Tag Archives: BBC

September 16, 2021 · 08:13

The same gramophone

It started over a month ago with ‘From horse to course’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/23/from-horse-to-course/) there we saw the attack and the debatability on some of the presented evidence. Today we see (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/sep/15/eu-poised-to-tighten-privacy-laws-after-pegasus-spyware-scandal) ‘EU commissioner calls for urgent action against Pegasus spyware’ and it would make sense, until we get to “The investigation was based on forensic analysis of phones and analysis of a leaked database of 50,000 numbers”, so in well over a month there are no top-line statistics? The list was attacked by a few well over a month ago, but here we see the Guardian, specifically Daniel Boffey hash over the same stage with nothing to show for it, so is he what some might call ‘a fucking tool’ for stakeholders or a wannabe journalist? Consider that we pretty much get the same details we saw in my article and these parts came from the BBC and the Guardian’s own article from last July. That article gave us “NSO has said Macron was not a “target” of any of its customers, meaning the company denies he was selected for surveillance using its spyware, saying in multiple statements that it requires its government clients to use its powerful spying tools only for legitimate investigations into terrorism or crime”, so whilst we now see “analysis of a leaked database of 50,000 numbers, including that of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and European Council president, Charles Michel”. So did Daniel forget to do his homework or was he acting on the needs of a stakeholder? I actually do not know, hence I ask here. The largest failing is that the Guardian gives us some emotional charged article and no homework was done, there is no top-line on the nations involved with the 50,000 phone numbers. All whilst I also showed (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/28/retry-or-retrial/) a few days later when The Verge got involved that 50,000 numbers imply a cost of no less than $400,000,000 which is still not looked at, so why is the Guardian (BBC too) this unable to perform? In that article ‘Retry or retrial?’ We see the Verge giving us “The Washington Post says that the list is from 2016” and that journalist no one cares about was still alive. A setting that is seemingly overlooked by TWO news organisations and none of them vetted information through a top-line which is what I would have done first. So how many of these numbers are EU numbers? How many are in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany or Sweden? In over a month neither newsagent got that part done and if the Verge is to be believed the 2016 list without a top-line shows newsagents to be massively incompetent. 

Added here we see the added part “A consortium of 17 media outlets, including the Guardian, revealed in July that global clients of the Israeli surveillance firm NSO Group had used hacking software to target human rights activists, journalists and lawyers”, that part negated is that the NSO group is a service branch towards governments on the tracking of criminals and terrorists. This caper costs a government “$500,000 for an extra 50 phones” (source: The Verge) all whilst the entire list represents a minimum value of $400 million. So which governments spend that much on these numbers and when you consider that it was a list of governments, we see additional info that the leaked list is a fictive list, there is no leak that hands the phone lists of all these governments and that is before we consider that one number might be on several lists. Consider that both Macron and Johnson want to know where Merkel gets her lingerie (ha ha ha). OK, that was a funny, but the setting is valid, there is a genuine need for several governments to keep track of a person and when we consider that I could have made a top-line within a week (depending on how the data looks) why did the Guardian and the BBC not succeed? Why do they not have any reference to the leaked list being a 2016 list? 

Also in the end we see the Guardian give us “NSO says it “does not operate the systems that it sells to vetted government customers, and does not have access to the data of its customers’ targets”” when we consider that we see more debatable sides to a list of 50,000, we see the lack of actions for well over a month (almost 2 months) and at no stage do we see any clear allegations against any government apart for some mention of Hungary, all whilst the top-line results could have pointed the finger at someone. Do you actually believe that the UAE or Saudi Arabia have any interest in a Dutch Human rights activist? At the prices that the NSO charges, I very much doubt it. 

So here I stand asking the Guardian (and specifically Daniel Boffey) what on earth do you think you are doing? Who are you serving, because the lack of evidence and lack of clear verifiable data implies you are not doing this for the readers, if that were true the article would have looked very different.

2 Comments

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

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

September 15, 2021 · 07:58

As questions rise

The BBC gave us the rundown late yesterday (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58540936) where we are given ‘Apple rushes to block ‘zero-click’ iPhone spyware’. A setting that comes at times and this is not against Apple, yet the article left me with questions. I get that there is initial finger pointing, as such pointing to the best in the field makes perfect sense to me and it is done with “it had high confidence that the Israeli hacker-for-hire firm, NSO Group, was behind that attack”, I do admit that the term ‘hacker-for-hire’ will be one that requires more precise explaining. Bill Marczak from the University of Toronto’s Citizen which first highlighted the issue gives us “we previously found evidence of zero-click spyware, but “this is the first one where the exploit has been captured so we can find out how it works,”” and this got me thinking. 

