Tag Archives: AFP

Is it me? Perhaps it is!

Yup, we need to look into matters and I am willing to concede that I am the stupid one, yet the BBC is setting a stage that is not set to the proper players and it shows (well, to me it does), so as I look at ‘Facebook, Twitter and Google face questions from US senators’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54721023), we see ““[It] allows digital businesses to let users post things but then not be responsible for the consequences, even when they’re amplifying or dampening that speech,” Prof Fiona Scott Morton, of Yale University, told the BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “That’s very much a publishing kind of function – and newspapers have very different responsibilities. “So we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society.”” You see, the stage is larger, even as we see a reference towards section 230 with the added quote “some industry watchers agree the legislation needs to be revisited”, so can we have these names? 

Section 230
Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content.
Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Yet the stage is a lot larger, most common law nations (civil law nations too) have similar protections in place, and ever as we see the repose by Professor Fiona Scott Morton giving us “we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society”, most parties refuse to hold the posters of the online information accountable. It is too hard, there are too many issues, but in the end, I call it a load of bollocks, the avoidance of accountability has been on my mind for close to a decade, the lawmakers have done nothing (or close to it). These lawmakers do not comprehend, the politicians are mostly clueless and the technologists cannot abide to the lack of insight that the other two are showing they lack.

So as we see “both sides agree they want to see the social networks held accountable”, yet neither is willing to hold the poster of the transgressor accountable and that is the larger issue. So even as we see the so called political ploys and no matter what the reason is, when we see “Both President Trump and his election rival Joe Biden have called for the removal of Section 230, though for different reasons”, yet both ignore the obvious, the posters want a medium and outside of the US they have all the options to continue. Basically the only thing that the US will accomplish is isolation, all whilst the dreaded posts from those who seek to harm society will never be stopped, they merely change location, and now that the US is ranking 8th on the 5G speed lit at a mere 13.29% of the speed of number one, things will go from bad to worse, limiting big tech is the larger error in their thinking pattern. 

Any form of censorship strangles freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Holding the speakers accountable is not censorship, it merely sets the frame that these social media speakers will be held to account, optional in a court for WHAT they say. It was never that complex, so why push the side that resolves nothing? So whilst we see all these media articles on AI and how AI is NOW the solution that one can purchase, the factual reality is “experts have predicted the development of artificial intelligence to be achieved as early as by 2030. A survey of AI experts recently predicted the expected emergence of AGI or the singularity by the year 2060”, a stage we seemingly forget whenever some short sighted politician makes a twist towards AI and the solution in social media, the reality is that there is no AI, not yet. Forbes (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/10/how-far-are-we-from-achieving-artificial-general-intelligence/#389ade286dc4) introduces us to “Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) can be defined as the ability of a machine to perform any task that a human can”, you see, commerce couldn’t wait for AI to come, so they pushed it into AGI, and the AI they all advertise is merely a sprinkle of AI, scripted solutions to singular tasks and even that part is debatable, because the application of AI needs more, I wrote bout it almost two months ago. I wrote “until true AI and true Quantum computing are a fact, the shallow circuits cannot cut through the mess”, I did this in ‘About lights and tunnels’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/08/about-lights-and-tunnels/), you see, IBM IS THE ONLY PLAYER that is close to getting the true Quantum computing up and running, Shallow circuits are still evolving and that matters, because they only launched their first quantum computing solution a year ago. When they complete that part we see the first stage when a true AI can become a reality, only then is there an actual solution available to seek out the perpetrators. So as we look at all the elements involved, we can see to a clear degree that 

  1. There is no real solution to the problem (at present).
  2. Section 230 is doing what it was doing, even as there are issues (no one denies that).
  3. As such we need to hold the posters accountable for what they post.

