Tag Archives: RCMP

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

About that news

Yup, we always have news, news we agree with and news we disagree with, this is not new, this is a mainstream setting. Yet this is not about news that is fake or false. Even if news is completely true, we might disagree because we do not like the subject, or because we differ on the facts that we know and accept. News becomes subjective and optionally not wrong, incorrect or false. It is a setting we all to some degree battle with. Pretty much all sport fans are in the setting when they read the news on Monday morning. So I had to consider a few things when I saw ‘Canada charges man for lying about joining ISIL’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/26/canada-mounties-charge-man-with-falsely-claiming-extremism). Now I have no real setting towards it, I do not understand why you would only join ISIL in the mind, but there you have it. On one side we can argue the only the truly unbalanced minds will join a terrorist organisation, implying that any person making it as a false claim is an optional mental health patient. One source, Isabella Frances Teti in 2016 via the presidential leadership academy at Penn State, gives us “ISIL’s ideology represents radical Salafi Islam, a strict, puritanical form of Sunni Islam 

I do not judge, because I am not islamic, yet I feel that any person who truly believes in Sunni Islam would join the armies of either Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Syria and from there protect Sunni Islam, I left Turkey out of the equation in light of the fact that they seem to side with Iran (a Shia nation) all the time. In addition, the I personally do not understand the stage of ‘radical Salafi Islam’, as such I feel a little lost, but I do know that going the path of terrorism is not a solution, so there is my view on the stage, yet was a news article and there are other considerations, the more important one comes next

In light of the data

Consider the we see “Police said the criminal charge against Chaudhry stems from ‘numerous’ media interviews in which he described travelling to Syria in 2016 to join ISIL”, so not only did it a little while for the police and intelligence players a while to catch on, this farce had been going on since 2016, so for 4 years we see that the players were not in the know, their intelligence is that flawed the they could not see through the lies? When we see “The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) said in a statement on Friday the criminal charge against Shehroze Chaudhry stems from “numerous” media interviews in which he described travelling to Syria in 2016 to join the armed group and committing acts of “terrorism”” OK, I agree the there is another way to read this and it had not taken 4 years, yet the setting of ‘“numerous” media interviews’ makes me wonder how many interviews there were and how the information was vetted. From my point of view there is the stage on where Shehroze Chaundry joined, if it included travel from Canada, how was this investigated? So how should we read “charged with a criminal code offence of perpetrating a hoax related to terrorist activity”, as such can I be charged by virtually knocking up a desirable woman? (sorry Natascha McElhone) 

Now, I am not making light of the situation (my desire for Natasha McElhone is real), yet when we see how much is spend on terrorist intelligence and data gathering from 2001 onward, how come it took so long to get a complete picture? 

I understand why there is a charge, especially when I see “the RCMP takes these allegations very seriously, particularly when individuals, by their actions, cause the police to enter into investigations in which human and financial resources are invested and diverted from other ongoing priorities,″ said deGale, commander of an RCMP security enforcement team”, that makes sense, but the stage I see is the timeline between the claim and the discovery. As the article ‘hides’ behind ‘numerous’ as the stage of amount of interviews, which is merely a part in al this. A larger part is the fact that the boy is 25, if this started in 2016, it implies he was 21 at the point, so what travel papers, what modes of transportation and what settings of smuggle were used? How can any person be so in the know that 2-3 interviews would not have brought serious doubt into the mix? And even as I agree with the setting of “The RCMP said it collaborated with several other agencies during its investigation”, which is a proper setting for any investigation, I wonder at what point did Commander deGale become aware that this was not a blood soaking terrorist, but someone with a vivid imagination (which got me to Natasha McElhone), I admit there is nothing wrong with my imagination, other that in some spectral views (the intimate kind), it is massively disconnected from reality, and who does not have that at times?