Where is the timeline? With what version of iOS does it start? Version 14, version 14.5, version 13? So how long was this in play? It is not the fault of the BBC and it is the first issue.

We then get “the security issue was exploited to plant spyware on a Saudi activist’s iPhone”, so how many activists are monitored? When was the transgression detected? How was the transgression detected? At least two of these questions require investigation and the BBC did not go there. We can argue whether they were required to do so. 

So whilst we are lulled to sleep with “Security experts have said that although the discovery is significant, most users of Apple devices should not be overly concerned as such attacks are usually highly targeted” which could be an absolute truth, we see the setting that Apple is protected. So why was the weakness there in the first place? The answer might be extremely valid, no system is truly secure, we have seen that for a long time. Yet in the moments where I saw this article I phrased a few questions that I have not seen anywhere else (as far as I could tell). And of all the people who could be infected, we get the mention of ‘Saudi activist’? The article was set to certain measures and without proper and a clear explanation there is every chance that additional questions will be asked from the University of Toronto as well. This is not against them and I have nothing against Bill Marczak (I do not know anything about him), but the stage was set in a few measures and that makes for a worrisome setting. A BBC article absent of a few facts and the insertion of a few innuendo’s. All whilst there optionally might be questions from the NSO Group. A stage where we see a setting where (in my personal opinion) someone was standing of the axial of a seesaw to keep the almost in balance. And as the NSO Group, Saudi Arabia and Apple where alternating on the seesaw, the man in the middle offset the balance by just enough to make is wonder, to make us lay blame. Yet all that happened with several facts missing and the smallest mention of “continue to provide intelligence and law enforcement agencies around the world with life-saving technologies to fight terror and crime”.

We all need to do what we need to do, yet I wonder if the BBC (and Reuters) did enough here.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Science

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

September 14, 2021 · 17:38

The accusations begin

The BBC (and a few others) give visibility to a danger that has been around for some time. Yes, they alert us to what is happening and the BBC is not to blame. Yet when we see ‘Fake Walmart news release claimed it would accept cryptocurrency’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58545944) we need to wonder about a few things. It might be “The release, published through a legitimate press channel, claimed that Walmart would accept the currency through all its digital stores. Walmart later told US media outlets the announcement was “inauthentic”. By that time, several major news websites and press agencies had spread the supposed news. It is not clear how the announcement made it on to Global Newswire, a service widely used to distribute press material from companies.” And it is an important side. I merely wonder how soon we will get some carefully phrased denial spiced with “there was a miscommunication”, I  will have questions on how thorough the investigation will be, which stakeholders were involved and how Global Newswire got the news in the first place. 

As I expected for some time, there is a larger flaw on vetting information and who is allowed to vet it all. At some point a situation was created where a group of people made $50 per coin where no profit existed and even as we get loud claims on a few sides I expect that nothing will come from it, the exploitation stage is set and it is high time that the media gets a massive overhaul. Even now we can find the Google search on global News, but the link no longer works. Not a clear retraction, the article was merely removed, as I personally see it a stage of manipulation. Over the 17 hours, we see no news on WHO delivered that news to Global News, we see no news (from anyone) on HOW it was delivered. 

I get additional questions when I see ‘Litecoin back to the drawing board as LTC rally culminates’ (at https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/litecoin-back-to-the-drawing-board-as-ltc-rally-culminates-202108261526) we also get “On August 16 and again on August 23, Litecoin (LTC) tried to reach the 200-day Simple Moving Average (SMA). Both tests failed and what followed each time was a quick reversal”, as well as “A return to the bandwidth between $135 and $156 looks like the sanest move to attract buyers again” a simple search gave me this info and in this we see a setting where SOMEONE spiced it with fake news. In all this there was no vetting of any decent kind. As I was able to find what I found within 5 minutes, yet Global News spread the news. So whilst the BBC gives us “It is not clear who was behind the fake release, or how they managed to publish it.” It seems clear that Global News needs to get ready for some serious FBI investigations, it might be a Canadian news station and it will go via the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and optionally the CSIS will get involved, but the FBI will take the US side and neither of the three will be played for as fool. The FBI has no real choice in the matter. This is merely part of the larger stage that real media lacks the same credibility that fake news has and that is important, as it will change the stage of News agencies everywhere. When the news becomes nothing more than an exploitation tool the entire Litecoin issue will not be the only one and it will not be the last one. And in all this, there will be a seperate stage for the connected stakeholders. 