As I see it these three parts are only the top layer, and in no way is adapting or editing section 230 the solution, it might if all nations adopt it, but what is the chance of that? The only thing that the US and its senators achieve is scaring business somewhere else, when that happens the US and its data gathering stage will take a spiralling downward turn, one their economy is certainly seen as a near death experience. I think that these senators need to stop selling shit as peanut butter. To realise that part we merely need to turn the clock back to April 2018 and consider Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg how he is able to sustain a business model in which users do not pay. The answer was simple “Senator, we run ads” (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ). A stage where someone was allegedly this unaware of the stage of digital media, when they rely on questions that are a basic 101 of digital media, how can we take the efforts, or the presented efforts of both the democratic and republican houses serious? 

It is a stage where you will need to take a deeper look at what you see, it is not easy and I am not asking you to believe me, I for one might be the one who sees it wrong, I believe that my view is the correct one, but when all these high titled and educated people give sides, I am willing to go own faith that I need to take another look at what I believe to be correct. And wth that, I get to my very first article. The article ‘The accountability act – 2015’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2012/06/19/the-accountability-act-2015/) was me seeing the change in 2012, seeing the need for an accountability act, an essential need in 2015, it never came to be and people more intelligent than me thought it not essential. So whilst I wrote (in 2012) “I believe it is time for things to truly change. I believe that the greed of some is utterly destroying the future of all others. Who would have thought in my days of primary school, that an individual would be able to have the amount of power to bleed entire cities into poverty? It was never in my thought, but then, GREED was always a weird thing. It is the one utter counterproductive sin. You see, greed does not drive forward. Competitiveness does. Innovation does. Greed does not. Greed is the foundation of slavery and submission. It drives one person to get everything at the expense of (all) others”, as such, I saw a setting that we see now more and more clearly, I was ahead of my time (well, my ego definitely is). 

We need a different setting and we can blame the big tech companies, but is that the factual setting? When we use the quote from the AFP giving us “Capitol Hill clashed with Silicon Valley Wednesday over legal protections and censorship on social media during a fiery hearing a week before Election Day in which Twitter’s Jack Dorsey acknowledged that platforms need to do more to “earn trust.””, yet the big tech companies do not write laws do they? Yes they all need to earn trust, but trust is also lost through the newspapers using digital media to set the stage of ‘click bitches’ reacting to THEIR stories, as such, how guilty is big tech? So when we are confronted with the ludicrous headline “Kim Kardashian is accused of having SIX TOES in snaps from THAT controversial birthday getaway: ‘Why is this not trending’”, something that comes up apparently every now and then, yet this is a NEWSPAPER, as such as they also use digital media to push forward their economic needs, the stage of section 230 is a little larger, and the fact that what I personally would see as fake news, we see fake news coming from news agencies, so when we consider that some talk about “earn trust”, I think that we demand this from newspapers and see how long they accept that stage before greed takes over, or should I say the needs for clicks on digital media? A stage we saw in the Leveson Inquiry and as greed took over, I wonder whether these senators have any clue on the stage that is before them and the size of that stage. A stage that has additional sides and I am willing to wager that they haven’t got a clue how many sides they are unaware off. The US (and some others) need big tech to be as it is, if I can innovate 5G beyond their scope, that matter will merely increase when they break up, making the US more and more of a target against innovators they have no defence against, because the innovators are no longer in the US, and those they thought they had are moving away to greener pastures.
It might not hurt the big tech companies with offices outside of the US, but I reckon those senators thought of that, didn’t they?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

