a second go at harming groups of people, after civil rights protected him the first time.

So even if we want to give strength to both Nick Clegg and the National council of Civil Liberties. They are there speaking out to protect your rights. Yet, in that process, they are giving strength and freedom to terrorist attacks like the one in Woolwich (not intentionally). This issue is like a seesaw. These two viewpoints are utterly opposing and as we give power to one, we remove it from the other. The interesting part is that the information we surrender will not harm us unless we support terrorism. Should that not convince you then please remember that you have already given away your privacy to most market research and financial institution data centres. They only want your money, or in a product driven way bank you. The intelligence community wants to keep you safe. In my mind, there is no debate. The data bill is likely to come and should be there, if only to prevent a second Woolwich.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Andrew Parker, FISA, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Gareth Crossman, GCHQ, Jago Russel, Jonathan Evans, Lord Carlile, Lord Carlile of Berriew, MI-5, MI-6, Nick Clegg, politics, Sir Iain Robert Lobban, Sky News, Stephen Douglas, terrorism act 2000, terrorists, Theresa May, Truong Dinh Hung, Woolwich

May 24, 2013 · 22:42

You might soon be sold by the banks!

I have heard often, in many situations the ‘that is not how it works’ was stated. How it was all in my mind. No, this morning issues were not just confirmed, I reckon that things are even worse than you think they are.

You see, for the most I do not trust ‘Financial Institutions’. They came in a time when there was an abundance of all, when people, as they were turned away from banks, they were willing to take a ‘chance’. For one part, this is Capitalism at its best! (Or at least that is how it was in the beginning.) Now they have grown, more margins more abilities and as we saw them grow in many fields they gained perspectives the banks in their conservatives states did not.

So, whenever I can, I stay away from financial institution. The main reason, they do not have the muzzle to keep them in place when needed. You think this is strange? Well, read on and prepare for the rudest awakening in a long time.

In the Netherlands there is a company called Equens. Today they temporary abstained from a plan to sell on their financial information. Equens is a payment provider. It processes pass (credit cards, bank cards and so on) transactions. They do so all over Europe and they are not the smallest. With 15 BILLION transactions they own well over 10% of the market. The plan is indeed decently brilliant, but dangerous as hell. They almost pulled in the banks to take their transaction data to market. It would have been quite the revenue, but it is the most dangerous one you will ever personally experience, and the issue with ‘temporary’ means it remains a danger. The initial report on this matter drew too much criticism, even though RABO and SNS Nationalised were interested, they crawled back when certain legal issues rose. It had been raised by the Dutch consumer society and the Dutch political party Democrats 66. I feel certain that this delay is a temporary one, as the issues involving legalities might be resolved over time. This is exactly the issue with financial institutions. Banks have power, but as such they were limited in freedom of movement (as it should be). Their commercial corporate brother named ‘Financial institution’ does not have these strict limits, which gives many of us the dangers currently at play.

Even so, Equens did make the promise that the sold information could not be tracked to any individual. This is where they are (intentionally) wrong in my mind.

You see, this goes beyond their system (and that is how they ‘focussed’ their view. Let me show you how. You buy an item at your usual store. That store processes your payment. You remain anonymous. Yet, your usual store has given you a discount/loyalty pass. NOW there is a connection between the bank card and your personality. So, as Equens data is sold on and on and on, more information can be added as the shop cash register (and therefor their data) has your bank pass and your personal details in the form of a loyalty card. Two numbers that could be connected with the greatest of ease and these cash registers have been collecting numbers for years and years. Now the link of two numbers separates their claim of anonymity and total financial and personal classification.

So look at those facts, now check your wallet and look at those cards you have. Are any of them for the Cinema? A book store? A game store? A fashion store? Do you get mail to your home from any of them? You’ll likely have at least one, and with every addition, you will get classified more and quicker. Soon you are nothing more than a product number. This is the ultimate marketing move! Availability of products, per person, per location. This is not such a future event; this is about to happen to us all.