And it will not end there, we can accept that Global News acted in good faith, and we can accept that. But it also means that Global News will have to dig deep into its bowels and find out how this was possible in the first place. There are also more questions that Walmart has to answer, yet I wonder if it will get us anywhere. From all parties Global News is the first station of investigation, and I wonder how much interference some parties will throw up and that might be seen in the media over the next few days and that will lead to several questions, none of them good.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media

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

September 1, 2021 · 19:41

Would it still be news?

We get that at times. A question regarding the news, not what they bring, but what they are. I was left with a few questions today when I took notice of ‘Saudi news channels start moving operations out of Dubai’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/9/1/saudi-news-channels-start-moving-operations-out-of-dubai). Just as the BBC is in London, the NOS is in the Netherlands (Hilversum), Swedish News is predominantly in Stockholm. I always assumed that Saudi News was in Riyadh, so to see that they were in Dubai which is a nice and large town in another nation was a little bit of a surprise. So as I take notice of “Riyadh has told international firms to put their MidEast hubs there by the start of 2024 or risk losing out on business” has a certain amount of sense.

The question becomes who offers more, Dubai or Riyadh? I am not talking money, even though for the international stations that will be some part of it. Dubai has its yachts, its connected jet-setting, yet what does Riyadh offer? It is a genuine question. I must admit that I only recently saw Riyadh through the eyes of YouTuber Jason Billiam Travel, and he did an excellent job, if you have never been to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the view that (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk_4wPK6oks) where I got my first glimpse of the Kingdom Tower at the beginning of the video no less. He was able to give me a clear impression that Riyadh, the capital is larger than the entire nation of Bahrein and he gives us a lot more over several movies, more on Riyadh and more on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There is one element that there is no yacht club in Saudi Arabia. If I had the ability to create one in Riyadh, I would. Even if it is just to set aside my sense of humour as the nearest decent amount of water is almost 400Km away (Sea of Dammam, aka the Persian gulf), so the idea to have a restaurant in the building that represents a yacht would be a fun idea. A place where 8 million people live and most have never seen a boat with their own eyes, so to create a concrete yacht that is a restaurant and optionally an international hotel will get the eyes of a lot of people. But we were talking about the news and Al Jazeera also gives us “Saudi Arabian news channels are starting to transfer operations out of Dubai amid a push by the country’s crown prince to get multinational companies to relocate their headquarters to the kingdom” and it makes sense, although it would have made initial more sense to have Saudi news offices in Saudi Arabia, but that is merely me and it is a thought that is based on the idea that news channels should be local. So when I see “Saudi Arabia has been pressuring international companies to put their Middle East hubs in the kingdom by the start of 2024 or risk losing out on business in the region’s largest economy” I do realise that too many people will focus on ‘pressuring international companies’, yet is that fair? Consider that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should award business to its local parties, so Dubai has benefitted with its Media centre to the largest degree for well over a decade. And the reason seen in “The move is intended to limit “economic leakage” and boost job creation” makes perfect sense. 

There are actually two additional reasons to contemplate, whether it is all news is in the middle. With that shift the media will get a lot more exposure to Neom city as well as the tourist visibility places that Riyadh has to offer, the Kingdom Tower is merely one of them. The Grand Mosque of Riyadh is according to many another one.  

The entire setting made me wonder why Saudi news was not set on a local premise in the first place. I am not saying it was wrong, I am merely wondering what was the reasoning in the first place. There are many valid reasons that come to mind, yet none of these have been tested at present and with Neom City now a mere 9 years away, the local presence seem to make more and more sense. There is of course more, there is a larger stage to promote Jeddah as well, we can argue that this could be done from either place, but I have seen on how minds get distracted from other places as the distance increases and Dubai is very far away from Jeddah, it is not enough a reason, but it is one and consider that in the last 24 hours globally ‘Neom’ was mentioned 10 times. One in Chinese, three in Arabic and the rest in English, in a world where there are thousands of publication, 10 mentions? Yes the news needs adjusting and perhaps it starts with getting the international news stations local. As I see it it is a lot less about economic leakage and more about ignoring Saudi events, in this the Houthi attacks on civilian Saudi targets might finally get the exposure it deserves. 

Will it still be news after the switch? I hope not, as it had been happening for too long, but that is merely my 2 coins on the subject. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

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

August 30, 2021 · 19:28

You call that an army?