That did not take long

I made predictions a little over 2 weeks ago, I have also made mention of the actions that similar events happened in Australia in 2011. And as I made mention on December 6th with the article ‘Tic Toc Ruination‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/12/06/tic-toc-ruination/), I introduced the issue with: “We are given “Verizon’s network is not yet 3GPP compliant. It uses Verizon’s own 5G specification, but will be upgraded to be 3GPP compliant in the future“, so does that mean that it is merely a Verizon issue opening the market for Sprint, or are they both involved in that same pool of marketed pool to some form of ‘5G’ branding, and not the standard?” The Verge a mere 5 hours ago gives us (at https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/21/18151764/att-5g-evolution-logo-rollout-fake-network) where we are given: “AT&T customers will start to see a 5G logo appear in the corner of their smartphone next year — not because they’re using a 5G phone connected to a 5G network, but because AT&T is going to start pretending its most advanced 4G LTE tech is 5G“. We can argue if this is deceptive conduct and if the customers will be deceived and have a case to claim, yet we are given: “The “E,” displayed smaller than the rest of the logo, refers to “5G Evolution,” the carrier’s term for networks that aren’t quite 5G but are still faster than traditional LTE“, a similar action that the Australian telecom provider Telstra had with its ‘4G’ in 2011.

I predicted this to some extent. Even as the players are no all the same, we see that there is a fear of missing out now, so as they cannot deliver, these telecom corporations are hiding behind the cloak of marketing to instill a level of legalised deceptive conduct and no one is asking the questions (well, actually the Verge is doing just that).

So as the article continues with: “If this sounds sadly familiar, it’s because AT&T pulled this exact same stunt during the transition to LTE. The company rolled out a speed-boosting 3G tech called HSPA+, then got all of its phone partners — even Apple! — to show a “4G” logo when on that kind of connection“, we see the bigger picture of pretenders, all willing to do what it takes to get people to sing on, almost in harmony with the salespeople of bad mortgages. The government will not do anything, not only because in the core of the matter no laws are broken, but because the fear of Huawei is too big, I personally see the matter as that simple. SO as the article ends with: “FierceWireless guesses that “potentially millions” of people could see the new logo, with AT&T’s 5G Evolution network available in over 400 markets by the end of 2018. Given that real 5G will be rare and limited for the next year or more, this tiny little branding change could lead to a great deal of misunderstanding around the state of the next-generation wireless technology“, we also see an optional stage that there will be no real 5G before deep into 2019, more likely early 2020. We get that from ‘real 5G will be rare and limited for the next year or more‘. It is the ‘or more‘ part that treats us to that train of thought. It also stamps out a much more clear setting that not only is Huawei the most likely provider for true 5G options for a much longer time, we see that the entire deception is increasingly worrying as it takes the peppers out of a seating arrangement allowing these players more time, optionally delaying all kinds of corporate implementations. The Verge gives us more. With: “T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray wrote that AT&T was “duping customers into thinking they’re getting something they’re not.” The “E” is easy to miss, too, judging by a mockup AT&T sent out” we are given a much larger concern, I agree, the ‘E’ in that logo looks ridiculously small, I am willing to speculate that with any screen under 6″ only those with eagle eyes might be able to distinguish the ‘E’ from a ‘£’ sign, giving optional additional confusion to the users.

The Agence France Presse (AFP) gave us a little more 2 days ago (at https://www.afp.com/en/news/1315/arab-nations-make-right-moves-5g-leadership-says-gsma-201812200052411), and with “The GSMA today welcomed the decision by the Arab Spectrum Management Group (ASMG) to release the use of the 3.3 to 3.8 GHz spectrum range to mobile broadband. This important step will increase the availability of the right type of harmonised spectrum for 5G deployment across the Arab world and help accelerate ultra-fast 5G network rollouts in the region” we see an early speculation that I made months ago take a very nasty turn. With: “The group has approved the use of the 3.4 to 3.8 GHz range for mobile broadband use across the entire Arab region, while the 3.3 to 3.4 GHz range is available for partial use as some countries continue to reserve this band for other services“, we see an optional change. There is consensus in the 22 Arabic countries represented by the ASMG. Not only is there now an optional setting that the middle East will have operational 5G before America, they will have true 5G before America and not merely Saudi Arabia, as indicated, there is a chance that the UAE and Dubai will be there too. We are given: “the GCC Arab States are expected to launch 5G networks commercially from 2019, driving innovative new services across the region and spurring future growth. By 2025, 5G will account for 16 per cent of total connections in these markets alone” this is now a first indication that America will be trailing the 5G field and as Huawei shows its powerful devices, it will gain traction in several ways, whilst we are (again) confronted with what Neville Ray CTO of T-Mobile calls: ‘duping customers into thinking they’re getting something they’re not‘, America will not end dead last here, but they will be trailing (as currently is implied) behind more than one Middle East Arabic nation, I wonder how ashamed these high, mighty and rich telecom players should be in the face of such defeat. If India challenges this and joins the Arab nations in quick activation, the humiliation for some of these American telecom companies will be complete. They will be talking to the Verge, Wired and similar magazines on how complicated the journey was, to give the audience something affordable and long lasting whilst those editors already knew that these providers started that race close to 2 years too late.