I myself, would have started by looking into Shehroze Chaudhry’s religious past, talk to his imam on the views that Shehroze Chaudhry might have and if the imam could explain the stage of Chaundry moving towards a strict, puritanical form of Sunni Islam. Let’s be honest, this might hold water in the US, but Canada? The is the place where boys are born wearing hockey skates and where we hear “Darn, I forgot to close the kitchen door, everyone, there is a bear in the kitchen, lets get a pizza, dinner and the bear will be gone in 5 minutes”, I am not stating that strict Sunni Islam is out of the question, but there seemingly would not be any reason to join ISIL (as I personally see it). There was Islamic places of worship all over Canada, it does not mean that there is a strict Sunny Islam all over the place, but as I see it there are a few options before someone go’s towards ISIL, I got all this in 30 minutes, it is not that some results and data would not be shared, yet the timeline seems off (by a lot). 

Still, the stage of perpetrating a hoax towards being a terrorist could only happen in Canada, in the US that person would most likely be in a Black site until December 2037. I reckon Canada saved itself a few bills.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Religion

Allegiances and Alliances

Two words at the beginning of the alphabet, both important. There is a side that I share with Dante Alighieri (and a few others). No matter is as bad as treason, you need to have a decent level of loyalty. As a person you need to have allegiance to your employer, your regent (or president) and your country. Now, we might have points of debate on any of these three levels. The soldier has them much higher towards your country and national leader then his actual employer, others have then higher to their employers, it differs per person, but faith in those above you doing the best towards the ones you support (company) seems to be in play. Within limits the people tend to have alliances towards business partners, and others we are indirectly connected to. That is the nature of things when we are not connected to ourselves, with allegiance only to self we think that we are above matters. When we compare those towards idiots like Bradley Manning, who as a private thought he had the right to make public whatever others decided to make public. No matter how others frame it, it remains treason. So when I see ‘Former Saudi intelligence official accuses crown prince of plot to kill him’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/07/former-saudi-official-accuses-saudi-crown-prince-of-plot-to-kill-him) some issues come to mind. Now, I am not saying that the accused are innocent or guilty. I wonder how “A former senior Saudi intelligence official with close ties to western intelligence agencies has accused Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of plotting to kill him, claiming in a US lawsuit that one such attempt was thwarted by Canadian officials in 2018”. Consider ‘senior Saudi intelligence official’, it implies that this person requires a high level of allegiance. Now consider ‘close ties to western intelligence agencies’. We understand that one nations specialist can have ties to those of another one, yet there would be barriers. So how are ‘close ties’ defined? I am asking, not telling you. Then we get “the Saudi state launched a campaign to target the former high-ranking official in Canada because he was viewed as a threat to Prince Mohammed’s relationship with the US and his eventual ascendancy to the throne”, when we consider “target the former high-ranking official in Canada” I am left with questions. Was the (optionally former) senior intelligence official no longer in service? I remember that I had to agree a 42 year sentence of never entering an Iron curtain nation in 1981, and I was never a senior anything at that age. And when we consider “he was viewed as a threat” it might be true enough, yet the part of “relationship with the US and his eventual ascendancy to the throne”. If that is true, then the person was a whole lot higher than expected, as such we need to wonder where HIS allegiances lie. A person who is willing to betray his own country for reasons of self will only ever align to self at the expense of everything. Then we get to “The complaint includes references to two previous alleged plots – one against synagogues in Chicago and one involving a plan to blow up two cargo planes heading for the US – that were allegedly thwarted thanks to Aljabri’s assistance”, you see, I wonder who Aljabri is actually aligned to. Consider the stage, do you think that the placement of Aljabri is linked to the Crown Prince directly? Between a senior intelligence officer and the Royal family tends to be a few circles. In this there is also the consideration that the Al Said family is over 15,000 in size and the power of Saudi Arabia is set to a little over 1,500 members, as such, how easy can a senior intelligence officer get to the top of the royal family? The numbers do not add up, the station of a few circles are circumvented leaving me with a lot of questions towards Aljabri. So as we are given “praised by former colleagues in the US and UK for helping to keep westerners safe amid the threat of al-Qaida”, and not one is wondering on what HIS agenda was regarding ‘helping to keep westerners safe’? 