I was in disbelieve yesterday, I saw information and memo after memo and I was lost, I really was. The media to a larger extent reported on it, the Times had impressive graphics, the BBC used something similar (or a cut version of it) and others followed on these starts (as far as I could tell), yet the larger stage was left behind the writing and that is not an accusation. They reported on a lot. I liked Forbes most, the cold numbers appealed to me. The article (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/08/23/staggering-costs–us-military-equipment-left-behind-in-afghanistan) called ‘Staggering Costs – U.S. Military Equipment Left Behind In Afghanistan’ gives us a lot. The stage is that the Afghan army was better equiped that several NATO nations, the total cost as some sources gave me EXCEEDS $84,000,000,000. This path implies that a small group of people received OVER $4,000,000,000 in bonuses and commissions. Afghanistan was big business and several made a bundle. Now consider that the Afghan army was 5 times the size of the Taliban, with all this hardware and the Taliban ran them over in a week. As I personally see it, a core in the Afghan forces and politicians (with optional exclusion of the former and running like a jackrabbit president of that place) wanted the Taliban back. Consider that me, my lonesome self could do well over twice the damage any Afghan pilot did. 

source: Forbes

I would opt for the Huey (with Gatlings), I know the Blackhawk is better but it is less manoeuvrable than a Huey and it has about 200 more options on the instrument panel and with my limited flying skills, less is definitely a lot more. And it gets to be a more questionable setting when you see 

source: Forbes

And you consider how many Taliban would not make it with up to 300,000 rifles and 25,000 grenade launchers as well as 2,000 mortars. And the dent in the Taliban was close to non existent and all these weapons are now in Taliban hands, they can now put a serious dent in their opponents. They are now armed to the teeth and no one is asking the harder questions, where the  Eff You See Kay was the CIA? The Taliban ‘inherited’ over 700,000 pieces of equipment and the Afghan army did close to nothing, even as they outnumbered their ‘enemy’ five to one. 

Forbes also gives us “The U.S. provided an estimated $83 billion worth of training and equipment to Afghan security forces since 2001. This year, alone, the U.S. military aid to Afghan forces was $3 billion” and in all this there is a stage for much harder questions and that falls on the politicians, not the military, they were handed a set of orders that should never have been allowed and the media is not asking those questions, are they? Yet Forbes also gives us “Not helping transparency, the Biden Administration is now hiding key audits on Afghan military equipment. This week, our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com reposted two key reports on the U.S. war chest of military gear in Afghanistan that had disappeared from federal websites”, I am not willing to push the blame on the Biden administration without knowing all the players. A small group made billions, they have access to lobbyists and there is an unnamed DoD link in all this, hiding information in plain sight is what they are good at and hiding a link (at https://www.gao.gov/) can be done by any number of people, evidence is key and there is none, as such (even as I am Republican in mind) blaming an administration with that lack this early in their administration seems pointless. The GAO-17-667R Afghanistan Security report that Forbes also had gives light to a few items, but there is a lot that is missing and I wonder if the CIA will hide behind national security for handing over 700,000 pieces of military hardware to the Taliban. And make sure that you take notice of a small footnote. We are given “All equipment described in encs. I-VI is fully U.S. funded, with the exception of communications equipment in fiscal years 2003 and 2004”, so I reckon that the Taliban will not be merely killing US forces, it will killing them using US funded hardware. Are you awake now?

It is also worth noting that there is a chart in the report that shows that the Afghan police got well over 50% of most hardware that the Afghan army received. A stage we need to be aware of. A stage where the army was not alone in this failure and it is a massive failure when you have all this hardware and well over 500% the personnel that you get taken over by a group of insurrectionists. The media (not placing blame here) is not asking the right questions, they aren’t asking that much. The few that did (BBC, the Guardian, the Times, Forbes) are not asking on who got commissions and that is the $4 billion question, I also reckon that the CIA in that area, who got a huge increase in funds and budget dropped the ball, I am actually wondering if they know what a ball looks like, so I am including it at the bottom.

