Tag Archives: BBC

The hell one deserves

Yes, it seems a little negative, but that is the stage we face. Before I take you to the BBC article, consider this, as a father, if your little princess (or prince) gets hurt to the degree that they take their own life, how would you feel? What would you be willing to do? This is central in the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63218797) where we get ‘Amanda Todd: Dutchman sentenced for fatal cyber-stalking’. There we are given “A Dutchman convicted of sexually extorting a teenage Canadian girl who later took her own life has been sentenced to 13 years in prison. Aydin Coban, 44, will serve his sentence in the Netherlands, prosecutors in British Columbia said.” But that was not all, the gave was rigged from the start. The girl who was 13 at the time we are given “starting when she was 13. In some, he threatened to send explicit images of her to her friends, family and school staff if she didn’t agree to give him a webcam “show”.” My issue is not with the length, even though I believe that he should be in prison and be given mandatory psychological treatments as well as a minimum of 25 years. You see, why not place him in the Kent Institution where the winters get to minus 25, the summers (one month) to 3 degrees Celsius. Now he gets to spend his time in some Dutch social house watching TV. How is that fair? When we realise “Coban harassed the girl for nearly three years online using 22 separate fake social media accounts”, why would he be allowed the easy life? To be honest, when we see justice departments go soft on crime, I prefer the life of a contract killer, killing those who are set to the easy life, as well as their families as a deterrent for others. OK, I know it does not sound fair, but he had been cyberstalking her for years, clearly the law falls short, way too short. And I am not blaming the police, they are fighting this with their hands tied to their back, what angers me is “Coban’s defence lawyers had pushed for a two-year sentence” he cyber stalked a minor for years, it is one of the most prominent reasons why she took her life. That lawyer needs to be on medication as I personally see it. Then we are given “although Coban’s behaviour was not the “dominating factor” in the girl’s suicide, she did find that the “profound harm” he caused her aggravated mental health and substance abuse issues”, I am conflicted here. There is an expression ‘The straw that broke the camels back’ it applies here, there were more factors, yet the years of haunting had an impact, a large impact. I would personally state that it was large enough to be part of the straws that broke the camels back and Aydin Coban was 44, he had been haunting a minor. Screw his rights I say, but that I agree is not entirely fair. Yet was Amanda Todd treated fairly, was she given an honest chance? And when you consider “Coban was sentenced to 11 years in prison by a Dutch court in 2017 for blackmailing and harassing dozens of young women on the internet, some as far away as Britain, Canada and the United States” whilst we learn that he used 22 separate fake accounts for Amanda, how many accounts had he for the other girls? Why did no one notice this? I cannot blame the tech companies, but I believe that they could have done more, how much more? That is an answer I cannot give, that needs the investigation of a cyber expert and I am not one. 

It to some degree reflects on the stage I gave to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there is a need for safe spaces and the big tech companies are faltering there. We see Google on LinkedIn some sales event where the salespeople are shouting that they are lions, like wannabe NFL players, but they casually left $500 million a month on the floor, so how is that working to their strength? Amazon made the same mistake, but I am not sure if their sales people and tech people got the lion NFL treatment. This matters, because as I see it, Google has not been playing to their strengths creating solutions against cyber bullying. I am not blaming Google (or Amazon), but cyber bullying is a much larger problems and if one person can endanger the lives of dozens, how large a problem is there? How can one person have 22 fake accounts? I know how, but why? I get that there are valid reasons why people have a second account, optionally a third one, but to have 22 accounts requires a larger setting a very shady setting. And in this I prefer that man freezing in BC, not in some softy social place but that is merely my point of view.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

