Tag Archives: Law

November 9, 2025 · 10:57

Where the BBC falls short

That is the setting I was confronted with this morning. It revolves around a story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3xgwyywe4o) where we see ‘‘A predator in your home’: Mothers say chatbots encouraged their sons to kill themselves’ a mere 10 hours ago. Now I get the caution, because even suicide requires investigation and the BBC is not the proper setting for that. But we are given “Ms Garcia tells me in her first UK interview. “And it is much more dangerous because a lot of the times children hide it – so parents don’t know.”

Within ten months, Sewell, 14, was dead. He had taken his own life” with the added “Ms Garcia and her family discovered a huge cache of messages between Sewell and a chatbot based on Game of Thrones character Daenerys Targaryen. She says the messages were romantic and explicit, and, in her view, caused Sewell’s death by encouraging suicidal thoughts and asking him to “come home to me”.” There is a setting that is of a conflicting nature. Even as we are given “the first parent to sue Character.ai for what she believes is the wrongful death of her son. As well as justice for him, she is desperate for other families to understand the risks of chatbots.” What is missing is that there is no AI, at most it is depend machine learning and that implies a programmer, what some call an AI engineer. And when we are given “A Character.ai spokesperson told the BBC it “denies the allegations made in that case but otherwise cannot comment on pending litigation”” We are confronted with two streams. The first is that some twisted person took his programming options a little to Eagerly Beaverly like and created a self harm algorithm and that leads to two sides, the first either accepts that, or they pushed him along to create other options and they are covering for him. CNN on September 17th gave us ‘More families sue Character.AI developer, alleging app played a role in teens’ suicide and suicide attempt’ and it comes with spokesperson “blah blah blah” in the shape of “We invest tremendous resources in our safety program, and have released and continue to evolve safety features, including self-harm resources and features focused on the safety of our minor users. We have launched an entirely distinct under-18 experience with increased protections for teen users as well as a Parental Insights feature,” and it is rubbish as this required a programmer to release specific algorithms into the mix and no-one is mentioning that specific programmer, so is it a much larger premise, or are they all afraid that releasing the algorithms will lay bare a failing which could directly implode the AI bubble. When we consider the CNN setting shown with “screenshots of the conversations, the chatbot “engaged in hypersexual conversations that, in any other circumstance and given Juliana’s age, would have resulted in criminal investigation.”” Implies that the AI Bubble is about to burst and several players are dead set against that (it would end their careers) and that is merely one of the settings where the BBC fails. The Guardian gave us on October 30th “The chatbot company Character.AI will ban users 18 and under from conversing with its virtual companions beginning in late November after months of legal scrutiny.” It is seen in ‘Character.AI bans users under 18 after being sued over child’s suicide’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/29/character-ai-suicide-children-ban) where we see “His family laid blame for his death at the feet of Character.AI and argued the technology was “dangerous and untested”. Since then, more families have sued Character.AI and made similar allegations. Earlier this month, the Social Media Law Center filed three new lawsuits against the company on behalf of children who have either died by suicide or otherwise allegedly formed dependent relationships with its chatbots” and this gets the simple setting of both “dangerous and untested” and “months of legal scrutiny” so why took it months and why is the programmer responsible for this ‘protected’ by half a dozen media? I reckon that the media is unsure what to make of the ‘lie’ they are perpetrating, you see there is no AI, it is Deeper Machine Learning optionally with LLM on the side. And those two are programmed. That is the setting they are all veering away from. The fact that these Virtual companions are set on a premise of harmful conversations with a hyper sexual topic on the side implies that someone is logging these conversations for later (moneymaking) use. And that setting is not one that requires months of legal scrutiny. There is a massive set of harm going towards people and some are skating the ice to avoid sinking through whist they are already knee deep in water, hoping the ice will support them a little longer. And there is a lot more at the Social Media Victims Law Center with a setting going back to January 2025 (at https://socialmediavictims.org/character-ai-lawsuits/) where a Character.AI chatbot was set to “who encouraged both self-harm and violence against his family” and now we learn that this firm is still operating? What kind of idiocy is this? As I personally see it, the founders of Character Technologies should be in jail, or at least in arrested on a few charges. I cannot vouch for Google, so that is up in the air, but as I see it, this is a direct result from the AI bubble being fed amiable abilities, even when it results in the hard of people and particularly children. This is where the BBC is falling short and they could have done a lot better. At the very least they could have spend a paragraph or two having a conversation with Matthew P. Bergman founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center. As I see it, the media skating around that organisation is beyond ridiculous. 