And when we start seeing media on ‘5G active’ and we see those phones giving us ‘5GE’ and other marketed versions of some edited (read: adjusted, altered) 5G logo, what excuse will they allow these technologist to get away with?

All this is gaining speed due to events as given by TechDirt. Now, we need to be considerate of the source, yet so far a lot of it has not been incorrect. The quotes: “the mystery group is piggybacking on the recent hysteria surrounding Huawei to try and scuttle the merger, which is certainly a problematic merger, but largely for employment and competition reasons” and “recent allegations that Huawei may have tap-danced around Iranian sanctions may or may not be true, the claims that the company routinely spies on Americans for the Chinese government has never been publicly proven. In fact, an 18 month study by the White House in 2012 (the last time this hysteria crested) found no evidence supporting such allegations. Germany just this week stated it wouldn’t join the Huawei vilification party until somebody provides, you know, actual evidence.” It enables two additional paths, the first is Germany as it clearly stated that evidence is required, Huawei actually has a few options of growing the commercial path for retail and vendors, there are a few IP’s out there ( half a dozen will be mine) that enables 5G in a new path for facilitate and propagate the needs of retailers without pressuring the community, part of them will pressure themselves to be part of the beginning and as Germany shows that impact, the UK, France, Spain and Italy will open their doors close to overnight to become part of this. That was the option that Huawei had all along. So as one government shows the delays and the inability to keep up with retails as the government themselves becomes the weak link, some will have to discuss and debate internal changes to policy. Add to that the pressure that the Arab nations will be heading this technological advantage, we see a changed form of pressure and just like Colin Powell and his silver briefcase doing the European tour on WMD, we see a new stage where the facts are not and now the USA will be trailing the Arab nations, not the other way round. It is that realisation that Huawei will be giving a much larger advantage to players and when the US enters the lag, a they remain trailing into an optional second year, at that point will we see a new pressure point against them, one they themselves created.

It will be at that point that everyone should ask the question, where is Google at, because they will be the next player on a stage that is openly discriminating towards some of the providers (at least one). I cannot tell at present, but the fact that Huawei would lead this convoy was never in questions making the changes to it all stranger and stranger.

I myself wonder how many media outlets will ‘forget’ to mention that these American providers are not giving actual 5G, merely their limited version of it.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

What the law allows

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

So how does this relate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I prove this?

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

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

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

Can I be wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

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

Looking for an Exit sign

You are on board the EEC. There are four emergency exits, Brexit on the left, Frexit on the right, each marked with a red EXIT sign overhead. All doors except the overwing doors at 3 left and 3 right are equipped with emergency funds. These funds will keep you debt dependant for decades. Yes, it sounds like the speech a flight attendant might give you as you travel from the gates of the fake economic upbeat information towards the airport of Conturbare Gentem.