1 Comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

August 30, 2021 · 02:20

The Iranian play

There were two stories out there. In this for now I am ignoring the Afghanistani part, as the BBC gave me a nice idea. They actually have a nice uncut gemstone in their possession and I need additional time (as I have only one set of eyes). So we look at the Yemeni setting where the media is happy to report on Houthi attacks, but there is a lull in this. The Yemeni do not have the required weaponry, implying that Iran is still driving this stage of concern. It is Al-Jazeera who gave us (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/29/several-killed-in-houthi-attack-on-yemens-largest-base) ‘Dozens killed in Houthi attack on Yemen’s largest base’ the start is nominal, but it is “At least 30 soldiers killed and 60 wounded in rebel attacks on major military base housing Saudi-led forces” that is the concern, the base is in most SW art of Yemen in Lahij. The issue with me is “armed drones and ballistic missiles”. You see, the missiles are one thing, there are too many players who want to grease their pockets, so until forensic evidence comes through, it is anyones guess where the missiles are from, but the armed drones, they are the problem. Yemen has no infrastructure for this, Iran is the only player willing to supply Houthi forces and that is the problem. You see as Iran pushes and pushes and both the US and UK are hopelessly stuck in their ego’s Saudi Arabia stands alone against Iran. Yes, the US and UK make claims, but they have backed down at economic sanctions, even though they are aware that this step will never work and with China and Russia making deals with Iran, Iranian funds keep on going towards Houthi forces. As far as I can tell, from the western media only Reuters looked at this, the Guardian, BBC, Washington Post, LA Times and many others ignored it, isn’t it nice for the media to largely avoid having to mention Iran in a negative light? What do those take holders have to care about (apart from their wallets)? Yet that is not fair on my side either with all the Afghanistan issues, I get that, but this has happened a few times before and it is bothering me, the transgressions by Houthi forces and by Iran are passed by. In this particular instance the Houthi forces attacked a military target, and it might not be nice, but I need to stay fair. In other instances they knowingly and blatantly attacked CIVILIAN targets and that was ignored as well. 

So when we see another threat in the light of ‘Iran vows to respond in kind if Biden targets nuclear program’, I wonder if I should sell my solution to meltdown their reactor to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, seems fair enough. I reckon that suddenly the western media will be all over the KSA for this, so I need to mull this over and there is the additional issues that it is still a concept, I never felt good about people selling concepts, not in IT and not anywhere else either. I reckon it makes me a service minded person, not a sales minded person. 

Yet it also feeds another sentiment. When the people really on one side, Iran might finally consider that they no longer have option, other than end up being the courtesan to either Russia or China. If they feel happy about that, so be it. As I see it, we need to start giving open support towards the KSA (or openly hostile towards Iran), either will do. But staying on the fence is no longer acceptable. If we do not do this, we need to equally silence the voices of the UN and HRW on Yemeni issues, is that not fair? If we do nothing, we need not look at articles in the news on what happens there either, those articles seem like empty reminders of what sitting on ones hands looks like. 

I get it, some will see this as an overreaction, but so far how many Houthi attacks were there on CIVILIAN targets in the last year alone? How many were reported on? Who reported them? When you tally these elements and you see how one-sided the media has become it might dawn on you that silence was never golden and it is no longer acceptable. And I get it, some will state that they support the Houthis. I get that, but do that loudly to and when Saudi Arabia closes the oil-tap, consider that you enabled that step, and it is fair, if we need not consider our non-allies, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has the same right, but I reckon that the stakeholders in certain areas are really desperate to avoid that step, it would cost them a bundle and they like feeling rich in the wallet and poor in the soul. It is a state of mind some people can live with. 

I never did and yes, I have supported the wrong people in the past, but I was always direct, people always knew where I stood, it is time to set open policies all over the middle east, we have that right, and I believe we are running out of options. 

2 Comments

Filed under Military, Politics

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

August 27, 2021 · 20:55

And the mystery is?


It is one of those ‘I told you so moments’. I am not happy or proud, but the profound sadness that hits me when I see the way it is reported on is just staggering. A few are reporting on it, but the larger stage is likely to be found in places like the Verge soon enough. The people who get it will soon understand that it will be worse and that my 90% of cloud transgressions was no joke. Yet to see part of that nightmare, you need to realise that the Microsoft Azure cloud has been in existence since October 2008, almost 13 years. Now it took the business to grow its customer base. Yet consider that the article at Reuters ‘Microsoft warns thousands of cloud customers of exposed databases’ (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-microsoft-warns-thousands-cloud-customers-exposed-databases-emails-2021-08-26/) gives us “A research team at security company Wiz discovered it was able to access keys that control access to databases held by thousands of companies” Now we can only speculate how long that flaw was there, or perhaps that design error. Yet the damage is enormous. With “Microsoft agreed to pay Wiz $40,000 for finding the flaw and reporting it, according to an email it sent to Wiz” we might think it is trivial because it only costed $40,000, but it is not. Thousands of firms with BILLIONS in IP values and other values have been in danger for years, at the most 3 years, yet the article does not really reflect on that (which is not the fault of the BBC or Reuters). And when we are told “We fixed this issue immediately to keep our customers safe and protected. We thank the security researchers for working under coordinated vulnerability disclosure”, I wonder just how bad it is. Now, I get it, it might be fixed but if that was an easy fix, it might equally mean that it could have been easily prevented. 