So when you are all done crying, make sure that you tell the BBC that you are appalled by their actions and that you require the BBC to put attorney Matthew P. Bergman and the Social Media Victims Law Center in the spotlight (tout suite please) 

That is the setting I am aggravated by this morning. I need coffee, have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science

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

October 10, 2025 · 16:28

Empty luck for bad guys

That happens, it doesn’t make them more bad, or more evil, they just are and to be honest when I saw the news that he had lost my heart skipped a beat. That news made me I personally happy. I get that at times people do not get to rely on ‘Freedom of speech’, don’t get me wrong, I do not believe that he was entitled to that. So as I saw the news (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy856qxzq01o) there was a thought on the core of the setting. It started with “The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut. The perpetrator, Adam Lanza, fatally shot his mother before murdering 20 students and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and later committed suicide.” Here is where the Conspiracy Theorists come to ‘live’ and here we get “In September 2014, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who runs the website InfoWars, which had previously claimed that the murders were a “false flag” attack perpetrated by the government, made a new conspiracy claim that “no one died” at Sandy Hook Elementary School because the Uniform Crime Reports showed no murders in Newtown for 2012, and that the victims were “child actors.” This claim is false and misrepresents the FBI report. In reality, because the Connecticut State Police was the lead investigator after the attack, the Sandy Hook victims were included in Connecticut’s statewide records (under “State Police Misc.”) rather than under the Newtown statistics.” And we get the continuance that “In November 2016, Erica L. Lafferty, daughter of Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, the school principal who was shot and killed at Sandy Hook School, wrote open letters to then-President-elect Donald Trump (published in Medium and USA Today), calling upon him to denounce Jones, after Trump had appeared on InfoWars during his presidential campaign and lavished praise on its presenter, saying that the conspiracy theorist had an “amazing” reputation and pledging not to let him down. On February 20, 2017, the Newtown School Board wrote to President Trump and urged him to recognize the murders of 26 people at Sandy Hook and to “remove your support from anyone who continues to insist that the tragedy was staged or not real.”Trump did not respond to the letter. On April 16, 2018, parents of two victims of the shooting sued Jones in Travis County, Texas (where Jones’ media company is based), for $1 million each. On May 23, 2018, six families of victims of the shooting, as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack, filed a defamation lawsuit in Bridgeport Superior Court in Connecticut against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting. In a deposition in the last week of March 2019, Jones acknowledged the deaths were real, stating he had “almost like a form of psychosis”, where he “basically thought everything was staged.”By 2021, Jones did not provide information to support his claims, defaulting in favor of the plaintiffs.” So over the setting of more than 7 years, Alex jones was found guilty and in November 15th of 2021 NPR reported ‘Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones ruled liable in Sandy Hook defamation case’ with ““Mr. Jones was given every opportunity to comply, but, when he chose instead to withhold evidence for more than two years, the Court was left with no choice but to rule as it did today,” Mattei said. “While the families are grateful for the court’s ruling, they remain focused on uncovering the truth.””

So now whilst we are given “Right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has asked the US Supreme Court to put on pause the nearly $1.5bn (£1.1bn) defamation judgment against him that is forcing the sale of his Infowars media company. Jones was ordered to make the payout in 2022 for claiming the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax. He has asked the high court to prevent Infowars from being sold to the satirical news site The Onion in order to fund judgment against him, arguing that it will cause irreparable harm to him and his audience of 30 million.” The folly called ‘Justice of the United States continues’ and whilst we also see that they ‘rely’ on “Jones is asking the justices to put the judgment on hold while deciding on an appeal he has filed. The court is expected to consider his application on Friday in private.

Attorneys for Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, characterized him as a media defendant in their court filing on Thursday. They argued that Jones, who founded the platform in 1999, should enjoy the same free speech protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution that journalists have, according to court documents filed on Wednesday.

They also said the record-breaking payout and the shuttering of his platform would have a “chilling effect” on similar media figures.” And I have to wonder ‘Why Not?’ If there is any setting it is that the media is now a behemoth that is not about the truth of the matter, but largely on the cash of the setting. I have had that for some time, but this case will drive this out in the open to a much larger audience. And I am still in confusion why this conspiracy theorist is given any quarter at all, but the American setting is one where appeal has the largest dollar gain and as I see it, it will play out, will it play out in favor of Alex Jones is something that we have to watch, but as I see it, should Alex Jones win, the larger audience from the United States will start to be denied on a near global scale as the global media will not want to be painted in the American Red, White and Blue colors because of that. That is merely my take on that setting. There will be no stars and the stripes will be seen as bars, horizontal prison bars thwarting American media because of that. But as I see it, we will have to wait until the verdict from the American Supreme Court comes in. So as I see it, after the Connecticut Supreme Court had turned down his verdict of such a lot of coins, $1,500,000,000 if my memory serves correctly. And as we remember that Jones was ordered to make the payout in 2022 for claiming the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax. So it amounts to him haven over three years to try and ‘auction’ of whatever he could for the time, but the amount of over 1 billion is a lot and if his 30 million audience would hand him $50 each, he might have been able to pay it all. But it seems that his audience doesn’t love him that far, it smilingly comes down to the average hooker gets more credit for a ‘simple’ act then Alex Jones does. And come to think of it, he ‘entertained’ his audience for months, a hooker is done in 15 minutes (if that much is required) and that comes with a protein drink at the end of that sitting. And these people (their clients) got to live behind “It never happened, prove it” so as we get to the next week we will see how the Supreme Court will dress Alex Jones address (or is that redress).

Bygones I say. So have a great day and look out for optional entertainment from the United States Supreme Court, because no matter how you turn this, that nation might go strategically bonkers should Alex Jones get what he wants and then he will cry about all the gun violence coming to his front door. But then they can say “Don’t worry Alex, its just a hoax”

I reckon that Saturday Newscasts will give us more entertainment. It almost sounds like the beginning of a David Sylvian song. Have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

March 2, 2025 · 06:25

What does it take?