The anger mob

The article that came today left me with questions, the questions are out in the open, but then they nearly always are. The BBC article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63237156) gives us ‘Parkland school shooting: Why the gunman was spared the death penalty’, yet for me the question evolves, or better stated formats in another direction. To give the initial lowdown, The parkland school shooting that happened in February 2018 gives us a few sides. There is “Nikolas Cruz, a 19 year old former student at the school, fled the scene on foot by blending in with other students, and was arrested without incident approximately one hour later in nearby Coral Springs. Police and prosecutors investigated “a pattern of disciplinary issues and unnerving behaviour”” and “At one point Cruz said “I think I am going to kill people” in the group chat, although he later claimed that he was joking”, we were also given in several sources “according to The Washington Post he was “entrenched in the process for getting students help rather than referring them to law enforcement.” He was transferred between schools six times in three years in an effort to deal with these problems. In 2014, he was transferred to a school for children with emotional or learning disabilities. There were reports that he made threats against other students.” Yet this person was given the permits to buy guns, he was given the stage to buy an AR-15 and several other guns. America blundered on several fronts already. Then there is the stage of ‘fled the scene on foot by blending in with other students’, which could be seen as premeditation, in do infer the stage of ‘could be’, it is entirely possible that the police faltered at least once here too. If there is one winner than it is defence lawyer Melisa McNeill, who got a mass murderer a free pass from the death sentence, she ends up being the only winner in this ‘game’. Yet the BBC also gives us “There was one [juror] with a hard no – she couldn’t do it,” he said. “And there was another two that ended up voting the same way.” One juror, a woman believed that a mentally ill person should not get the death penalty” I get it, it is hard to see this, but that is a fair conviction. Off course most will think that he could not do her job as a juror, but the article does not clearly bring out whether, or how well Melisa McNeill played the mentally ill card. We are given “the gunman’s mother’s heavy alcohol consumption and smoking during pregnancy had left him with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which they said drove his violent behaviour” yet I wonder if it was a child of Melisa McNeill, if she would have been able to do her job as well as she did. And I saw the footage of parents of 17 families demanding his head on a platter. A lot more questions come to mind, but they might all have answers in one form or another. The fact that he came to school as a former student implies premeditation. He had to buy ammo, he had to buy other matters, all leading to premeditation. And the stage of him being able to buy guns is a much larger failing than anyone realises. Even the NRA needs to acknowledge that this person should not have been allowed a gun permit. And soon the excuses will come from every direction, even those jurors that did not vote for the death penalty and are not happy with the outcome. But in this, what outcome did they expect? As a juror they had a duty and they decided to let the chips fall where they may and this time it fell on life without parole in prison, and for some the idea that he will become the resident prison bitch is perhaps slightly rewarding. But to 17 families it is not enough and these family members have more family and friends and any prosecutor who failed here might have some reelection issues for their cause. As I said, this event will show one winner, and that winner is Melisa McNeill.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

In doubt we trust

Yes, it is the most uncanny of statements and there is al kinds of opposition to it. For me this started yesterday when I saw the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-63157632) titled ‘Molly Russell: Dad wants no further delay to online harm bill’ and I get it, he wants to do something and it all makes sense. But then we get “He also said online platforms must stop self-regulating their content” and there the trouble starts. In the first we have the UK, Canada, the US all having their version of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And it get to be worse. The UK (like a well trained group of pussies) decided to largely ignore the Leveson report. The media CANNOT regulate themselves and even after Leveson we have seen several examples where the media is unable to police and regulate themselves, as such why hold tech players and online media to those standards? The second setting is that these players can move from place to place. It is too large a sewer to see any clear management done on any level. And I feel for Ian Russell, I really do. Yet when we see “The current government has said that they want the UK to be the safest place in the world to be online and yet we’re still here and we’re not regulating the platforms. I think it’s really important, firstly, that something that is illegal in the offline world must be illegal and we must be better protected when it’s found on the online world” we see the dream state, it is the best description. The man is not wrong, but with the cloud there is even less oversight. And it is a multi tiered prong we see. We go after regulating platforms but we do not go after the POSTERS. State per nations that any poster of social media is held responsible and make sure that the penalties are harsh. It will be a first hurdle and there are over a dozen to go. You see, when that hurdle is fixed, others will offer services on an international foundation and the problem starts again. His only real option is to make sure that EVERY poster of  certain materials are published with their real name and real address. That is when the game changes. Some will stop and hide under a rock, others will get more clever about matters and we are back at square one. For one Facebook adds “more than 300 million photos get uploaded per day. Every minute there are 510,000 comments posted and 293,000 statuses updated” Facebook tories are worse they are only there for 24 hours and can only be watched by a person twice. There is no policing or managing that. It is a life of its own and that is merely one source. Add Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube and half a dozen more and you see the scale of the matter. YouTube is the centre of 720,000 hours of material EVERY DAY. The scale cannot be managed and anyone who says different is lying to you. And that is only in places where some have oversight. With TikTok it becomes a much larger mess. So we might trust in doubt, but that doubt needs a formidable bat. Making the poster responsible and these media outlets reporting and having some  grasp of the posters is essential and that is a first. It will not make a huge dent, but it could give governments and people a handle of the poster of the harmful content and there is the first setting. These people want the limelight, but when their faces are on the news and they are being asked the hard questions, they will hide behind the freedom of speech and there is the real problem. The laws are centuries old and they never considered mass media and mass slander. These concepts did not even exist in those years. It is not bout regulation, it is about the laws being adjusted and there is also the problem, when that person places it on a server in Russia, India or China, can that person be prosecuted? 