I reckon that whatever happens will happen fast, and not just in the EU. If Equens is so willing to make this leap with only +10% market share, then who are the bigger players? This is a mega million market and if the Netherlands with 19 million people are so desired, then what about the UK with 68 million? Consider the meeting Equens had and a document they presented in June 2011 (source: http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/files/payments_council/npp2011_-_consultation_docs/22.06.11_equens_se.pdf).

The statements like: “However, the single largest criticism of the NPP is that it lacks an overarching business vision on which to drive a coherent strategy that delivers the various elements of the Plan.”

So, the National Payment Plan was even more in need of a business vision? To consider those consequences we would need to look at Q42 of that document on page 14. Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is under scrutiny where it was stated that ”The adoption of SEPA standards and formats should be introduced as quickly as possible. Whilst this will impose a cost on Corporate UK, the benefits of these new standards will take some time to reach fruition if standards migration is done on a phased basis.” So what adoptions exactly, and as such, which ones are less documented but not prohibited? From an IT point of view ‘formats’ reads as changes to interact data on more levels more easily. Why? Costs on Corporate UK! When have they EVER been willing to accept costs without tenfold falling back into their laps? It is simple basic capitalism. I have nothing against it, yet the part where most others get sold is not in those papers, yet it is not prohibited either. Welcome to the open world of financial institutions where we are about to become their product. Even though Equens is now visible, I wonder where a big boy like Schlumberger (Axalto) is at this point, who has a sizeable share.

The NOS reported on their website (www.nos.nl) today that these moves are for now of the table. Quoted was “Aanleiding voor dit besluit is de maatschappelijke onrust die is ontstaan.” (translation: ‘reason for this decision is the social unease that rose‘). I think that they have business concerns which will not allow them to endanger their 10% market at present. Yet, if they thought of it, then so did the other players and as such the next step is only a matter of time, and I reckon that we do not have that much time left before we are part of a sold system.

From there our world of what we need will be transformed into our world as THEY see we need. A small change will become a world of difference for us all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Axalto, bank card, business, customer loyalty, D66, economy, Equens, Financial institutions, NOS, NPP, RABO, Schlumberger, SEPA, SNS, UK

May 24, 2013 · 10:36

Spin dryers by Microsoft

Some might have heard the news and some might not. Microsoft will be launching their new console by the end of this year. Sony will come with one too, but about that more at a later time.

So, I did watch the presentation, and it is not unlike an American based company to take on so much more than they are likely to chew when they go up against a population of gamers. This has been proven in several occasions and as such this moment was no different.

The new system is called Xbox One (sounds like a Star Wars episode copy).

This system is supposed to be the new revelations that evangelical gamers will pray too. Yet, this is no longer a gaming console. They now call it an all in one entertainment system.

It is a fair step to extend boundaries. Any business minded person will do that whenever possible. Yet, at this time, with the current available information, many wonder why things were not thought through on many levels is slightly baffling.

Even though Microsoft is releasing information on many planes, I would be in remiss if I did not mention that Gamespot (www.gamespot.com) is a massive centre player when it comes to console information, so they are an important source of information for all readers.

There is one part where Microsoft is right, and it is only fair I mention it. Microsoft’s Don Mattrick stated “If you’re backwards compatible, you’re really backwards.” I grant him that one. Even if I was opposed in the past, in combination with statements made from those who made the ‘promise’ at that point (a promise both Microsoft and Sony royally broke). Where we saw the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 to be required to be backwards compatible to PlayStation 2 and Xbox, is just not realistic to expect at this time. So, as such, I will agree on that, even if several gamers might not agree with me.

My first issue is with the hardware that is central to the new Xbox One. If this is supposed to be an all in one entertainment solution, always connected, always cloud ready for downloading of Movies, TV, Games and so on, then whomever lacked the synapses to decide on a 500 Gb drive had clearly been watching a little too many Xbox-Files (like the TV series from the 90’s with Box Mulder and Data Scully). Then 500 Gb would then have been mucho alien. Now, the difference between 500 Gb and 1 Tb is about $20, so when they state it cannot be upgraded, in a time when we are all overloaded with data, we should start asking serious questions. Their statement that we can add a USB3 drive just does not hold water. Consider that they called it an all-in-one entertainment system; consider that a Blue-Ray can contain up to 50 Gb and consider that the operating system and temporary files for this system takes up some space too. Then this system has space for 9 movies in high res (worst case scenario). Even less if we consider the need for our music on MP3, out private photo collection(s) and a few games, then this drive will be choc-a-block stuffed full really quickly.