That is the question, what does it take to get a conviction. In this case I am not even fussed about the guilty or innocent part. Any conviction is a deal closer, that is the setting of the law. What does it take? A case is started when there are settings that give rise to the guilt of a criminal. At that point, the police and investigators go to work to collect evidence to prove their point. The people get called into court and the trial starts. This is pretty much the law in action on a global status. So at what point does ANY prosecutor get years to make its case? 

So here we have the setting for Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate. They were accused of Human trafficking in 2022. That was almost three years ago. And they had been unable to leave Romania where they were arrested on suspicion of human trafficking in 2022. So in the logical mind, there was an accusation. And evidence was collected. Well, human trafficking takes evidence at that point the prosecutor produces the people who were trafficked and that set of a court case. So what took three years? 

On January 10th 2023 I wrote ‘Andrew Tate, the man, the exploited’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/01/10/andrew-tate-the-man-the-exploited/) at that point after reviewing some parts I wrote “The man was already a multi millionaire and he did this in numerous ways. So why would he exploit 6 women? What would be in it for him? I am not saying that this did not happen, I am asking if this might not have happened.” I raised the question as the prosecutors had been unable for months to get any traction on their prosecution. In addition we got (on YouTube of all places) some mogul giving us the ‘light’ that his daughter was a target.

At this point which I got in under a day that this was a witch hunt from some wannabe captains of industry who were after the jackpot that the Tate’s created and they wanted it. And at this point the setting becomes “Was the Romanian prosecution corrupt?” And then there was the misogynistic state. By the way ‘misogenistic’ means “strongly prejudiced against women”, and to be honest. The video’s I saw did not give the stage that he is AGAINST women. Well, they have strong convictions, but about all manner of things, not against women in particular. Look at the evidence, the Tate’s are kickboxers and their nature is to be in your face, up close and personal. Not my preferred way of dealing with people, but that is THEIR nature, basically the nature of all kickboxers. And many (basically all non-kickboxers) are not on that setting. In Andrew Tate and Piers Morgan we see all video’s that are in the open. The interview (at https://youtu.be/VGWGcESPltM?si=2XrGCQ9oBtE8MP5Q) should be watched to get a better view on him. And there I saw confirmations. So what gives? That is at the centre of all the issues. In the prosecution the Tate’s are under the magnifying glass and in 2 years Romanian law could not make a case. And when you look at the interview where Andrew is up to Piers and basically in his face. He was the straight talker, strong in convictions and the Romanians could not make a case? Was there ever a case? 

As set, almost three years ago, when I see the ‘other’ YouTube interview. I am still wholeheartedly convinced that the Tate’s were innocent. And now? I think that that the setting is that other Romanians take over a multi million dollar enterprise. So when will the BBC (et al) investigate that part of the setting? So when did anyone investigate Cosmin Gusa and Daria Gusa? What came of that part?

Still, now they are in America and the first setting we see is that Governor DeSantis gives us (yesterday) that they are not welcome. So why did he do that? We are given that “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has warned controversial influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan they are “not welcome” in the Sunshine State after they arrived there when Romania lifted travel restrictions for the pending criminal case against them.” So what illegalities did either Tate brother do? Perhaps the governor is shining the limelight on himself to appease women? 

I tend to seat myself on the side of Piers Morgan. I think that the in your face setting that Andrew Tate has is not my way and it is not the way pretty much any non-kickboxer has, but that does not make Andrew Tate guilty. Guilt is established by evidence and the Romanian law had nothing, not after two years and change. Perhaps it is time to set the stage to “The wrongly accused Andrew and Tristan Tate” and as I see it, the stage was created by the Tate’s and it seemingly went the wrong way. A setting of their own partial making. Leave it to the rest to take statements out of context. The media has buckets of examples that the media creates to set the flames to the creation of digital dollars.

That’s merely my point of view and I am happy to see that apparently I was right all along (going back to January 10th 2022. Not a bad result.

Have a great Sunday and Vancouver gets to Sunday in 45 minutes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

November 8, 2023 · 23:23

Is it bigger than a hotel room?

That seems like a question, but if you have been on the web and if you have been on YouTube you will have seen a AirBNB advertisement. I personally do not trust them. That is nothing against them, I for the most do not trust anyone. If my mother would call me promising me a solution that gets me  1000% return on investment, I would not trust her (she dies decades ago). 

The BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67341051) gives us ‘Italy to seize $835m from Airbnb in tax evasion inquiry’, it sounds simple and cozy. Yet I believe the all over setting is less simple. We see this with “Prosecutors say the firm failed to collect a tax from landlords on around €3.7bn of rental income. Landlords in Italy are required to pay a 21% tax on their earnings” and here lies the rub. Italian tax laws are not simple, but a lot less complicated than some and this was there in all the writings upfront. AirBNB might be “surprised and disappointed at the action announced by the Italian public prosecutor” but this was a simple application of Italian law. And the statement “Christopher Nutly said the firm’s European headquarters had been working to resolve the matter with the Italian tax agency since June” Really? June? It took me 11 minutes to see that part of the law and AirBNB was in the dark for months? As such “In 2022, Airbnb challenged the Italian law requiring the company and other short-term rental providers to withhold 21% of the rental income from landlords and pay it to tax authorities” Really? A firm goes up against Italian tax laws? How quaint. 