It is a rather large mess and the law followed decades behind, so I reckon that a first solution will come to shine by 2035, which might make it no longer valid. 

It is merely my view and plenty will disagree, but look at what is now and how much could be regulated and do not rely on AI, it does not yet exist. In the mean time, I need to find a contact in Riyadh, the one in the Saudi Consulate seems to be non functioning (with the option of $500 million a month for their government), the levels of inaction are weird to say the least, but that is my problem, not yours. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

Law or punishment?

This is not really a reference to Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. You see, we have that setting, the Crime and punishment, sometimes it is a setting of Crime through punishment (the scapegoat setting) but the larger stage of Law or punishment is not really looked at. It is a setting that if there is not law, there can be no punishment, if there is punishment (the legal kind) there needs to be law and we are getting more and more that the bullies are given a free pass. This has been a central for too long a setting, decades even. So when the BBC gives us ‘Bradford City: Racist fans should be jailed for abuse – footballer’, the story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-63115998) gives us “Timi Odusina, who plays for Bradford City, said he had been subjected to “degrading” abuse during his career. He hoped harsher punishments, such as prison sentences to those convicted of racial abuse, would act as a deterrent to others”, this sounds nice, but the law is clear. The UK passed the Race Relations Act 1965 and there we see “The Act banned racial discrimination in public places and made the promotion of hatred on the grounds of ‘colour, race, or ethnic or national origins’ an offence”. As such I am posting the idea that politicians and lawmakers take their heads out of their asses and set in motion a new decree. No person is given access to ANY sport event without the option to show their personal ID, any person found guilty of racism is given a bad mark, and that means no attending sport events for 2 years. They can watch it on TV and shout whatever they like in their own homestead. I have ben seeing the racism, monkey references for years now and it is time that these two parties start a clear new change, ending this BS. I do not know Timi Odusina, I also do not care about him (as I do not like football), but this is the same in EVERY sport. Abuse and discrimination are wrong and it is time that we do something about it, regardless of age. You can be stupid on someone else’s time. 

Is my solution great? No it is not, I see that but something has to change and at some point enough is enough. There I no ‘it was a bad setting of events’, we see excuse after excuse. We see racial discrimination, we see gender discrimination, religious discrimination and we shrug. Nothing is done and I believe that there is now a larger need to change this. Are there better solutions? Perhaps but no one is doing anything and it is time to make changes. I reckon that the racist when he has to sit out sport events for 2 years it might change him. Why 2 years? One year is just not good enough, it does not stop a person like that and two years might. It remain speculation whether this really works but a clear signal needs to be given and that signal is “Enough is enough”.  There will be voices making opposite claims, but when all the discriminated against speak out, I reckon that the voices will request my view on the matter. With racial, gender and religious issues all over the field there is a large enough quorum to finally do something about discrimination. 