So when we have these elements does anyone wonder how reliable the statement “Prince Mohammed sent “explicit death threats” to Aljabri and frequently used WhatsApp, the popular messaging app” actually is? So now we see a crown prince (seemingly) relying on tools used before, on people of (for them) lower ranks, all whilst there should be a larger debate on how reliable the information is. So when we give weight to “The complaint alleges that the assassins are part of a so-called Tiger Squad of the crown prince’s own personal mercenary group and attempted to covertly enter Canada on tourist visas on or around 15 October 2018 with the “intent of killing” Aljabri”, there are a few issues with that part, but I will not bother you with that element. I will however leave you with two elements. The first is “Canadians can be confident that our security agencies have the skills and resources necessary to detect, investigate and respond to such threats. We will always take the necessary action to keep Canadians and those on Canadian soil safe and we invite people to report any such threats to law enforcement authorities.” The second part was given earlier “own personal mercenary group”, and then consider that both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) are not to be trifled with. No matter how picturesque the RCMP is, they are a lot more able to hunt down anyone in rural Canadian regions than most of the US troops, military and police troops, the CSIS has its own success rate, I would NOT EVER rely on mercenary groups, not one that stands out all over Canada. That and the Canadian population that is 5 times more allegiant to its national needs than most Americans ever has been. That is the situation that is out there, and it makes the numbers and the setting of the situation off. I would not be at all surprised (personal speculation) that Saad Aljabri would have been quite the jewel for Al-Qaeda needs, knowing about Saudi Arabia and having the ear of Western Intelligence. Mind you! This is speculation! In the other parts, why was Saad Aljabri exiled? In all this there is another optional part “new claims comes just weeks after the Guardian reported that another Saudi living in exile in Canada was warned this his life was possibly under threat by the Saudi regime. Omar Abdulaziz, a close confidante of Khashoggi, was warned by Canadian authorities that he was a “potential target” of Saudi and had to take precautions to protect himself”, exiled people all ready to point the finger on the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. Now, there is no evidence, but where is the likelihood of reliability when certain people go into exile? When the money coffer dries up? They become tools for whomever needs them (if the price is right). 

My views should also be scrutinised, I get that and I accept that, yet the media gives us a view that does not add up, not in several ways. In a family with 15,000 members with 10% at the top, do you think that a person like the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia would be this careless? 

We seem to be looking at one side, the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has the same elements, his alliance is his father, his allegiance is Saudi Arabia and in that setting exiled people do not add up to that much, no matter what claims they make, especially as they cannot back it up with any evidence. It does not mean that Saad Aljabri and Omar Abdulaziz are not optional targets of the Saudi government, yet it seems that they have time and people in exile tend to run out of money a lot sooner than they think. The media seems to have forgotten about that, the optional links to other places was seemingly overlooked by governments, so what is real and what is not? That remains a debate, yet the media thinks that the cover of ‘assassins sent’ is sexy, it might be for them, but for anyone in that game it is not the greatest policy and neither is the use of mercenaries in that stage, mercenaries that light up like Christmas trees even less. 

Just my view on the matter, feel free to disagree.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Privacy v parents

Todays event is giving an interesting application of the law. The issue is actually a lot harder and the impact on Facebook could be severe in the near future. The title ‘Parents lose appeal over access to dead girl’s Facebook account‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/31/parents-lose-appeal-access-dead-girl-facebook-account-berlin) is something that will be discussed for some time to come. You see, the issue is not as simple as some are trying to make it out to be and your own point of view regarding the matter will influence your viewpoint too. So let’s get started.