So when I see “The firm argued that Italy’s requirements on taxation contravened the European Union’s principle of freedom to provide services across the 27-country bloc” I wonder how their CLO (Chief Legal Officer) saw this? They checked with the local hookers on the Warmoestraat in Amsterdam perhaps? I am just fishing, but still. And the fact that they took this approach after YEARS leaves something to be desired as well. The fact that we are also given “Three people who held managerial roles at Airbnb from 2017 to 2021 were also under investigation, Milan Tribunal prosecutors said in a statement” gives me another path a simplified and optionally an incorrect  one. You see, this is an issue that has lasted for 6 years, the simpleton I would have looked at legal settings before day one commenced, but that is just me. 

Elizabeth Holmes, Sam Bankman-Fired, WeWork and the list goes on. Some ignored the law, some ‘overlooked’ and some merely made bad business calls and the media saw nothing until their stars exploded or imploded. How is that? A setting where we see €3.7bn of rental income and the Italian media never saw that post missing from the tax statutes? I am asking the questions out loud now, because the media isn’t. With Elizabeth Holmes, the media shunned Tyler Shultz. The media levitated Sam Bankman-Fried to godhood and no one looked where they needed to look for the longest of times. The €3,700,000,000 income in Italy makes that almost clear as day. You see that revenue exceeds the combined sums of Enel, Eni and Generali over 6 years and they are the top revenue firms in Italy and no one noticed? Who is asleep at the wheel there? 

Just some food for thought, enjoy it as you progress to the middle of the week.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

October 23, 2023 · 05:59

Denial in 3, 2, 1…

That is at times the setting. We know that denials are coming and it is often no more than a shoe drop away, or at least that is how I usually tend to see denials. For the most I do not care about American politics, it is watching someone else’s petulant children in some creche go nuts all whilst most of us, especially those who haven’t fathered any children (to the best of my knowledge) to see this as an opportune moment to massively consider remaining a bachelor. 

Three
Here we have (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-20/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-donald-trump-georgia-election-fraud/103000142) the first of three events. ‘Former Donald Trump lawyer Sidney Powell pleads guilty in Georgia election interference case’ you see, some will see the simple side which is seen in “Powell admitted to plotting to unlawfully access secure election machines in rural Coffee County in south-eastern Georgia in January 2021”, yet the larger issues is  seemingly evaded. We see this when we consider “a felony involving moral turpitude, forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to clients, alcoholism or drug abuse which affect the attorney’s ability to practice, theft of funds, or any pattern of violation of the professional code of ethics” and the only thing we see here is “The plea agreement calls for her to be sentenced to six years of probation” My personal setting is one of anger. That [stricken word for trollop] avoided disbarment? Was it the words? We get it ‘plotting’ is not ‘acting’ and as such we see the larger setting. Lawyers are all tripping over one another to avoid getting disbarred. I reckon that the moment this happens, they become advisors to ambulance chasers and such kind of people. On the other side, Uber is always looking for drivers, or there is the option of a hair salon where she can brag that she was hoodwinked to eager hearing ears there. Perhaps those clients will only listen if it comes with a discount. 

Two
This is seen (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67174576) where we are given ‘Second Trump lawyer pleads guilty to conspiracy’ where we are told that Kenneth Chesebro is linked to “Chesebro pleaded guilty to a single felony count of conspiracy to file false documents. His deal with prosecutors on Friday came as jury selection began in his case. The trial will no longer go forward.” And he too seemingly avoids disbarment. Either the prosecution is weak or they are merely stacking up the plea deals to dump the entire mess on Donald the duck Trump (the writer apologises to Walt Disney for making the reference). 

We need to see that this is merely two out of seventeen. One made a deal last September (that person might have gotten the best deal of all) but the larger stage is no longer what will happen to the former President, but it becomes how much hardship will that former president face. You see when he is thrown in jail and his proud boys are there too, they might not take too kindly to a person who made them look stupid in public. 

One
This one is in the wind, but (at https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-fined-almost-8000-for-violating-gag-order-in-new-york-civil-trial-20231021-p5edz5.html) we are given ‘Trump fined almost $8000 for violating gag order in New York civil trial’ and we are also given “Justice Arthur Engoron said a Trump social media post attacking the judge’s clerk – which was later deleted from the former president’s Truth Social platform – had remained visible on his 2024 campaign website two weeks after an order was issued to take it down”, so only $8000? I reckon he has had lunch meetings that costed more. But the start has begun and whilst I doubt if the judge will impose stricter fines (the past is not in that favour), this is a start and all this took well over 2 years. The insurrection which started on January 6, 2021 is finally getting to the point where the big players are up. Even as this is still in court, I am not holding my breath. You see US history will have to accept that this is the first president that could face jail-time for actions committed. America has shown itself to remain in denial to act on such matters. 