There is the impulse to state ‘the real issue is’, but that is not the case here. As we see ‘Brexit ‘will be the first step of the definitive decline of the EU,’ says former Prime Minister of Italy’ (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-will-be-the-first-step-of-the-definitive-decline-of-the-eu-says-former-prime-minister-of-a6861326.html). You see, I have been trying to warn my readers for well over 2 years on this danger. In a few cases it was laughed off loudly, but those ‘economic wannabe’ agents are not laughing now. When I was feeling a little evil. I asked them (as they honed me in public), to explain last week’s events, how it will lead to new prosperity. They basically told me to ‘f*ck off’. They are no longer laughing. I proclaimed these events, whilst also clearly stating that I am not an economist (a fact I did not deny). This situation was for the most a simple exercise of math, basic high school math actually, interesting how an economist missed that part.

The subtitle here is also interesting ‘Enrico Letta warns London ‘would lose a lot of influence’ on world stage‘, actually, it will not. As the UK turns their economy into a stronger engine, as we see this impact, we see that both Germany and the UK will get ahead faster and faster. Italy because of their election timing could end up with the worst deal (which sucks for Italians). You see, all that rattling we hear is empty and hollow. The financial markets might threaten to leave, but they will not, should they do so, than they end up in an even worse situation. Yes, they have options, but when the system crashes, their only option for now is Germany. If they select Paris, their issues will fossilise into a brittle solution, one that impacts their markets for decades.

In Germany they will be too isolated. In all honesty, their only decent alternative is Amsterdam, yet that comes with other perils. The Dutch DNB has stronger rules in place, so in that regard Paris seems a better choice, but overall that move isolates them from a few places down the road. London will remain the better option. And it is not even close to any decision. When we see the AFP article (at https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/30812452/cameron-confident-of-reaching-eu-deal-to-avoid-brexit/), we also see second rate top people go all out with quotes like “pragmatism and courage… and their ability to compromise” or “my wish is that the United Kingdom is and remains an active member of a successful European Union“, which are unique examples of misdirected communication. The “a deal could be reached allowing Britain to remain in the European Union and avoid a so-called Brexit” sounds so nice, but in the end, there is still a referendum and because too many European players were sitting on their thumbs creating ‘ease and inaction’, maximising their gravy train. The people have caught on and they are not playing nice anymore. Just 9 days ago in my article ‘Intimidating the Euro‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/02/04/intimidating-the-euro/), I mentioned the BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35122710), which was claiming that “Now the experts are predicting once again that the economy will return to growth in 2016, unless something else gets in the way“, so how ‘lame’ are these experts? Only a weak later we see in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/12/eurozone-recovery-falters-greece-recession), giving us “Greece fell back into recession“, oh really Captain Urban Funding? So cheap oil and the ECB stimulus was kind of pointless, was it not? So when we get these aggregated levels of bad news, explain to me how a united economic Europe is anything other than a really bad idea? One the UK should seriously consider getting out of and that will drive the immediate departure of France and Germany. The scenario I predicted all along. And for 2 years experts, the media and political players remained in denial.