Just merely my view on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Optus seems more stupid

I wrote about this earlier, I had concerns, I had questions and I had to some degree accusations. Yet that is nothing compared to now. The BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-63056838) ‘Optus: How a massive data breach has exposed Australia’ this shows a few sides, I was unaware of earlier. They start with “about 40% of the population – had personal data stolen in what it calls a cyber-attack” that is a lot, but Optus has a large user population. It is “Those whose passport or licence numbers were taken – roughly 2.8 million people – are at a “quite significant” risk of identity theft and fraud, the government has since said” which is close to everyone, to become most telecom members, you need 200 points of identification, which tends to include a passport or a drivers license. So when we get to “In an emotional apology, Optus chief executive Kelly Bayer Rosmarin called it a “sophisticated attack”, saying the company has very strong cybersecurity”, is that so? So when the BBC treats us to “Sydney-based tech reporter Jeremy Kirk contacted the purported hacker and said the person gave him a detailed explanation of how they stole the data. The user contradicted Optus’s claims the breach was “sophisticated”, saying they pulled the data from a freely accessible software interface. “No authenticate needed… All open to internet for any one to use,” they said in a message, according to Kirk.” This seems like there is a serious flaw in the Optus system, and when we revisit the statement from Kelly Bayer Rosmarin “I’m disappointed that we couldn’t have prevented it,” she said on Friday

I tend to side with the less diplomatic version of me stating to Kelly Bayer Rosmarin “Do you know that the condom is also used to stop making you fat? It is not just for the prevention of STD’s” now I might be ejaculating a bit premature (aka was Jeremy Kirk told a BS story or the truth) but if this is true, then Optus failed on a few levels. Protecting the data, protecting the servers and protecting their customer base. You see, the software interface might have allowed for injection of a backdoor making the Optus system now close to completely unreliable. The fact that there is a freely accessible software interface in play implies that its IT security failed, the data was collected and that happened without any red flags on access and transfer of data and we see the fact that all the data is accessible, from way too many places and that is the telecom company that Australia trusts? It gets to be even worse when we look at the article (at https://www.afr.com/companies/telecommunications/optus-hack-could-happen-to-anyone-ex-telstra-boss-warns-20220928-p5blrg) where we are given ‘Optus hack ‘could happen to anyone’ ex-Telstra boss warns’, a wannabe from the stables of Telstra, an immature greedy Microsoft minded telecom. There we see “Former Telstra chief executive David Thodey says the cyberattack on Optus “could happen to anyone” and urged all big and small organisations to be “vigilant” about online security”, Well David, if the information from Jeremy Kirk holds true, you better hope that you have a better cyber and IT security division, more importantly if this level of stupidity can happen to EVERONE, your systems ALL SUCK! And in my personal opinion you all need an overhaul and a 80% wage reduction. This level of stupidity when it comes to personal data is too stupid for any of you to be taken seriously as so called ‘captains of industry’ as such, please apply for an Uber or barber position. 

Now this seems overly emotional, but these are the kind of people who judged me a not being professional and THEY set data next to an open interface? This is the 101 of stupidity. OK, if JK was told a bag of lies I would owe a few people an apology, but that is for tomorrow, for now it seems that a lot of people are not aware of the level of stupid their telecom company hung their personal data on and that is more than a simple investigation, there are plenty who will pay handsomely for that much personal data. The US, Russia, India and China. 4 players willing to pay twice what the hacker wanted and they will not ask questions. A whole collection of personal data that can aid in creating deeper learning personalised rainbow tables, a whole battery of data from all kinds of social media that can now be used for granularity and a whole range of other data sets that can now be completed. And it all hangs on a (currently unconfirmed) version of a freely accessible software interface. “No authenticate needed”. How angry would you be hen these so called professionals charged you again and again and as they changed membership status so that they had more legal options. And they are not held to account? Yes, I would be angry and I am (for now still) with Optus, I get to be angry, my data is out there. So how would you feel?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Simplification anyone?