On the upside, as I was reading and watching these parts, I saw something I will not publish here, but the larger stage could be devastating to any party exposed to it and whilst I am happy to hand that over to the Ukraine. I would feel a sense of guilt to do so. Nothing against Ukraine, but it requires a different mindset and I feel uneasy to set it that way.

This relates to the article as it is a mindset that none of the involved lawyers had, as such their probations are seen by me as massively uneasy. You see “an apology letter to citizens of Georgia” is a bloody joke. A nation that prided itself on democracy is playing pussy to the events that destroys that same democracy they hold so high, so proud. Harsh words from a judge are not enough. Actions were required and actions are seemingly at best limited. This is why I will not cheer on the entire Trump case until a final verdict is passed. You see, there is still some chance that he gets off on technicalities and several people will offer their resignation to make up for it, all whilst they know that their future will be well tended too. That is the unacceptable side of democracy. Acting for the presented greater good and that reminds me of an old saying “adding water to the wine”. Yet at what point does one forget the taste of water or the taste of wine? When we forget what either was, what becomes of us? 

A simple question to get you to ponder through the upcoming Monday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

August 7, 2023 · 23:42

Is it new, or merely more?

This all started a day ago when a tweet passed me by. 

This seems nothing new, I have heard issues like this and I have listened to them. Yet something about this nagged me and I had another look. The link gave me some of the bits (at https://www.law.com/2023/08/02/real-time-litigation-salesforce-hit-with-whistleblower-retaliation-suit-as-former-vp-accuses-it-of-lying-about-genies-capabilities) yet I started to look further. I found a few articles regarding sex trafficking, and I might look into that part, but when I started to dig into “Salesforce Genie court” only two links appeared. This one and a French one and now I have a few questions. The first few are how is the media ignoring this? How come there is only one story? The rest I will leave for later. 

So I went into the article and the start is a good beginning, which is “Salesforce was hit with a lawsuit by its former vice president of product management over whistleblower retaliation allegations after he raised concerns regarding the company’s alleged plan to falsely inform the public that its customer data platform “Genie” operates in real time.” Now first there is an issue (there always is). Salespeople tend to emboss issues (possibly to hide certain short comings). And that text is reinforced with “Publicly claiming that the CDP operated in “real time” could be violations of several federal laws relating to fraud against shareholders, as well as some rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the plaintiff believed.” Now the issue I have is that the claims do not show to have a recording of these events. This is important because if the salesperson (or presenter) stated “almost like real-time” it becomes subjective and a personal interpretation. Just like some salespeople make claims with “my personal view” because in other cases they tend to show things. I know very little about genie, but certain parts of missing evidence leaves me with questions. In addition to that the end of the article states “NOT FOR REPRINT” which I regard to be another media mess. These two elements give me pause to just accept some story and made me look deeper. Yet over the past month we have 2 articles? The fact that Salesforce gets a court mention at all is pretty rare, so I would have expected the media to be all over this. With its HQ in San Francisco and the primary owner being Marc Benioff. I would have expected the LA Times, the SF Chronicle and a few others (USA Today, Wall Street Journal) to pick something like this up, they did not. It leaves me puzzled. I found a lot more on Karl Wirth, but not regarding this case. So what is up?

It is a genuine question because I need to accept that some cases are optionally flimsy, even though the article gives me “A July 28 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Hartley Michon Robb Hannon on behalf of Karl Wirth” and this links to a complaint which I will add at the end. The complain has a lot more, but this is merely a legal brief, as such it is tainted towards one side and I wonder what the other side will do. 

Still, it is cool in a way, because players like Salesforce tend to have a clean look, as such another view tends to be nice and of course there was the option to dig into a player I know little of, so I had a bit of a blank slate. No matter how you slice it, the fact that a company is worth over $205,000,000,000 and no one is looking at a court case is reason for consideration, which is pretty much the number one reason why I decided to take a look.

Enjoy the week. 

salesforce_complaintDownload

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , ,

December 15, 2022 · 08:04

Bonking to a new place

It started on December 3rd (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/12/03/how-to-destroy-an-economy/)  with ‘How to destroy an economy’, now we see an article giving us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63948740) ‘Bali sex ban: Indonesia tourists won’t be charged under law’, it is a fair response, but one given in fear. You see it becomes LAW, and at that point there is no distinction, the issue was from the start “and foreigners alike” that is the killer, so when we see “the governor of Bali, a holiday hotspot, said authorities would not check the marital status of tourists.” We need to see that the man is acting in fear, stopping that law could have prevented it, but some lame excuse with the added “Authorities would not check” will not work, the law is in effect (well in three years). How long until some person makes an open complaint to the Indonesian media? Optionally in an election year. At that point will make an example of one or two couples to get by. Do you want to be the example they make? And lets be clear, if you are married you are fine, it is the other 60% that has a problem coming their way and no amount of wheeling and dealing will help. Their only option is to adjust the law to make sure that this law does not apply to tourists. So how many nations have you seen adjusting their laws to tourists? I personally have not seen any, as such Indonesia will see its tourist economy drain only to see it crash near completely in 2024. 