In opposition, as a start, I might not object to a 500 Gb start. Yet, the non-upgrade limit means that we will need extra external drives; so in addition needing power, needing cables and one young player accidently yanking the wrong cable might make things go wrong fast. This is also the first of many points where your internet data plan will cut in (or cut out might be a better phrase). You see, data plans cost money, and considering the plans some are on now, then the added changes would also mean you might on average pay $30 a month extra to keep being online. So that goes towards $400 in extra costs each year (not including the annual fee for Xbox live). Mind you, this is the INCREASE, not the bare cost. In some cases some would go from $69 to $99 a month. That should go over well with the millions of students all over the globe who are already in dire need just to make ends meet. If you think that this is an exaggeration. Think again. The system that now boasts on 3D gaming possibilities will need data to get this all rolling out. So either you accept time for a dozen DVD’s to install, or you’ll have to get to the cloud. In addition, they might offer the ‘normal’ version on 1-2 DVD’s and the rest needs downloading. This is a bigger deal then you realise. For example, consider the option of starting World of Warcraft on the PC as a new gamer. It is really nice that they offer it for free to new gamers to try. I am honest; it is a really nice gesture. Yet the initial download is 22 Gb. For some that is almost half their monthly download allowance. The second part of their entertainment boast is that they will support 4K. 4K is a resolution for TV meaning 4000 pixels per line. In all fairness there was a mention that this is for photos and movies only, not for games, yet, the 4K trailer of Spiderman (trailer, not movie) was said to need almost 500 Gb. That much for a 3 minute trailer? Is anyone waking up considering the ridiculous limitation of a 500 Gb hard drive?

Realistically, we are not ready for 4K resolution, as this goes beyond the ability of Blu-Ray, which of course makes me wonder why the 4K mention was such an effort? 3D is more and more added to the consumer’s home, yet at this point, we see an unbalanced situation between the offered hypes and the offered hardware. Not a good thing Microsoft!

So let us take a gander in the second division of MS issues (This applies to Sony too by the way). This new-gaming wave seems to cross several borders. What is advertised as new gaming, what others call entertainment, what few see and should see as the end of privacy! Microsoft is now offering a solution that is always on, always connected and remembering and learning from you all the time. Most laws are not ready.

The one thing that we hold dear, that we protect, we seem to give away when playing a game.

The new systems are all about data collecting. They call it ‘trending’, it is in reality a ‘personalised’ form of mass-advertisement. The abundance of hype created whilst stating interaction through the cloud is in fact nothing less than a new form of data collection as Skype, TV, movies and your choice of gaming is at all times stored and saved on the cloud. A system that interacts as per now on multiple levels, unhindered by privacy laws as we surrender to that extra little ‘benefit’ where we forget that others get access too.

Their on-line system is now getting grown from the initial 15000 servers now that Xbox 360 uses, to 300,000 servers from the moment the next Xbox is launched. It is a 2,000% growth in data collection and over 200,000% storage capacity. If foundations of business are set to return-on-investment, then ask yourself why a gaming system requires that level of growth. Intellectual property that is no longer bought, but rented on a temporary basis as the cloud keeps what we buy, yet we will pay more per hour and hand over our identity in the process.

Most laws are not ready, with these new systems starting to get pushed out as per this year. Consider this; the presentation had a quote in relation to the collected information “Game developers can take advantage of our data centres“, is anyone else getting access?

As Justice continues a losing battle against cybercrime, corporate entertainment is about to hand the keys over to a group that can really use all that input. Should you consider that this would not happen, then remember how Sony lost the security of a few million accounts which included credit card information, affecting many in Australia. When this level of collection happens, when consumers connect devices, then consider the added interest cybercrime will get as many will want these amounts of data for several reasons and most laws are not ready.