The BBC alerted me to something an hour ago. This happens and I initially read the article with a shrug like ‘who cares?’ But  few moments later the coin dropped and I was all about the WTF setting. You see, the article ‘Mortgage deals withdrawn in record numbers over rate rise fears’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63061534), as said, I initially shrugged when I saw “Lenders withdrew a record number of mortgage products overnight, according to analysts, as they grappled with the prospect of rising interest rates”, it was always going to happen, but the awakening happened shortly thereafter when I saw “Moneyfacts, a financial information service, said that 935 mortgage products, around a quarter of the total, were taken off the shelf.” Are you effing kidding me? 935 mortgage products? How can anyone get a clear view on that many products? How can anyone see the forest through the trees in that setting? And with “lenders are withdrawing mortgage deals in order to re-price them” chaos gets a free rein. Is anyone clearly investigating these products? And that is before we get to the repricing issue. Now, I get it, things get repriced, events make that essential, but when was a mortgage holder EVER contacted because his product has been lowered in price, and there would be a windfall that would be shown in a lower monthly rate, when did that EVER happen? My guess is never. And we haven’t even touched on the crazy part. This is seen with “A total of 2,661 mortgage products are still available – but that is half the number that were on sale at the start of December last year when interest rates started to rise” this means that the people are confronted with 3600 mortgage products, this sounds way too fishy to me and no one is asking questions. I get that there are elements that make it essential to have a few products, but this is enabling a wild west of mortgage consultants and that ain’t right. So when I see “Brokers are reassuring those who already have a mortgage, or an agreement for a new mortgage, that they will be unaffected for the time being. However, when they come to remortgage, they are likely to find monthly repayments have become a lot more expensive” There is a clear setting here, mortgages are frozen for a time and this time tends to be 3-5 years, so after that time remortgage will have an impact and with the housing market reducing in price by a speculated 10% that will be a very costly event for a lot of people. And that setting is made with “When the family bought their house in Manchester in 2018, they fixed the mortgage at 2.05% for five years with monthly payments of £927, Mr Ahmad said.

Usman, a 33-year-old self-employed courier, said if he took out a fixed rate mortgage today he would be facing monthly payments of more than £1,250 a month” Yes there are a few sides here and that is not all on the people. The first is what property did they buy? Did they leave space for situations that they could not foresee? The second part is the 2.05%, that is below currency valuation, a larger setting that influences everything and that is before you realise that all these events are setting their mortgage at almost 30% higher and optionally even more in 2023 and 2024. That whilst they lose 10% of their value makes it a rather large issue. And in this I have little faith in the ‘calming’ voice of Rachel Springall from Moneyfacts. We might be given “Various lenders have been very vocal that their decision to withdraw products is a temporary measure, amid the uncertainty over interest rates” but one persons temporary setting is speculation, we just do not know what will happen and the fact that there were over 3500 mortgage products was a idiotic setting to say the least. Yes, it is personal ad there might be all kind of reasons but go to ANY bank, how many mortgage products do they have? They will not give you that 3500 list, will they and banks are still the centre piece in any mortgage and that is now becoming a much larger play. Andrew Wishart, senior property economist at Capital Economics gives us “The rise in market interest rates that has already happened will push up mortgage rates to at least 6% and reduce the size of loans that lenders can offer” if that is true, Usman Ahmad’s house is a cooked setting, from 2.05% to 6% implies a cost rise of almost 300%, he might want to get out whilst he has a chance because this is about to get really ugly in the UK. And whatever short term someone hands them is a loaded cannon, it’s like walking backwards in a minefield thinking that you are more safe that way, I never saw that reality and you should neither. I reckon that a larger investigation is needed the fact that the BBC does not think this to be important is their loss, but here do you see the stage where there are over 3500 game consoles, no business can set that stage and survive, the fact that mortgages got away with it makes me wonder if any of them had the welfare of house buyers in mind. I have my doubts here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

The new student

There is a class, this class is out there and it has many students. Yet its teacher had never expected that the BBC would be joining his class and this teacher is beside himself. The teacher is Mediocrates and his Syllabus called ‘Thats good enough’ has been handed from student to student for generations. Yet until today this teacher had never considered that the BBC would be joining him, and he is happy, he is very very happy.