The subtitle gets to one side of the matter: ‘Berlin court rules parents of 15-year-old, who want to know if she was being bullied, cannot see her chat history‘. Here we see the approach of privacy, the 15-year-old can release this to the parents, but guess what, the 15-year-old girl is dead, deceased, no longer able to make active decisions. We can see “the parents of the teenager, who died in 2012 after falling in front of an underground train, had no claim to access her details or chat history.” Yup that’s a period at the end! You see, is this about privacy of the individual, or is this a minor? The interesting side here, especially when considering the so called united EU nations, the age of consent differs and in Germany the age of consent is 14. I am taking this number as we read in German law (in most nations) the term ‘capacity for sexual self-determination‘, it is the ‘self-determination‘ that matters. The application of Jus Cogens is a cardinal principle in international law. Here we see the ‘the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference‘, the application of consent is not exactly the same, but more important shows the clear age definition, and in addition the impact of being ‘an adult’. As such, the adult 15-year-old has the outspoken right to privacy and a parent cannot overrule it. Here is also the issue about digital inheritance. Can death overrule your right to privacy? Let’s take a really rude example, can any perv freely distribute the consensual porn pics of your mum? Where is the right of self determination, the right of privacy (as she never released these photos in life, can the end of that change this?), what if she sets that out in her will for those digital libraries to be released? It is a very slippery slope when we see interference and censoring here beyond the normal scope of the law. and Digital inheritance is not part of the normal scope of the law. The German court took another point of view. They went with “The court said it had made the ruling according to the telecommunications secrecy law which precludes heirs from viewing the communications of a deceased relative with a third party“, is that not an interesting point of view? It is basically another handle on privacy, yet what if that part is defined in her will (if she had one). Technologically speaking, the fact that the parents could not unlock the phone, or try to access her accounts via another path is also a question that is in my mind. I find it pretty normal that a parent wants to learn whether their child was bullied to death. Is it not interesting that the Deutsche Polizei is not all over that? The next part is actually the most disturbing part: “The girl had reportedly given her mother the login details to her account when she was 14 but the company, having been informed of the girl’s death by one of her Facebook friends, froze or “memorialised” her account. The move meant that photos and posts the girl had shared remained visible, and friends could pay tribute to her, but it was no longer possible to log in to the account“. the ‘having been informed of the girl’s death by one of her Facebook friends‘. How was this verified? You see, we see enormous delays on inappropriate and extremist materials, yet death of a social poster seems to have been almost instantaneous. A slight assumption (and exaggeration) on my side, as there is no clear timeline here.

It is the next part that puts Facebook in a proper bad light, one that their marketing division will require months to address, in addition, how many parents will make a move to deny or demand that non-adults between 14 and age of consent will end up having to remove their accounts? The parents can simply state: ‘No Facebook, or you have to pay for your mobile yourself‘, that should change the issue right proper and quick. You see the quote “Facebook has refused to say who applied for the account to be frozen, also citing data protection. The person who lodged the request would have had to provide Facebook with proof that the girl had died

So if there has been an actual lodging, and if that was a school ‘friend‘ we can also speculate in equal ways that it is not impossible that Facebook gave active assistance to a murderer. It is interesting how Facebook skated away from that danger, so with the anti-social-media wave at present, there is a decent chance that Facebook just made matters worse for themselves and for other social media providers. The second blunder we see from the Facebook teams is “They argue that the conversations would have taken place on the understanding that their content remained private“, which is only a correct stance to have when it does not involve criminal activities and cyber bullying is actually a crime. H.R. 1966 (111th congress), gives us “Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:“, and the added part that matters gives us:
(a) 
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behaviour, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both“, so by facilitating this, Facebook has already created an issue in the US, yet it is not in Germany. In EU, only Spain became evolved enough to include cyberbullying in their penal code. Which is interesting as the Facebook actions would differ per nations, which could also now imply that facilitation for cyber bullies is an actual possibility in Europe. From these points alone, we could state that Facebook did not act illegal, or legally wrong, they were however extremely silly in pushing the buttons in court to the extent they did. Björn Retzlaff, the judge who ruled in Berlin did so on the sound foundations as stated in the telecommunications secrecy law, which has elements for phone, email and internet chats. There is a shallow path the judge walked on and it is not shallow by the actions, but shallow by the defining laws that herald the right of privacy above the need to consider the prosecution of criminals. It is a shallow and slippery path to be on and Facebook might have been better off by assigning a specialist team to that request to at least consider the test whether a criminal path had been or had not been walked. By freezing the account, the parents were left in an empty space that large corporations are now slamming shut like the jail cell that could contain the possible murderer. You see, it is more than just privacy versus inheritance. When we start seeing the Facebook accounts and the ‘owner’ of the account has mental health issues, Facebook will find itself in even more deep water. In addition, the legal issues that we see with Doli incapax and Parens patriae. In addition, consider the application of the Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, as we see it in 15 U.S.C. § 18a. Now consider the application on it when we go towards “Title III of the Act[8] allows attorney generals of states to sue companies in federal court for monetary damages under antitrust laws. as parens patriae, on behalf of their citizens“. Now, you might think that this is a joke. But it is not. As we see Vlogging and Youtube Channels set to higher and higher values under commercialisation, the incomes and rewards really go through the roof, some Vloggers are now getting amounts that a decent amount of CEO’s would go crazy for. What happens when Facebook suddenly interferes with that? and this is not a local thing, this issue could go global, which is an additional issue Facebook can face. Especially as the timeline for freezing is not known, additional questions are here. We can debate the legality of the parents having the account access, especially as you are not supposed to share login details, but in the larger side of things that one item seems small and could have prevented a few things for Facebook.