So when we get to “This is the worst cloud vulnerability you can imagine. It is a long-lasting secret. This is the central database of Azure, and we were able to get access to any customer database that we wanted.” We get to see that Wiz Chief Technology Officer Ami Luttwak (a former Microsoft employee) now working at Adallom LTD and Wiz. Now we get it bugs happen, yet one would think that proper testing would be done and this bug whilst not proven to be transgressed upon went undetected for no one nows how long until an external group decided to test Microsoft access (optionally on Microsoft orders). So whilst some might think that “Microsoft only told customers whose keys were visible this month, when Wiz was working on the issue” passes the mustard, but it does not, mainly because the length of the transgression enabled time is still unknown, and that is not all. When we consider “The company was breached by the same suspected Russian government hackers that infiltrated SolarWinds”, as well as “a wide number of hackers broke into Exchange email servers while a patch was being developed” with the cherry on top of “A recent fix for a printer flaw that allowed computer takeovers had to be redone repeatedly” a well as “Another Exchange flaw last week prompted an urgent U.S. government warning that customers need to install patches issued months ago because ransomware gangs are now exploiting it”, as such one might speculate that they need to adjust their marketing vision, with the first optional change being “We advertise the most powerful console because the other stuff is buggered” and it seems that Microsoft has all kinds of testing and investigation flaws, that is merely my speculated view, yet for the customers who feel threatened by this, consider looking at Open office (at https://www.openoffice.org), I cannot guarantee it is more secure, but it is free and you are now paying for all the transgressions in a multitude of ways (including an annual fee) so you can at least negate one factor. 

So whilst some feel sorry for that multibillion company and how sad things are, consider that Azure is an issue, especially when you realise “Microsoft and outside security experts have been pushing companies to abandon most of their own infrastructure and rely on the cloud for more security”, when that comes to the surface, we see that Microsoft seemingly embraces ‘sharing is caring’ and with everything people have in that cloud sharing everything with EVERYONE, we might see Microsoft as the most caring behemoth in the universe, but I reckon the customers who pay a pretty penny for that ‘privilege’ will see this differently. But there is light at the end of the tunnel (well not really). Compare the logos of Microsoft and the olympics, now consider that only the black elements (the hackers) were not yet represented, but it seems that Microsoft gave them an internal challenge and so far the hackers are leading three to nil, which is the larger danger. 

And that larger danger is given to us at the very end with “But though cloud attacks are more rare, they can be more devastating when they occur. What’s more, some are never publicised. A federally contracted research lab tracks all known security flaws in software and rates them by severity. But there is no equivalent system for holes in cloud architecture, so many critical vulnerabilities remain undisclosed to users, Luttwak said”. 

So it is here that some might realise that 

  1. Some cloud transgressions are never shown the light of day.
  2. Many critical vulnerabilities remain undisclosed.
  3. (Speculated) The makers might not even be aware of some vulnerabilities.

That is the stage that cloud customers are exposing themselves to and in this, with too many corporations reducing their IT security staff and relying on the security of the cloud, how much is this costing the Fortune 500 who created that erroneous overly simple mindset? It was never a mystery to me, I have written about these kind of dangers since 2017, so if people are just now waking up, good morning and enjoy the coffee you have, you’ll need it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

August 26, 2021 · 22:12

As credibility moves to the arctic

Yes, today is another day to look at the media BS and in this case the BBC. Now, let’s be clear, in this specific case they are optionally not deceiving you, but they are part of the problem and not part of the solution (as I personally see it). The article ‘Climate change: Consumer ‘confusion’ threatens net zero homes plan’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58306288) sounds nice but they are painting with one brush, a massively large one and they are tinkering towards what I personally expect to be the needs of stakeholders. 

You see, I gave you a few parts (again) in ‘Ignored by media’ a week ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/08/19/ignored-by-media/). That pesky European Environment Agency gave a report a little over 6 months ago that showed us clearly (in their way) that 50% of ALL pollution came from 147 facilities, I even added their graphics. Did any of these media courtesans give us that? Did they clearly oppose it with reasons? No, they did none of that. No, they are giving us “efforts to curb emissions from millions of homes in the UK will be at risk”, so whilst we see the BS arrangement to give us “they need the right information and tools, particularly when it comes to adapting their home. “By getting things right now, the government can give people the confidence to make changes and play their part in getting to net zero.”” Which sounds nice and I get that part, but in all this we see the spending by millions of households whilst 50% of the problem is given to us by 147 facilities, so 147 facilities against millions of households, in addition the media to the largest extent has not now, NOT EVER, dug into that lit of 147 facilities and gave us the lit of 147 players and started their name and shame game (I reckon that involved stakeholders will not allow for that). So whilst the BBC is reporting “offers financial support such as grants, low-cost loans and financing”, and I apologise so pardon my French, so where the fuck is that list of 147 facilities, the amounts of taxation paid by the people behind these 147 facilities and how much non taxable funds they are making? Now, we should understand that these facilities might not (most likely are not) be in the UK or Europe, but in the age of the media giving us ‘the people have a right to know’ I reckon that the people should be allowed that part of the equation too, or not?