This all started some time ago, yet for me to see another MBS bashing exercise is just too much, especially when it comes from the BBC. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-62940906) gives us ‘Mohammed Bin Salman: Saudi prince’s controversial invitation to the Queen’s funeral’. In the first Why controversial? He is the de facto ruler of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So far not a biggie, but then we get “A declassified CIA report concluded that the crown prince had authorised the murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018

So lets make a little list

  1. The CIA report did not do that, it stated that it was highly likely, which is not the same. By the way this is the same organisation that send former secretary of state Colin Powell with a shining silver suitcase to places like a rockstar with the evidence that Iraq had WMD’s. So how many were found in the end? Not any did they? At that presentation they had graphics, now they have less than nothing. The rule of law states that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty and the prove is missing on many levels. Even the hack job that the UN report represents never properly analysed the recordings, it gets worse that there is no one had ACTUALLY heard the entire recording and that is on Turkey. Then we get the ‘dismemberment’ part, there was no evidence of any kind that this had happened, merely the figment of some limelight seeking individual, and no evidence is showing that this ever happened.
    We now have all kinds of rumours. One is of him and a 20 year old mistress going to Tahiti. I doubt that there is anyone believing that story, but you can find creative yo-yo’s on any street-corner. 

REALITY CHECK

  1. Did something happen to JK? I speculate that this is the case and there is nothing to support that he had any other plans then to go back to his fiancee.
  2. Can we prove that something happened? No, there are strong indications, but no evidence. And in this Turkey, the tool of Iran played a very dangerous game. It is my belief they never had anything, but Turkey wanted to please Iran and the lack of forensic evidence on the tapes as well as the fact that those tapes were never fully revealed plays towards my view on the matter. Is it not interesting that the Washington Post never demanded their release? It made all kinds of other claims, claims that lack evidence, but the release of those tapes were demanded, the same could be said for the United Nations who had their tools attack the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but presented no evidence that actually holds water.

Then we get “The pressure group Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) has accused Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies of using the Queen’s funeral as a way to – in their words – “whitewash” their human rights records.” Here we have a different situation. The CAAT (or the group of tea grannies holding a banner) as I would see it have been clear about accusing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but they never made clear loud mentions of Houthi terrorists and Iran arms supplies, did they? Here the western media has gone out of its way to keep silent regarding the actions of Iran (like drone attacks on civilian targets in southern Saudi Arabia). They gave no visibility to the presentations of Colonel Turki bin Saleh Al-Maliki who on more than one occasion gave the media the clear evidence of Iranian drones. Yet the WSJ had no problems showing the application of “Iranian Kamikaze Drones Creates New Dangers for Ukrainian Troops”, why is that? Do the stake holders and share holders like the Ukrainian side of the matter? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been forced to fight with one hand on its back against Houthi terrorists for too long. Yet the people and the media had no issue sending Boris Johnson to Riyadh talking about cheap oil. So why would they do that? It is my personal belief that the media has done everything it could to prolong this war. An event that started 8 years ago almost to the day and could have been resolved 5 years ago, but that did not fit with the needs of stakeholders hoping to get some cash out of Iran (a speculative view) and that is not all, the captured smuggling shipments from Iran did not make the news either, so what gives?

Finally there is a stage that most ignore. These acts ‘supporting’ Iran will have a much higher cost soon enough, when that happens will the media make a true call to action and a call to answer from media stakeholders or will they silent and mute like with Martin Bashir? 

The largest folly is the Aramco attacks on 14 September 2019. It is impossible for Houthi forces to have done that, yet everyone was so eager to accept that it was a Houthi attack. To give an example. I am a goalie (ice-hockey) and I would love to be the Goalie for the Toronto Maple Leafs, but I lack the skills to be THAT good a goalie, as such Kyle Dubas (aka the Elvis Costello of the NHL), the general manager of the Maple Leafs will never put me on that spot, I am not god enough. It hurts, but that is fair. That lack of skill is essential. There is NOT ONE Houthi operative that has that skill level. The news gave us that 25 drones and missiles were used. So we either have an amateur rifleman how shoots near perfect bulls-eyes 25 times in a row, or Houthi forced found 25 operatives all getting near perfect hits in place. Such statistics are a fable, yet the media just swallowed the story and there is the problem, the media can no longer be trusted and now we see the BBC signing up for classes by Mediocrates.

There is a lot more but why bother, I reckon that certain people will not care. 