And the quote “Indonesia’s deputy justice minister promised foreigners would not be prosecuted” does not help. The next deputy Justice minister could have a very conservative islamic view and the problem rears its ugly head again. Stopping the law is the ONLY option Indonesia has at present. ABC adds to this (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-13/indonesia-summons-united-nations-official-after-laws-criticised/101763920) with ‘Indonesia summons United Nations official after criticism of newly ratified criminal code’. Here we are given “deputy chief of Indonesia’s tourism industry board Maulana Yusran said the new code was “totally counter-productive” at a time when the economy and tourism were starting to recover from the pandemic”. Yes, he would be right and he sees similar data to me, Indonesian tourism will take a 40%-60% fall in the first few years, and that is before you take the Australian backpackers and schoolies into account, the damage will hurt the Balinese economy to a massive degree and after that there is no coming back for close to a decade, the law would require a rewrite and before that is all in effect it could be 2027 with a large number of commercial places already shut down. And the tourists? They will be bonking in a new place like Singapore, Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur. 

I honestly do not understand what the Indonesian law bringers were thinking when they did this and the setting was three words “and foreigners alike”, all whilst the stage of “tourists are exempt” would have prevented this, three words to destroy billions. This has got to be the most expensive typo in history.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , ,

December 3, 2022 · 11:07

How to destroy an economy

Yes, we wonder at times how this is done. You can influence the game from far, or simply put a hatchet to the bottom of your boat and sink it yourself. It is the second version we will take a look at. To see this, we need to look at facts around the setting. We get “Tourism contributed around US$19.7 billion to GDP in 2019. In 2018, Indonesia received 15.8 million visitors, a growth of 12.5% from last year, and received an average receipt of US$967.” Now Indonesia has a problem, because in 2023 onwards they are about to lose 65% of that. You see Indonesia is wildly popular with Australian students, backpackers and all manner of tourists. With that in mind consider the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63838213) ‘Indonesia set to punish sex before marriage with jail time’ with the added text “Bambang Wuryanto, a politician involved in the draft, said the code could be passed as early as next week. The law, if passed, would apply to Indonesian citizens and foreigners alike.” And do not trust your travel agent, this will be law in a week, so any hormonal driven teenager with a desire for babes, beaches and (the other B word) will be in serious waters. Prison time will be your share and her too. If you are not married, and in some places living together does not count, they will all be in danger of prison time. Anyone stating that this will not happen is lying to themselves. Rolling the dice on a chance in an Indonesian prison is folly to say the least and as such these people need to find a new destination now. Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Thailand. These come to mind initially, but there are other destinations. I do not know what drove Indonesia to set this in law and I am not the party with knowledge to criticise that part, but the impact is clear. Millions need to seek another place to stay now and it will cost Indonesia, it is about to cost them a lot. And 50%-65% of $20 billion is at least $10-$13 billion. Indonesia never had that level of leeway to begin with, as such there will be a much larger impact. 

And the game gets a lot more dicey after that considering “The law also allows the parents of unmarried people to report them for having sex”, there have been (allegedly) events where Americans reported the ‘dangers’ to their daughter, but in Indonesia it will have far stretching consequences. I cannot say why it was such a deal to make this law, and I cannot see why it was such an event, but the impact is clear for the foreseeable future that reaches past 2025, Indonesia as a tourist destination will end and that ends their economy to a much larger degree. And the larger stage is set to three words ‘and foreigners alike’ it only took three words to end two decades of tourist growth to waste it all away. What a loss.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

January 5, 2021 · 16:39

Kill the law

Yes, that moment has finally arrived, I for the most was against the need to do that, if only the politicians and lawmakers would not have been such a collection of pussies, it might not have been an essential act, but the stage we are on now is one is one that Shakespeare gave us in Henry VI, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”, yet at moments away we have arrived at this moment. A few things happened, first there is the stage of the British wankers on ski’s, then there is ‘UK judge blocks extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to US’, in this the BBC reports that “because of concerns over Mr Assange’s mental health and risk of suicide in the US. Mr Assange, who is wanted over the publication of thousands of classified documents in 2010 and 2011, says the case is politically motivated”, he was such an outspoken great man when he released the documents, we can’t have him being a pussy now, can we? Even as I am still in the mindset that he is not a traitor as some call him, he is in a stage where he broke the law and so far half a dozen nations went out of their way to cater to him. A stage of law breaking without accountability, as some would say. And in all this, the one winner is Stella Moris, in all this she gets the limelight she needs to cater to her career. 

Then there is ‘Covid-19 in Switzerland: Mutated UK virus strain found in several cantons’ (at https://www.thelocal.ch/20210104/mutated-coronavirus-strain-found-in-several-regions-of-switzerland), the British pussies (or cunts) that slipped into the night afraid of being in lockdown travelled all over Switzerland too get to France, to get to Freedom, and as I personally see it infecting the Swiss along the way. Now this speculation should be matched by investigation, I understand that, yet if any are found and the British tourists find themselves out of prison instead of in prison for a decade, the basic line is set that the law has become useless and serves the mere large corporations in legally avoiding taxation, to smite the common man in a ruleset that they break again and again. So when we see “Several other cases of the UK variant were also found at the end of December in Zurich, Graubünden, Valais, and Bern, and one case of the South African strain was detected in Ticino, according to the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH)”, we need to wonder what is next. So when we see all kinds of versions of “British tourists have fled the Swiss ski resort of Verbier “clandestinely” under cover of darkness rather than submit to a new quarantine imposed on UK visitors, a local official says”, all whilst the British governments are solent on the matter (as far as I know), we see a stage where we cannot accept the irresponsible acts of others. I wonder if the UK has considered what the larger contemplations are when Switzerland calls for the UK citizens to be pronounced ‘Persona Non Grata’, not one, not 200, but all. I wonder if the law suddenly sees a setting where they either pucker up or they will find themselves left no longer being considered valid by the largest group of people. 