In less than 6 months we will see a new age where many willingly, unaware of the consequences will give out their details, their personality and their identity to a data cloud where we can all be statistically weighted. The haves and have nots will see their private lives classified into moments of targeting, some of it likely questionable. The laws are not ready, the justice system is not ready and law enforcement is not even close to ready.

So we are faced with the cloud, space and privacy. Consider that the new console was announced to be cheaper than the 360 initially was. Consider that Microsoft is adding hundreds of thousands of servers. Then consider that thy need to make a profit. So how will this happen? More important what extra costs will you the consumer get when their marketing will start making statements like the one we heard when the 360 was about to be launched “Each console has a variety of games. Most games released on the original Xbox are backwards compatible and can be played directly on its successor, Xbox 360” This did not pan out so well. Sony was just as bad, if not worse as millions signed up for the PlayStation 3, selling (or trading in) their PlayStation 2, only to learn that this backward compatibility was not ever working correctly.

Now, as stated earlier, the new consoles will NOT be backward compatible, yet Marketing is making all kinds of statements again. The Telegraph reported in (Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/Xbox/10075540/Xbox-One-gamer-backlash-over-fee-for-pre-owned-titles.html) that gamers will see a fee coming their way when they are playing pre-owned titles. How fun is that? I admit, I am not yet aware what Sony does, yet this could tip the scales in a major way. I all honesty Microsoft Marketing did state that there will be pre-owned possibilities, yet they have not officially stated how this EXACTLY will play out, so we await clarity by Microsoft (be really really patient)

Personally I am on the fence in this regard. I never liked pre-owned games. And as such it never really hit me. When we look at off line gaming, my thoughts are that this is none of Microsoft’s business. If I give a game I am done with to a niece, a nephew, or even the neighbours so their kids can play a game without having to pay for it, then so what? I do agree with Microsoft that the one who buys the game gets access to on-line gaming. If someone else wants to go on-line, then they should by an access pass for the on-line part. They reserved the gaming server for me the buyer, the next person will need to pay for that service. So off line gaming, patching and so on, they should stay away from charging. That is my personal view.

So here we are, Microsoft marketing spinning their party lines fast enough to get your clothes dry, it does however gives more and more pause to the quality of gaming we have to look forward to. This is how I currently see the gamers market go backwards. A business approach to a consumer world, pushing through all kinds of idea’s the youthful player never signed up for.

So Microsoft calls it an entertainment system. Entertainment? For who?

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as Blu-Ray, Don Mattrick, entertainment solution, Games, Gamespot, Microsoft, new xbox, Playstation, playstation 3, Sony, Telegraph, World of Warcraft, xbox 360, Xbox One

May 11, 2013 · 05:06

Wanna buy some Junk (stocks)?

OK! I admit that I am slightly over the boil at present. Not only have we seen several banks with their ‘why would I care what happens to others’ attitude, now we see the message that Co-op bank has now ‘ascended’ to the status of Junk!

Several things are happening, yet, let us take a few steps back, so you can see why this upsets me so. The year was 2009; Britannia (building society) gets added to the Co-op bank group. This happens around the same time SNS Reaal had a property finance group dwindle its value by a quarter of a billion Euro’s, and that was not a bad day for them. 2010 would then become the massive body blow to the SNS as their property group would increase its 2009 damage by 300%. So, at this point, is there anyone out there not wondering why this continued for 3 years?

Whilst all these property issues were happening all over on the EU side, the Co-op bank thought it was a good idea to continue in their footsteps? Consider the issues, which are NOW stated as issues, must have been known then too.
That in itself means that more than just a small investigation needs to take place. There is every notion that the involved parties require investigation. If we see the waves continuing from 2009 onwards, we see a wave of mergers, left right and centre with a shifting of ownerships and a shifting of losses over and over again. At the middle is a small group of people who seem to ‘make’ their quota and getting a nice 7 figure commission in the process. Poor Prime Minister Cameron was admitting defeat in the papers at that time. Whilst well over seven billion pounds in bonuses were granted to less than 3000 people. So in this age the noble art of thief, burglar, prowler and cut-throat is gone. Instead, some become bankers, you get the idea.