Now we see added ‘news’ on how Brexit works for Putin, which clearly reads like an American, ‘communist fear’ as pressure for keeping the UK right where it is now. That does make sense, because the collapse would have an impact on US economy. The Dow Jones Index would be hit a lot harder than it was in 2004 or 2008. In my view, the EEC has no future because it will not correctly deal with the legislation to prevent the non-accountable acts of some, which was the direct reason of this mess in the first place. Greece was never held to account the way it should have. The news on ‘new’ Grexit fears as we see that there is no solution where we see that the Greek government and European creditors have come up with a credible plan to make the country’s debt sustainable. Yet the established situation that Greece cannot be evicted gives rise to additional worries, which fuels both Brexit and Frexit. The Financial Times (at http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/08/brussels-briefing-back-to-turkey/), gives more on Frexit. Yes, all parties agree that this will only happen after a referendum, yet what is not given directly is that this would be the first act by Marine Le Pen if she gets elected. Both the Hollande and Sarkozy fronts are scared there, because Marine might only get elected with a clear majority, when that happens, neither party will have any options to stop Frexit from becoming a reality. Which gets us back to that ‘Greek news’. I believe that the parties have all come to an arrangement with the fears that Brexit brought. Because the EEC exit cannot be made enforced under current EEC legislation (discussed in previous blog articles), the article, in my personal view implies that Greece will volunteer to opt out of the Euro on the concession of debt relief, with total debt forgiveness being a possibility (my speculation). What will remain unspoken is that those parties who would, if successful to keep the EEC alive, will only do so when the price is right. That implies taxation not relief on several fronts (for non-Greece nations), realistically it will be a tax that will last generations. Did the people of Europe sign up for that? A Europe that is even less accountable to a chosen few (who forgave debt)? That path basically spells out that these ‘providers’ will get their money’s worth in the form of grants and non-taxability, but at the expense of all the other European citizens. So how is Brexit anything else but a really good idea? In addition, the Financial Times reports, or better Christian Oliver alerts us to the fact that Greece took a fall for Schengen (at http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/12/greece-takes-a-fall-for-schengen/). The quote “Athens has received a list of 50 measures that it should undertake to improve its handling of the tide of refugees“, which sounds great, but it is extremely short sighted. The quote “The EU insists that Greece needs to take the 50 steps, citing “serious deficiencies” in the management of the country’s external borders” is even more hilarious. You see, that risk has forever been there, there used to be some level of control, but now we have a bankrupt nation, its requirement to cut staff by almost 66% and the need to build a collapsed infrastructure. There are mere matters of fact. Greece has thousands of miles of borders that are a nightmare to watch. With the inability to get the Syrian matters under control people are running like crazy, they either run through Turkey or the swim from island to island (either way they have a 50% chance to make it). So, how are these requirements anything but a joke, anything but a hollow requirement from the Greek government? The mere logic (and any cheap world map) shows us that those refugees had to get around Cyprus and get either via Turkey, or take the waterway directly, which is well over an 800 Km trip, taking them past Turkey most of the way. So when we consider speeds, on smaller loaded ships, it would be a 3-5 day trip past the Turkish navy, so why is the Schengen council not having this discussion with associate EEC member Turkey? You see, we can blame Greece for many things (actually, just their politicians), but the refugee wave is something Greece got overwhelmed with, even with a functioning economy it would have overwhelmed Greece. More important, how are the refugees getting to the Greek islands? This can only be done with Turkey either ignoring refugee transgressions on their territory (which is weird as they shot down a Russian jet after it allegedly invaded their airspace for 14 seconds), yet refugees that have travel past Turkish waters for days are casually ignored.

It seems to me that we are watching a new game, one that is burdening Greece on many sides, only to allow Greece to cast themselves out of the EEC/Euro for a price. A price the other taxpayers must pay for and they still hope that Brexit will be averted? Good luck with that notion!

So as the Brits and the French are looking at the exit signs to get off the plane, they are still confronted that the pilot of that plane has been massively irresponsible. Its maintenance crew has maintained the plane on the foundation of their ego and as such certain best practices, practices that a real engineer would have taken were ignored. This has led to today’s predicaments. The Brits are of mind that even in flight, getting off is more likely to lead to a survivable situation that silently staying on the plane will. When the Brits get off, the planes integrity will be permanently compromised, which leads to the events I predicted.

So now the media is giving us more and more articles on the crew giving us horror stories on what happens when someone opens that door. Yet, some of them are exaggerated. In the end the opening of the door could just force the plane down to the nearest airport where the passengers who no longer trusts the pilot could disembark. We do not deny the risks, but the current pilot is taking the plane to places the fuel reserves cannot reach.

