Tag Archives: Law

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

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?

 

2 Comments

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Results to be listened to

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

The accountability act – 2015

This is not about what is wrong, what raises questions on current legislation (actually, we all do that all the time). No, is about the future. I must admit that when I dream, I dream the big satisfying dreams. So, let there be no confusion. When I was young (roughly 30 years, 6 months and 19 days ago), not unlike other men, I dreamt of Heather Locklear, and now, I dream of becoming a Law lord. Both are equally unattainable, yet either is extremely satisfying to the mind.

So why this flashback?

I always believed that any nation, any true ground breaking thoughts they spawn comes from a dreamer. At times this is a real visionary Like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Lord Baden Powell or Justice Gummow. At times this is a person with a good thought that makes a real difference to many.

So what is my thought?

I believe it is time for things to truly change. I believe that the greed of some is utterly destroying the future of all others. Who would have thought in my days of primary school, that an individual would be able to have the amount of power to bleed entire cities into poverty? It was never in my thought, but then, GREED was always a weird thing. It is the one utter counterproductive sin. You see, greed does not drive forward. Competitiveness does. Innovation does. Greed does not. Greed is the foundation of slavery and submission. It drives one person to get everything at the expense of (all) others.

My worry is that too many in and out of government are driven towards this goal. Not to the goal of getting much, or the goal of getting more. But the goal of obtaining beyond reasonable proportion AND at the expense of many others, this is when we should stop and wonder the why! This is not about a business making a profit, or having good business sense. This is about an inflated situation, where a collapsed firm get’s a bailout, and then the ruling body walks off with a golden handshake of golden parachutes so large, that their feet never touch the ground. How could it even be tolerated for a company running under losses to give out these huge ‘extras’ to fat cats?

So this is where the dreamer in me woke up and thought of the following act:

The Accountability act – 2015

Why 2015? Well an act like this does not grow out of a goose feather and ink jar over night. If we think of a law that could make a real change, and would be a real stop to some of the acts of greed, then it will take time and a lot of effort too.

There is also the additional thought that this is not something against rich people. This is not about going after the rich. If someone like Zuckerberg (the guy behind Facebook) comes with a totally new approach, then those billions are his. This is not against those making and building something new. This is also NOT against the bank executive who walks out with a fat check after he made the bank real millions. This is about stopping those walking out with non-existing virtual profits, turned into real money, and leaving others behind to clean the mess.

Perhaps that one person did work really hard; perhaps he did get fantastic results. However, his co workers/bosses had their own choices and they lost the company annual profit. So alas he get’s nothing. I know it is not fair to those individuals, but these companies cannot continue in their current format, and nothing is being done about it. No results are achieved, so I personally feel that a legal side is required to slow down the outrageous growth of greed.

Why now? Well most people in London would have seen the rampant growth of landlords and how for two months they want their places available for games time, driving prices through the roof. We might not be able to stop all of these disproportionate acts. However, if we can stem the tide and make it a lot less rewarding, then there is a real option to protect a large number of victims that fall prey to these bad acts of greed. Because, the 8 weeks of Olympics are nothing compared to the months of damage for those suddenly shafted into nowhere, and at that point, these landlords will wash their hands of any responsibility. This is only an example, but in these last few weeks, one of the clearer examples.

This act might even stop the movement of these badly designed plans, especially in the financial sector. Consider that one executive tries these high risk options, which causes the loss of millions. For one, his co-workers will not react kindly to the loss of THEIR bonuses, and it would force corporations to rethink such high risk schemes, especially when no profit means no bonus and no golden handshake. It might just invite a little bit more of common sense to these greed driven board rooms.

I know I don’t have all the answers, and perhaps these thoughts are not the ones driving us forward. There is however something to be said of the exercise to try and stem the existence of one of the most unstoppable sins we know.

1 Comment

Filed under Law