So, we saw the Britannia merger in 2009. The consequence was that Co-op acquired a company (The Britannia) ‘worth’ 35 Billion, yet, when we look at the value of Co-op, those numbers seem to be completely off the wall. Can anyone explain to me how a bank, who in their financial results of 2008, stating an operating result of 85 Million, with 64 Million of profit before taxation sucks up a company with a stated worth of 35 BILLION? No one seems to be asking the questions many should be asking. Now, as stated before, I am no economist and my degrees do not include economy, yet the Co-op/Britannia combination makes as much sense as me walking into IBM HQ, walking up to Ginni Rometty’s office asking her ‘How much for just the company?’, paying her for IBM, take over her office and have it redecorated. And trust me when I say that her weekly allowance is a lot higher than my pre-tax annual income.

So, as this happened, no one seems to be asking the tough questions. In the meantime to the next time-slice, the following issues occur. Our trusty Dutch nationalised SNS, now values at minus 127 Million and its property market is now reported at minus 600 million Euro. At this time, alarms should have been singing, ringing and clinging on many levels, not just at Co-op banking group. For those thinking that they are just separate banks then I would state that this is not entirely accurate. Consider that RBS took part of ABN AMRO (former one of the big four banks of the Netherlands). In the time (pre purchase of Britannia), Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Lloyds TSB and HBOS Plc needed a massive bailout by the UK government. Soon thereafter Co-op suddenly goes fishing for a great White, using nothing more than a Dinghy and a $9 bamboo fishing rod?

In that same period Co-op is involved with the purchase and annexation (to coin a phrase) of Somerfield stores. It was reported to have a net income of just more than 220 million pound a year, yet, it was purchased for a 1.5 billion pound. That part makes decent sense as the net profit is a little over 10% of the purchase value. Yet, in light of Britannia and other events taking place, I add some serious question marks with these methods of vulture growth through acquisitions. I have seen this happen over the decades, and overall it rarely turns out well. This story turns that way as we see the Co-op food group (name after the merge of Somerfield stores) had reported in 2011 (as stated by The Guardian on 25th August 2011) a 21% fall of profits. Suddenly, the 220 million pound profit shrinks and looks less appealing. The Guardian in the same article also reported: “The Company has committed to investing £2bn in the business over three years, with £280m spent in the period.”

So the initial spending outstretches a full year of profits, with investments stretching beyond the 130% of the purchased value of the food stores. With refitted shops, additional refitting and new shops, the total number of shops seem to go beyond 550 stores. This is happening at times when caution is the only way to go forward.

The additional cost of getting these systems to run and align in an infrastructure would require massive amounts of resources. That part became clear if we look at the story from Computer World (http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/applications/17614/updated-co-operative-bank-losing-customers-through-system-problems/). This story is set to the Bank itself, yet the issues of so many sides and so many systems, and therefore the enlarged infrastructure required is not a relief of costs, but a pressure added to it.

Another side of pressure was displayed by Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/27/uk-cooperativebank-lloyds-idUKBRE91Q00E20130227). On the 27th of February this year it was stated that Co-op was somewhat short on cash. They were 1 billion short. (oh, let me get my wallet! Duh!) This seems to be the major reason that the addition of 632 branches of the Lloyd’s Banking group could not be purchased.

These facts are more than worrying. The vulture acquisition game is worse than a game of Texas Hold’em Poker. First there is the fact that the board of directors is gambling with other people’s money, the second part is that the circle of damage increases with each acquisition. Consider that the UK only has a 0.3% economic gain at present and that the economy is extremely fragile for now. Allowing these mergers to continue until a solid block of stability is gained should be disallowed on several levels and not just with co-op. Until the economy bounces back and the costs are more stable, this bank should clearly be placed under scrutiny of the most conservative nature.