Yet in addition to what I already claimed, the British City A.M. (at http://www.cityam.com/234438/ignore-eu-scaremongers-why-britain-would-thrive-post-brexit) gives us ‘Ignore EU scaremongers: Why Britain would thrive post-Brexit‘, which is partially the view I have. Ruth Lea, economic adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group gives us “a timely reminder that we are a crucial market for EU exporters – £89bn of the total £125bn goods deficit for 2015 was with the EU, £31.6bn with Germany alone. For every £3-worth of exports to the EU, Britain imported £5-worth from the EU. It is quite simply inconceivable that any German car exporter or French wine exporter would wish to see any impediments to their trade with Britain“, which I see to be a partial truth. You see, that is what it is and in the future it is what it was, but for a time, we will see European resentment and anger. Several European nations will take part of the £3-worth of exports and they will find another place in Europe to get between £1 and £2 of that export and find another source. That element is equally ignored. It will be up to that current UK government to make quick and lasting agreements that would diminish the losses, but it will again be in the hands of the UK, not squandered by EEC inaction. Should you think that my view is exaggerated, then consider recent news! How the economy grew 0.3% yet billions were pushed into it for the ‘reasoning’ of stimulus. Now consider that stimulus refers to attempts to use monetary or fiscal policy to stimulate the economy. Stimulus can also refer to monetary policies like lowering interest rates and quantitative easing. So, how was the economy stimulated? If we consider the Wall Street Journal (at http://www.wsj.com/articles/ecb-announces-stimulus-plan-1421931011), we see ‘European Central Bank to Purchase €60 Billion Each Month Starting in March‘ that amounts to over 400 billion for 2015 (6 months, Mar-Sep). The quote “the ECB will buy a total of €60 billion a month in assets including government bonds, debt securities issued by European institutions and private-sector bonds“, so how did this benefit the UK or people in general? Now to get back to stimulus, where we saw the inclusion of quantitative easing. Let’s take a look there too: “A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply“. with ‘references’ in play, in my view, the Stimulus by ECB President Mario Draghi is nothing more than a catch and refund net for bad investments, buying back a paper tiger that was not worth the paper it was printed on, allowing governments to spend again. How does that benefit the people?

These elements are all in play, because as people realise that this economy is so that the large corporations go on not being tax accountable, governments spend money on so many things that benefit everyone except the people in general. Consider how many actual problems 400 billion could solve, not some joke called ‘the EEC economy’ but broken things we could actually fix!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Results to be listened to

Tuesday was an interesting day to say the least. Awaiting my grades I decided to spend the day in court, watching proceedings. I could not get into the second court as it was a closed court, so I went into court 5. There I saw the proceedings of a case that included narcotics, the Netherlands (my native nation) and wiretaps.

The interesting part is the issue on infrastructure on evidence of wiretaps (I will not set you to sleep with conversations of wiretaps themselves, as the issue in play is actually a lot more interesting).

If we consider the track of such evidence, like the capturing of the conversation, the collecting and transcribing of this evidence, and then to make available this evidence to prosecution and defence is the actual topic.

The fact that several warrants are needed for one phone number is one thing. Getting this all managed afterwards is more than ridiculous (and the real ball buster). From what I understood, in one specific case it would take 6 full weeks for one person to prepare these files and reports. This comes down to almost 300 man hours. This is just one case and it is just a small pinch of the entire captured data for that case. The Dutch representative was in a state of extreme avoidance to give direct timings to get this all sorted (for several valid reasons).

For me with decades of IT experience takes a look at this from another side. How could ANY system be set into function with this ESSENTIAL need properly addressed before the software was used? Even further, how could such systems be replaced without the proper alignment of passed cases (we are talking many hundreds of thousands of tapped phone calls).No matter HOW this would have been addressed, this as ANY system will be replaced at some point. This is to be expected as infrastructures change and grow. Consider that the Justice system should need an available solution spanning not mere years, but in access of a decade as a case goes from court to appeal and further. (The Bell group case took 13 years).

I can understand that there are reservations of such systems. However, at times they are valid, and at times they would be essential. One should make sure that these systems are properly addressed by parties needed, before forced to commit thousands of man hours to oblige the need of information to both the Crown and defence. A request that, especially in today’s options of automation should be done in 10% of that needed time, with perhaps some additional valid time to burn needed discs (some expected manual labour required).

Leave a comment

Filed under Law