Lacking a proportional response?
Yes, one might say that and it would not be entirely wrong, yet when we are told “More than 2,500 break virus restrictions at illegal rave” (France), even as some sources state that the group had reached 10,000. As well as ‘Demonstration party in Duindorp’ (Netherlands), there are a few more, but they are instances not the common field and we acknowledge that, yet the law cannot sit by, it has to be strict and it has to be firm this time around, if only to get to some specific tourists, they have no valid defence, no matter how they slice it.  This is seen in the larger stage, COVID-19 was a reality for the longest part of the year, they could have let go of this one holiday, until it was safe, they decided that ego was more important, as such they should pay. Yes, we know that the lockdown was not initially in play, but we have had two already and other nations have other stages and settings, they also have the new viral strain and no action was promptly taken until it had spread to 40 nations. In one stage I can say, the more that die, the more valuable my services will be, some will say that is inhuman e, but they decided not to act when it mattered, now it does not. And with 86 million people diseased, we will see the death rate go up beyond 2,000,000 and those are jobs that can go somewhere else, optionally solving unemployment to a much larger degree. In the US there are 12 states where masks are not required, which implies (an unproven imply) that the disease will have a lot more fun in those 11 states (Yes I mentioned 12), Alaska is perhaps the only one that is a bit out of shot, they got a partial save by weather and environment. I reckon that the initial clouds will rise after march, if there is any healthcare or NHS left, we will need to massively address tax law issues on an international scale, if we falter again there is every chance that the uprising against the law will turn massively violent, I myself am totally against the Nanny state (my Republican blood), yet there needs to be a level of accountability and so far the law has merely served those wanting to evade accountability, and the people are stating to notice this and they are putting two and two together, I speculatively reckon that being by tech senator will prove to be a lot less healthy in 2021 than ever thought possible, but I could be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

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

August 12, 2014 · 11:24

No Press, No Facebook!

So, another day in the life of you, the reader, me the blogger and us, the victims of big business in a way that neither of us expected.

Why are we in a stage of No Press? Well, I cannot confirm this for the UK, Canada or Europe at large, yet in Australia it started last year, the second week of November.

Most did not ever bother to look at this, but one I found (at http://www.cinemablend.com/games/PS4-Doesn-t-Block-Used-Games-Game-Rentals-60480.html) wrote the following: “A new last minute reputation management troll-rumor has surfaced online in an attempt to curb Sony’s momentum leading up to their big launch later this week“.

This is a hilarious ‘sucking-up-to-Sony’ response! So what actually happened?

In the two weeks before the launch of the PS4, Sony decided to change the terms of service (at https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/software-usage-terms). I gave the information to Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10 and the Sydney Morning Herald.

NONE!
I say again NONE of them did anything about it. There was a flaccid message (to follow shortly).

So what is so important?

Sony wanted to start putting in place several issues to enforce DRM and to end certain practices. As the PS4 had not launched yet, they could not be too vocal about it, which meant that those claiming to be journalists had a duty to look into it, especially as these changes affected well over 80 million consumers globally. So either journalists only care about the boobs of Rihanna and on how people prefer fake boobs (of course, the possible silicone in a chest is always more newsworthy then the silicon chip that holds an economy).

So what is the exact issue?

Two points from the terms of agreement

  1. 3. You must not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the Software.
  2. 1. You must not resell either Disc-based Software or Software Downloads, unless expressly authorised by us and, if the publisher is another company, additionally by the publisher.

I will admit that 6.3 is badly phrased (a big no-no in any term of service agreement), but in this form it specifically targets one area of usage, which where at blockbusters one could rent a game for a week. An interesting try before you buy approach (not debating the validity or invalidity of this).

It is 7.1 that is the big issue, by agreeing to this (if you do not you lose your PSN account and online abilities) you confirm that you will not resell your games or buy second hand games. This was the big killer for Microsoft in the beginning in addition to the fact that this issue hits 80 million consumers. How is this not in EVERY newspaper? Perhaps their bosses where in the act of ‘hustle for advertisement coin’ (whoring seems like such a harsh word here).

When we look at Eurogamer (at http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-12-sony-reiterates-you-can-sell-and-share-your-ps4-games), we see the following: “Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida added on Twitter: ‘If you are concerned about our new European TOS, we confirm that you are able to sell or share your disc PS4 products, including in EU.’” This is the flaccid response I referred to. If this is the case, then WHY make it part of the terms of agreement? Because Sony lawyers are perhaps cheap? (They really are not!)

We do not doubt the words of the Sony CEO, yet his word can be changed in a simple board meeting, the terms of service is a legally binding document between the consumer and the corporation offering the device and the service. Why am I the one person explaining this ‘oversight’ to the press?