It is said that the Co-op banking group consists of almost 125.000 employees. Now consider that any hardship hits this group. A thought that is not too unrealistic, especially as they are on shaky grounds for now. I am not just talking about their Moody status, to which their response was on May 11th 2013 as ‘Disappointing’. I am talking about infrastructure issues, weather related issues and any issues that will drag the rest down if additional write downs will be required to the property group from the Britannia acquisition (consider what happened to SNS Reaal in the Netherlands), a mere 5% write down will come down to over 1 Billion, whilst their cash reserves is already 1 Billion too low. So if that result in shut-downs and lay-offs, then a 10% loss of staff is not unrealistic, which means another 12,000 will be out of a job. That must be prevented at all cost. Such damage could push the UK 0.3% increase down to a lower than 0.1% decrease soon thereafter. In addition, those cut downs will hurt their non-aligned infrastructure even more and that might even start a snowball effect on people and infrastructures. I admit that the previous paragraph is all speculations on my side. I have however seen these kinds of reorganisations and crushing results first hand. I had faced them when the economy was good, under current conditions; these events are a nightmare to consider.

Is there any good news here? Well, I feel that I am not that optimistic on the statements they made, yet, overall Co-op could be in a worse place. The only proper solution for them in my mind is to dig in and weather the storm for now. Getting by the next 2 years is more important than allowing one rash acquisition to endanger it all. You will wonder about my evidence?

That is a fair question!

Many businesses are in a bad shape, and there is every chance that some will fail. Now consider the Property acquisition (Britannia). No matter how high their assets are set. Part of their acquired branch was commercial lending and mortgages. Last December Reuters quoted this, a real issue taking in regards the high pressure on lacking stability funds “At this rate it will take another decade to return to normal – and I’m not sure there is much anyone can do about it.”

So increasing more pressure could in the end result in the taxpayer getting a hefty addition to the outstanding national debt. A national debt, that is currently in excess of 1 Trillion Pounds.

So, from my point of view it is important to consider the story we saw recently in the Netherlands. The SNS Reaal board counted on Government bail-outs as they regarded themselves too big to fail. We need to make sure and make it clear that the Co-op banking group is not allowed to be this arrogant, or allowed such a way to a bail-out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as ABN AMRO, Britannia, britannia building society, co op bank, co-op Banking group, David Cameron, Ginni Rometty, property finance group, reuters, SNS Reaal, Somerfield

May 10, 2013 · 16:09

Got Milk?

This has been an interesting week for some. This news actually started last week where more and more visibility was given to the fact that shops were running low on baby milk. We are talking about the powder tins that are processed into yummiest milk that babies are supposed to like, love and make them grow healthy.

The UK articles and newscasts showed that shops had limited the baby milk limit to one tin per customer per day. France was already dealing with this issue for some time. The reasoning behind this was the fact that shoppers were buying them on mass to sell them on eBay for staggering profit margins. The interesting part now is that this group has grown into the Netherlands as well, and they now have an issue too.

There the story becomes slightly hilarious. This is what the Dutch Minister Ploumen of foreign trade had to say “Het is natuurlijk prachtig om te horen dat Nederlandse producten geliefd zijn in China, dat is goed voor de werkgelegenheid in ons land. Buitenlandse handel biedt binnenlandse banen. Maar daarentegen kan dit niet ten koste gaan van de Nederlandse moeders en vaders die tegen lege schappen aanlopen” [translation: “It is excellent to hear that Dutch products are desired in China, this is good for Dutch labour opportunities. However, this should not go at the expense of Dutch fathers and mothers who see the empty shelves“]. (Source: http://www.NOS.nl).

So, we have an issue that had been sweeping the market in general for several months. Which is interesting as Nutricia, the Dutch producer who has a world famous reputation for chocolate milk is one of them. They currently have a growing market with spiking needs in excess of 50%. In a time with low economy and overall downsized retails. The minister of foreign trade is talking about empty shelves. But I do agree that this is both a fact and an issue, but is it his?

This hilarious part is that when researching this I found that the Dutch laws have been focussing on different sides of import, especially grey import. This is however an export issue, and so far it seems that the Dutch trade is only outspoken (in a slightly complex way) when it comes to the export of medicines. I did find statements in regards to anti-dumping, that dumping is not an illegal act, which is a discussion for another day.

The interesting side is the lack (as seen at present) on the rules for export. As other nations all have their own rules for import, the export seems to be open to promote trade as much as possible, which makes perfect sense. So it seems that the Minister Ploumen speech of empty shelves is limited to this as there as limitations of export seems to be missing. (There are exceptions as there are clear rules for exporting weapons and medicine).