the weak response from Facebook: “At the same time we are sympathetic towards the family and respect their wish. We are making every effort to find a solution which helps the family at the same time as protecting the privacy of third parties who are also affected by this.“, it is weak, because the part ‘Facebook has refused to say who applied for the account to be frozen‘, that answer alone could solve a few issues. The most adamant of issues being ‘was there intent to avoid criminal prosecution‘. I got there in the easiest way. If the freezer account is also the account linked to the same IP address of the bully, we have the problem in the open (bad for Facebook).

There are other issues, yet there are too many instances of ridiculous statements from tabloids, yet I have to say that in this instance the Daily Mail used a lewd call link to what is actually a really good article (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4531934/Facebook-lets-teenagers-porn.html). The quote “Facebook has pledged to hire more staff, but politicians and charities said stricter guidelines were needed“, so how charities enter the equation? In addition to a reference to politicians, where I would prefer to see their names. As the past have shown that some of these complaining politicians seem to be ‘talked to’ to by members of the clergy who could be looking for sextertainment in the choir section a few hours later. The reference could be found in John 12, Mark 9 and Luke 11 (source: Jimmy Carr). The question is not just how many more staff members to hire and where to place them, there is an increasing need for non-repudiation. If you are adult enough to slag-bitch-harass a young girl to death, you get to be sentenced as an adult in court. The issue is that the law (on a global scale) have failed victims for the longest time. One of the clearest cases of failure was in Canada, where in November 2011, Rehtaeh Parsons committed suicide after she was gang raped (17 months earlier) and subsequent of the Sexual assault was non stop bullied via social media. The Milton-Pepler paper, which might be laughingly be regarded as an ‘inquiry‘ stated: “One conclusion of the report was that Nova Soctian schools “need to do a better job preventing harassment and sexual aggression”“, I would state that “the Cole Harbour District High School had failed their student in distress and in clear danger, under psychic assault has failed their student in need 100%. By not taking the dangers serious and by not properly acting in regards to the need of criminal prosecution, in addition, according to sources, the RCMP did equally not act to the degree they should have and it was only 3 years later that the first boy involved was conditionally discharged with a one-year probation“. It is the mere existence of these failures that require different steps. The acts are growing more and more, more often than not to create their fame or infamy through recognition on social media. Censoring has not been a viable solution for a few years. It is not just the Canadian Parsons case, it is the fact that for every case that does make it to the light of the beholders, there are hundreds of cases that do not even make it to the visibility of the media or courts. As there are now years of events on a global scale, the need of acceptance that accountholders need to be hold accountable for these transgressions become even more important. When their mobile and mobile number gets barred from social media channels for life, people tend to take better care of the words spoken. Ask yourself, how many people leave their car keys on the bar? How many walk out leaving their doors open (OK, that actually happens on a daily basis in Canada), yet the message should be clear, we need alteration of the rules, not of the freedom of speech, but of the accountability of the media you engage with (both press and people). We will always understand that when you are young, you will state things on the wrong moment, events happen, no one will deny it, yet as we see a growing number of events of clear bullying and cyber harassment a new line can be drawn. One that could lower the events. In equal measure there is an increasing chance that those people will seek other venues to propel their vitriolic thoughts, and it will never go away completely, but as the curve goes down, the resources in use could be used to seek new paths in confronting those transgressors, and perhaps find new ways to protect the victims as well.

Whatever is happening now, is as that German couple feels, that the law has been screwing them over massively and in their case there were other legal issues and those will remain; yet as those events are countered one by one, the amount of extraordinary cases with legal uniqueness will also diminish, making the field cleaner and much more clear.

Have a great day and consider to be nice to one another.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science