So whilst the BBC gives us boldly “Government plans to decarbonise homes are too complicated and confusing, according to a coalition of consumer and industry groups”, why are they not going over that list of 147 facilities and make sure that those facilities are fined so that we all get time and funds to do our side? So when we are given “The carbon generated by home heating amounts to about 20% of all UK emissions”, all whilst we see that several media players are ignoring “50% of ALL pollution comes from 147 facilities” are you not equally wondering why environmental reporters are largely ignoring the EEA report? 

It makes me wonder who Matt McGrath is catering too, do you not agree to this? In all this Matt is not completely wrong with his article, but the setting is not that small, it has not be that small for well over a decade and when we see the links to ‘Climate change: Europe’s extreme rains made more likely by humans’ and ‘Nature crisis: Talks resume on global plan to protect biodiversity’ you might notice something, I did. You see in these two articles the word ‘pollution’ is seen once. It is seen in the second article in the quote “the nations of the world failed to fully meet any of the 20 targets which included protecting coral reefs and tackling pollution”, all this whilst the EEA report does not get mentioned, not once. In a day and age where the headlines are about ‘biodiversity’ and ‘extreme rains’, yet pollution and the 147 facilities are out of range (read out of expected bounds). 

So what alleged stakeholder is making a speculated fortune by allegedly arranging the media not to take a deep and informative look at the EEA report?
Which so called journalist dug into the data the EEA has, where the 147 facilities were and which of the remaining 14178 could get its pollution damage smothered (by a lot)? 

These are questions that are out in the open and yes, that is not up to the BBC to fix, yet the utter silence of that part is up to the BBC and they need to be starting to ask the difficult questions. Yes they cannot give all the answers, but in this stage no one is asking the questions that matter, I will let you figure out which is worse. 

So enjoy the polluted air and remember, Amazon sells gas masks ranging from $30 to $150, be weary you might need one in the near future and if you see the BS people attacking others on their freedom of choice for not wearing a face mask, I wonder how they will react to the choice between gas mask and breathing (no more). That is in the end the second option, if we let the 35% of all stupid people of the population die, pollution and carbon emissions will be reduced as well, the scales of balance will not care and if one solution will not work, the other one remains. Life can at times be that simple.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 19, 2021 · 20:19

Ignored by media

Yes, that happens, we all see it, we all (to some extend) understand it. Yet what needs to happen for an article like ‘Will I ever be able to fly without feeling guilty again?’ (At https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57917193) to even have value? You see, this has happened before and this time its Lucy Hooker who does the damage. You see, I have no intention of taking the filtered information given to us for granted. You see, the slightly edited quote “Previously a regular flyer, visiting friends in Scotland and holidaying abroad, she says the penny dropped during that trip. And in the end, the decision was easy. She is one of a small band of people who have found flying just too uncomfortable to contemplate any more.” So, how can she afford it? I haven’t flown in 17 years, but that is because I am on a budget. So when we see “One flight from London to New York emits around 1.3 tonnes of carbon according to the offsetting organisation Atmosfair. Other organisations offer lower estimates, but even if you eat vegan and cycle everywhere, you’d struggle to make up for the emissions from a return trip”, I see this as a stupid BS article, a story by Miss Hooker to please others and none of them are particularly interested in the real deal, just like the Guardian and their Jetset BS. 

The largest extend was ignored again and again, as we take notice of the actual issue. The report which I discussed in ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ on December 10th 2020 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/), which has the ACTUAL report given to us by the UN Environment program, is merely a part of it, when we combine the European Environment Agency report, we see that 1% of plants do 50% of the pollution damage, but are they looking there? And there is more, 147 plants cause over 165 billion euro’s damage, so why are they not looking there? Why do we get BS article after BS article on some oversensitive person who saw a flood once? And to emphasise, the 147 plants do an equal amount of damage as the remaining 14178 facilities under scrutiny. So how often did the BBC (the Guardian too) do their homework and look into those accusation by the EEA? I bet that will be more crunchy than some sob-story over a person who will not be flying to Scotland to see relatives (or friends). 

Yes, we can all agree that we need to be carbon aware, but this is done whilst the media ignores the larger problem creators. 