So when we see “All of which partly explain why international criticism of the crown prince is muted at most”, I merely respond

Frank Gardner, you idiot. How much visibility have YOU given to the Iranian part of that equation? How much evidence did you test and read? Or was this just a hatchet paint-job so that the CAAT gets one more mention?

Is Saudi Arabia a perfect nation? I doubt it and it would be for Muslims to give voice to that, I am not Muslim and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a Muslim monarchy. I reckon from my side, the most perfect nation in the world is likely to be New Zealand and Canada is in that top 5 as well. Two Commonwealth nations and they got their with the guidance of Queen Elisabeth 2. It will not have been directly, but she was a guiding force. The rest have a lot to answer for and this BBC article shows us that the UK has its own media skeletons all over its bloody field. 

This might be a decently valid article and their might be some concerns regarding the presence of some people according to others, but her Majesty kept global peace (for the most) for over 70 years. I think we can all shut the hell up and let the international dignitaries pay their last respect.

Did I oversimplify the matter?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

A pitfall named success

That was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the BBC article a few days ago. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-62736126) titled ‘Saudi Arabia seizes record 46 million amphetamine pills hidden in flour’ passed my eyes. This is not a negative setting (well perhaps to some extent) on the situation. So when we see “Security forces tracked the shipment as it arrived at the Riyadh Dry Port and was taken to a warehouse, the General Directorate of Narcotics Control said. Six Syrians and two Pakistanis were arrested in a raid on the warehouse.” Some will see the success as is, but not me. This was about something else. That is not a negative setting on the security forces. 

Consider that the population of Saudi Arabia is a little below 35 million, and any nation has a drug problem, some nations have a larger setting, lets say that it is perhaps a maximum of 1% of the Saudi Arabian population. That implies that 350,000 people will consider trying any drug. As such 46 million pills is over-drowning Saudi Arabia. And if we know that a little could be spotted, there was no way that 46 million pills would ever work. When we consider this, there is a larger play in motion.

This was about something else, what is was really about is unknown to me. But if a shipment like this will get spotted in Germany, who has a speculative drug problem decently higher than Saudi Arabia, why push a solution in an area where it will be spotted? this question comes to my mind. What was this really about? What was the intended result? Would any drug dealer ship to a place the amount that has 100% chance of being spotted? I ask you this because it is important to realise that this is optionally the beginning of something else. If you know that all resources are required in one place for a drug shipment larger than anything that nations has ever faced. Then there is a chance that another shipment of another kind might pass through, the question is what was the other shipment and yes that is highly speculative, yet time has shown that criminals are getting more intelligent and shipping 1000% of something that might have some interest in a nation is an act less intelligent. Consider that if my numbers (speculative ones) are to some degree correct. They could have flooded the market with 1-2 million pills. To bring well over 2000% of this is folly (and near impossible to hide). This was about something else. What it was remains unknown and highly speculative, but I have no doubt that the pills were about something else or for something else. As I se it Saudi Intelligence (General Intelligence Presidency) better figure that out fast, because 46 million pills make for one hell of a decoy. I hope they figure out what the decoy was for, I really do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military

Behind door number two

Yes, the ink for slapping Twitter is not even dry and we get to have a go at Instagram. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62686375) gave us ‘Instagram says precise location is never shared’. There we are given “But Instagram said this is not the case and the feature does not share locations with other users.” Now, there is an old expression (in Dutch) that would consider me an ant-fucker. This is a person who looks at the smallest details. You see, Instagram does not give us “But Instagram said this is not the case and the feature does not share locations with anyone.” It relied on people not considering the larger stage with ‘other users’ and advertisers are not other users. So when we see “it was praised when it was first released as a way to improve user privacy on mobile devices because it offers an alternative to the blanket application of location services. The setting is automatically enabled for users on apps given permission to access their location.” We are given the stage of ‘enabled for users’ but does that mean that apps cannot get a link of precise locations? So as the accusation is given “They also said if users were to post a general location of a city, people would still be able to see exactly where you are as a pin on a map.” We do not see any evidence in one way or another way. We are given “we use precise location for things like location tags and maps features.” Perhaps it is a correct statement, but that does not stop some clever app makers using tags and mapping options to get a handle on precise locations. Thee first adjusted statement would have taken care of that, but Instagram never gave that to the people did they? They merely gave us “the feature does not share locations with other users.” And I have issues with that. But I admit that this is slicing the cake mighty thin, and Instagram could have prevented that, but I personally reckon that they merely needed to be as honest as possible allowing them maximum degrees of freedom on spin, and that is what I expect is happening.