Except for the few who were quick enough to use the eBay option to sell these packages quickly, this rage of exports is set to people (especially Chinese), who buy these products and mail them to relatives and friends in China. All this based on the baby milk issues within China when their milk was contaminated with the deadly substance Melamine. This initial issue had been reported in 2008 and that had resulted in large numbers of sick baby’s with some fatalities. It is interesting that these levels of mistrust are still an issue now in 2013. Even though there was a call for censorship to prevent larger issues of emerging unrest, I did not find any clear evidence that new baby milk issues emerged, other than the still existing waves of lack of confidence in the local created products.

So considering the facts that these issues have been plaguing the EU since last October, there are two issues to consider.

The first is the question is why the producers did not raise quota needed to fill the shop shelves? It seems extremely unlikely that the producers over 3 nations cannot meet the additional amounts. As I never had to consider this food group, it took a little while to get into the brands. Interesting is that as part of the dozens of brands a sizeable amount refers to: Nestle, Nutricia, Nutripharm and Farleys. Yet, I am not aware of the processes and the amounts that can be produced. So consider that these are the EU’s big four, what is stopping them to increase production? I know that it is unlikely that we just increase the speed of the production line. This is depending on a lot more factors. It is however interesting that these big boys cannot meet demands. It is not certain whether they are working on 24 hour shift solutions, yet three nations, all plagued with employment rate issues and in times of a downsized economy the one product everybody wants, no one can get. So why are we concerned with export legislation at present? (at least in the Netherlands).

You see, this is all about the Chinese import issue. If they start stopping this import then they might be one step away from some serious civil war issues (as most people get REAL cranky when their children are being endangered). If they decide to stop this on quality reasoning, why are they doing this? Their own producers seemed to have endangered their own children. To their defence, at present this seems to be linked to low consumer confidence, not linked to any actual issues at present.

The second issue is about the future. I can agree that the Chinese would prefer joint-venture solutions, yet at present that solution seems unlikely to do anything short term considering the Chinese low confidence in their own products. I agree with any nation that it does not like to depend its future generation on an import issue. That solution reads like little Hans Brinker putting his finger in a dyke whilst 200 meters downwards the dyke is gone, it is very counter-productive. If we care about the population then the Chinese are much better up opening the borders for the next 6 months and avoid optional additional issues with some clever criminal repackaging high end used tins with low end materials. Releasing the pressured need of baby milk, and then get those 4 big boys (or any of them) across the borders, each signing up to address the issues that plagued the factories and get them back on-line with confidence levels that will get the Chinese population back to their local brands. Let us be fair, opening that market seems to be a win for all and basically no one loses there.

What are the additional issues?

To me it seems that export issues are less and less arranged, and I do not think that this is a bad thing. If over regulations hurts trade, then proper actions should be taken, and most nations have decent import regulations in place, so export issues are less likely.

For the UK this is a better arranged side as they are gifted with the UK Export Control Act 2002.

Here we see a few clear options. In S4(2)(b) we read that “(2) For this purpose ‘trade controls’, in relation to any goods, means the prohibition or regulation of their movement;” So this point makes it clear that export can be ‘stopped’ to some effect.

However (there is always a however) Section 1 speaks of Export controls. This states for S1(2) “For this purpose ‘export controls’, in relation to any goods, means the prohibition or regulation of their exportation from the United Kingdom or their shipment as stores.“. And in S4(4) we read that this is linked to S1, which seems to give individuals a clear pass. (Yay for individuality!)

So it seems that the UK companies have clear legislation (which might not be an issue), yet the Dutch and French legislation only seem to have stated rules and limitations when it concerns arms and medicine, beyond that if they were allowed to make it, it can basically be shipped anywhere.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as baby milk, China, Melamine, Ploumen, UK, UK Export Control Act 2002

May 9, 2013 · 01:37

Previous Generation towards future Games

At this point it feels important to me to take a look at the lighter side of life. This article is also slightly more intended who remember gaming on systems like the Commodore 64, Atari ST/Amiga and the pre Pentium 1 gaming days. I remember those days well. Simple days! It was all about working the absolute minimum one had to do and the rest of the time was about enjoying the outside life (to some extent) and then to go home and enjoy a video game…..or two. In those days if a boss required you to work overtime, then you went to the chemist at lunchtime and bought him some Valium or Xanax, so he could relax. Good Times!