And personally I do not care about Maggie Robertson, if she feels she sleeps better by signing up to Flight Free UK, that is fine by me, I avoided travel for 17 years by getting a budget shoved down my throat. And I am NOT ignoring the EEA report, even as the media is. You see, they avoided it, they did not oppose the report, they did not nitpick the report, they merely ignored it, and why was that? 

So if you want the real lowdown on pollution, find the EEA report and learn, also consider that everyone seems to ignore the 147 facilities and they have done so for well over a year, because the report might have been out for 8 months, but these 147 facilities have been around a hell of a lot longer, so why are we kept in the dark whilst attacking rich people with fuel efficient jets and people going on a holiday perhaps once a year, all whilst 50% of ALL pollution is caused according to the EEA by 147 facilities, so which facilities are they?

2 Comments

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

August 10, 2021 · 02:08

The part we seem to forget

I was reading an article on the Guardian when something hit me. You see, we have been told parts of this again and again since the 90’s, for 30 years, more likely than not even longer, were we warned for the issues we now see unfold in Greece and all over the world. 

When we consider that and we consider ‘Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn) we see “Human activity is changing the Earth’s climate in ways “unprecedented” in thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, with some of the changes now inevitable and “irreversible”, climate scientists have warned. Within the next two decades, temperatures are likely to rise by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, breaching the ambition of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and bringing widespread devastation and extreme weather.” Yet what we do not see, not by any media, is the job the media is supposed to do, the part we expect and the part we should DEMAND they will do, but they will not. The media is the bitch of shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers and their stakeholders will not hear of it, their friends will not like this. We should demand a list, a list of EVERY scientist who opposed the papers showing these dangers for decades. We should demand a list of these scientists and the corporate links they had, the corporate donations they received. The people are entitled to them, but the stakeholders who are behind the screens will not like this and I wonder why not. Actually, I am not that surprised that stakeholders tend to be bitches too, they will have friends they cater too and they do not like it that they are not the powers they pretend to be, but the game is now in a stage where we should look at that part, even as the media is willing to let that part go, just like they play footsie with people like Martin Bashir. So as the Daily Mail gives the people ‘Diana whistleblower who sounded the alarm over ‘dirty tricks’ used by Martin Bashir to secure interview ‘will be paid £750,000 by BBC after losing career’’ we see that the BBC catered to other needs for 25 years and they do not like the limelight of catering, just like others catered to Jimmy Saville and a few others, all (as I personally see it) due to connections to stakeholders, that needs to end. I believe that any media shown to cater to non-media needs, need to get its 0% VAT status revoked for no less than 10 years, see if that motivates them. 

The Guardian gave us (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-crimes-oil-and-gas-environment) “Instead of heeding the evidence of the research they were funding, major oil firms worked together to bury the findings and manufacture a counter narrative to undermine the growing scientific consensus around climate science. The fossil fuel industry’s campaign to create uncertainty paid off for decades by muddying public understanding of the growing dangers from global heating and stalling political action.” This is fine, but this was not enough, the scientists who put their name under some of these marketing plays need to be out in the open, they made their choices, the now need to be banned for life. Catering to stakeholders need to come at a price. It is nice to blame the fossil fuel group, it might not be wrong, but it is shallow, there was an entire support engine of academics and politicians, they need to be pushed into the limelight. Politicians that set the agenda of inaction, supported by academic statements, we need those to be out in the open in all nations, so that we can flush out. The stakeholders, a side the media is for the most unable (read: unwilling) to do. So as the Guardian also gives us “Last month, a Dutch court ordered Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by the end of the decade. The same day, in Houston, an activist hedge fund forced three new directors on to the board of the US’s largest oil firm, ExxonMobil, to address climate issues. Investors at Chevron also voted to cut emissions from the petroleum products it sells.” So, where were they in the last 2-3 decades? As I personally see it, these people could react well over a decade ago when the water was up to our necks, they decided to fill their pockets a little longer until the water was up to our eyeballs, optionally making reference that clever people had a snorkel. Yet, snorkels have weaknesses, and the eyeballs might see the waves from one direction, not from all directions in that state, for that the water needed to be at no more than neck level, less would have ben better. 

So as we are in this setting, we are all driven to blame fossil fuel and as most oil comes from the middle east it will be appealing to most, yet the truth, the ugly truth is that they could only preserve their income with political and academic support form the west and we want those names, preferable with the names of the stakeholders. 

I wonder if any media will dig into that part, they might say that they do and they might make efforts, but after 2-3 weeks there will be another crises and some stakeholder will drown the effort, that is how the world runs, greed driven against the needs of everyone and at the cost of everything that is not theirs. It is merely my point of view, but I believe it to be a correct one.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,