This is a massive issue! The impact on the software industry would be felt in several countries. The fact is that many shops are in business only because they make a few extra dollars of second hand games. If not, new games would have to rise in price. Also, there is, especially in these economic times a large group depending on cheaper game solutions. A pre-owned game, which is at times at least 50% cheaper than the new alternative is one way for some to play a few games. The simple truth is that many cannot afford a $120 game, more often; their parents also are not in possession of such spending sprees, which makes the pre-owned game market an essential part to cater for a sizeable chunk of these consumers.

The second issue is the one that we see evolving now.

I was confronted with this almost two weeks ago, but something about the list of changes seemed so horrifying that I decided not to upgrade. This is still evolving and there are genuine concerns. Yet, what is the actual truth?

If we look at the Bull (at http://thebull.cbslocal.com/2014/08/07/facebook-crosses-the-line-with-new-facebook-messenger-app/) we see the following:

  • Facebook can change or alter your connection to the Internet or cell service without telling you.
  • Facebook can send text messages to your contacts on your behalf.
  • Facebook can record audio, and take pictures and videos, at any time
  • Facebook can read your phone’s call log, including info about incoming and outgoing calls
  • Facebook can read your contact data, including who you call and email and how often
  • Facebook can read personal profile information stored on your device
  • Facebook can get a list of accounts known by the phone, or other apps you use, it can connect all your accounts and Intel together.

It is in part the worry I had when I was looking through the rights I had to agree to when installing the Facebook Messenger app, which I decided against. If I lose my messenger history, so be it!

If we consider the Sydney Morning Herald (at http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/smartphone-apps/facebook-is-forcing-messenger-app-on-users-and-they-arent-happy-about-it-20140729-zycfb.html), we see the following quote “CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed during last week’s earnings call that the company eventually wants to monetise Messenger and the app will eventually ‘overlap’ with payments, though, as TechCrunch notes, he acknowledged the company still has a lot of work to do before users will see payments cropping up in the app“. It is fair enough that people will get to pay at some point. At that point people can return to the old Yahoo Messenger, which has forever been free!

My issue here is that there is a lot more visibility here, yet why this is not the lead with every news channel as this affects BILLIONS of people is also a little beyond me.

There is of course the other side. Is what ‘the Bull’ stated true? I am not stating that they were lying, but the android permissions are at times a little out there. This view is actually reinforced by CNBC (at http://www.cnbc.com/id/101911170).

The confusion seems to have stemmed from Android. “The app when you install it, it explains in a list what it needs permission to do, and this is the list that frightened a lot people initially,’ Simons said. ‘That doesn’t mean it sort of willy nilly goes about contacting friends or recording you as you go about your day using your phone camera,’ he added.”

I cannot disagree with this view, yet the truth is that just like with Sony, we agreed on something, we made a binding pact and that what is and that what could be are now intertwined and as such it is not about handholding, it is about clarity! When Big Business forces you the consumer, they will be precise (example: ‘we hereby charge you $11,732.34 to be deposited within the next 10 days‘). Yet when they would like something from you, they hide in ambiguity (example: ‘we can change all your savings into a fortune, deposit all today and the larger returns could be yours quite soon’). So, how large a deposit, how much larger, how soon? These answers would not be forthcoming until AFTER the deposit I reckon.

So where do we stand?

When we consider the issues that have plagued the tech savvy population, like the TPP, Sony, even government spending seems to be missing on the glasses of those ‘considering’ themselves to be Journalists. Another bash of that seems to have missed the larger view in news (at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/05/federal-spending-transparency-money-missing/13485581/).

The first quote is “the data that does exist is wildly inaccurate, according to the Government Accountability Office, which looked at 2012 spending data. Only 2% to 7% of spending data on USASpending.gov is ‘fully consistent with agencies records,’ according to the report“, which makes me wonder who is keeping track of the deficit and how much larger could it be?

The second one is “The Department of Health and Human Services failed to report nearly $544 billion, mostly in direct assistance programs like Medicare. The department admitted that it should have reported aggregate numbers of spending on those programs“, which reads like, if we aggregate numbers, you are less likely to find anything and we can hide it under a total header. Failing to report on half a trillion is a big thing, it is well over $1000 for every resident in America.

So, does that mean that the deficit of the US is a lot larger? That would indeed be news as it would put the US in a peculiar financial position, or better a position they no longer hold. I am not stating that I am right or that I am wrong (both are an option). It seems that the papers and newscasts we get bombarded with every day seem to become more and more selective on what they consider important. One article affecting 80 million (the combined population of Australia and the UK) as well as the new issue which hits over a billion people does not seems to be important. The last news of last week is one that does bear scrutiny, yet to get something from USA Today and not the Guardian or any of the Australian news bringers does pose questions.

The Facebook issue will hit us for some time and it might result in something different. The issue linked to this is whether Android has a registration system that bears scrutiny. Android has its own faults (also not too overly reported on by journalists) and just pointing the finger at Facebook is also not entirely the right thing to do.

There is also the difference on what some will do and what some could do. It is the ambiguity that is slowly getting to more and more people.

So what should the journalists be doing and what should Facebook not be doing?

 

3 Comments

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

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