So whether I am right or wrong, it is founded on the language that the media gives us regarding the quotes BY Instagram. It is what we see behind the stage and what we speculate is the case of the used language. It could go either way, but Instagram could have prevented it by being clear and the fact that they were not gives out a rather large problem regarding Instagram and precise locations.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Science

Two issues on an increasing scale

That is what I see, a scale that increases in size, all whilst the credibility of the media decreases. This is best seen with the issues regarding Musk v Twitter. It was early as July 25th when I wrote ‘Let’s dance’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/07/25/lets-dance/) where I gave the reader “That is important information, especially if well over 60,000,000 accounts were deleted in 2022. I believe that this shift is large enough for Elon Musk to start the case, when he gets the data from places like Trollrensics he might have enough to bust the Twitter deal. The setting is and always was that Twitter claims that at most 5% of the accounts are fake, I believe it too be a lot higher. I never speculated the numbers that Trollrensics have, but it is my speculation versus THEIR data, as such they win.” Later I gave the readers more and the media was all up in arms on poor poor Twitter against the fiend Musk. Now that we start seeing articles like ‘Twitter whistleblower raises security concerns’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62633191) we start seeing certain people parade in place, all whilst we are still given quotes like “Peiter Zatko also claimed that Twitter underestimated how many fake and spam accounts are on its platform. The accusations could affect a legal battle between Twitter and billionaire Elon Musk, who is trying to cancel his $44bn (£37bn) deal to buy the company. Twitter says Mr Zatko’s allegations are inaccurate and inconsistent.” And this is not merely him, I myself as well as players like Trollrensics have made similar conclusions. Yes, mine were more speculative in nature, but the media had a clear path FOR MONTHS to contest it with their own research and guess what, no one wants to touch it. Why not? Now that we are given “In Mr Zatko’s damning revelations, first revealed by CNN and The Washington Post, he accused Twitter of failing to maintain stringent security practices and “lying about bots to Elon Musk”.” As well as “He filed his complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission in July. The BBC has seen a redacted copy of the complaint shared via CBS news. In it, Mr Zatko also criticised the way in which Twitter handled sensitive information and claimed that it has failed to accurately report some of these matters to US regulators.” That was in July, no wonder we are given “It says he was sacked in January for ineffective leadership and poor performance.” And consider that if he was sacked in January and his numbers hold up, his claims hold up. We end up with a situation where Twitter has been aware of its mismanagement of fake accounts for a very long time. As I see it, it nullifies the buy claim that Twitter has towards Elon Musk, should they proceed, they need to lower their price by well over 60%-78%. Not a stage Twitter wants to push for, no matter how that plays out, I reckon the value of Twitter will be found in Basement 5 soon enough and with that the fortune of people like Jack Dorsey. So as the Washington Post rears its head with “However in the view of The Washington Post, he “provides little hard evidence” to back up these assertions. Nevertheless, Elon Musk’s lawyers have jumped on the comments. His legal team are currently trying to get the Tesla boss out of the deal, by arguing that Twitter has no way of verifying how many of its 229 million daily active users were actually human.” It is funny, because with that columnist no one gives a fuck about they went all in with speculations. More important, the fact that I had come up with a number around 20% of fake accounts (which could be calculated with an abacus) and Trollrensics stating that the number of fake accounts is much closer to 50% (they have data), which gives a rather large rise to the Washington Post not doing its job and that is saying something. 

The BBC does give a more complete picture with Peiter Zatko who also held senior positions with Google and the US government’s research and development agency, DARPA. As such we need to see the failing of media all over the place as a larger failing and in this the BBC gives us a first stage where Elon Musk needs to be given s little more leeway when it comes to his point of view, something the media to the largest extent has been willing to avoid to every degree.

And in the next article we get issue two (about to publish that one)

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science