A few weeks ago I stumbled upon something called D-Fend reloaded, which is a DOS emulation program, with an additional link to a place called ‘My Abandoneware’ at http://www.myabandonware.com

These two places allow you to play the old original games from those early gaming days. The fun part is that I had several of them, yet the advanced options of D-Fend allowed me to slow down the processor to such an extent that those games finally worked again and they worked flawlessly.

Now, for most this is not new, or in some cases they think that these games have nothing to offer.

I beg to differ. The X-Com games and The Ultima series are more than most realise. These games brought a level of original gaming that even today can hardly be surpassed. You see, a good game is not about smooth graphics. It is all about playability. This is without a doubt a lesson we can learn for free so it seems, so this is a number one trip for all readers. The abandoneware site had actually a second option. Each game has a link where the original owner can identify himself, should he object to his game being freely available here. I found one such game, and I bought it for the iPad at the Apple store.

The interesting part is that these games still touch me in some way. These were the original titles and they are part of gaming history. More important, this list of over 4000 games will show you one clear thing. These people were innovators in more than one way. They were able to deliver a game that was able to run on a 640Kb system (yes, I know that most do not even have a memory card that small).

So, consider how the bulk could be transferred to something as ‘simple’ as the Nintendo DS. Add slightly better graphics and several of these titles will soon be more coveted then several high marketed products on the game store shelves today. After 20-25 years that is some achievement.

Of course many of these 4000 games are below par by most standards, but that is the consequence these games have, some were from, or meant for the Commodore 64. It only had 64Kb to work with. It was not until 1990 that this world changed for the personal computer. The main reason was the coming of the SoundBlaster. The SoundBlaster was a soundcard that went to places the Adlib card could not reach (the ruling soundcard in those days). It gave the PC sound abilities that surpassed the initial 16-bit home computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST.

Yes, many will not be swayed as they are so into ‘graphics’, yet these games depended on game play, which is not that far-fetched when you are limited to 640Kb high-end computing powerhouses (as they were then).

Legally this group of games is interesting too. Even though many might not bother or realise this but these games still have copyrights. More important considering the term of copyright, and it currently goes to figure why some of these games are not reset for the new and smaller systems. This is where the one owner option on that games site comes into play. The game that was removed from the system as per request by the original owner was a game called Ascendency. It has a tactical and it has a strategical side to it. I will not go into the game itself, but what is clear is that he made an excellent export to the iPad. Most of the game remained the same. Only small changes were made to get this game to run on my iPad 1. The result is one enjoyable journey into a game thought was lost to me. It works great! Consider that I had no problem dishing over those $7, even though I still have the original PC disk. This version is a happy addition to my collection.

The two big winners here would be Sid Meier and Richard Garriott. Their old games are still as fun and rewarding to play as the moment I got these games in the early 90’s. A dozen games all almost ready to be ported to handhelds and tablets. All ready for a new generation of gamers who will quickly learn that these games filled with game play can easily outlast some high end graphic game we conquer in 20 hours for $99 retail. Comparing new games against transferred game I can see a dozen games, each having 50-100 hours of gaming value at $10 each. That comes down to almost 1000% more game play for the amount of one new game. I say that makes it a win-win for us.

A win one as we get great game play, and win number two as the game industry needs to start thinking long and hard on how their marketing hypes are winning less and less, whilst we the gamer become ever weary on what we are offered and for the amount it is offered for.

Will this stop games like Elder Scrolls 6 or a new God of war? No! Good games will always get our attention.

Their question should be what makes it a good game for us!

1 Comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law

Tagged as abandoneware, Commodore 64, dos emulation, Nintendo DS, original games, Richard Garriott, Sid Meier, Ultima, X-Com

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives