Tag Archives: Rupert Murdoch

June 11, 2013 · 15:44

The Hunchback of the NSA

We have been hearing information in this regard for some time now. I added my thoughts in my last blog, and as this is such a growing story, let me see if I can add some details to this by looking at a few issues from another side. (Source: www.NOS.nl , www.Guardian.co.uk , et al).

Edward Snowden, His view is that it is up to the people to decide what is to be done. Is it?

2003: Edward joins the Army to deploy to Iraq. He suffers injuries during (basic) training and cannot continue the training.

200?: Edward has been selected into the sanctum and becomes an IT specialist with the CIA, placed in Geneva. Well, that is a nice handle up from basic training isn’t it. Some people dream of opportunities like that all their life.

He gets a dose of disillusionment. (Not my words, just quoting here). The CIA methodology does not sit well with him. As a data analyst with a few decades of experience, including some not to mention data depositories, I can tell him now, that there is method to their madness. I know where he is at this point, because when it is all about data cleaning, integrity checks and verification, whatever you do feels like carrying a bucket of water towards the ocean, but hey, that is what it is. He then decides to quit. That is fair enough! Not all are meant for that lifestyle (including unappreciative bosses that we see by the container load in the commercial world), and as such we should recognise that some of these jobs have a decidedly larger chance of burning out.

2009: He joins the NSA. Really? After he left the CIA? That is an interesting step. Especially knowing that one worries you, the other would not?

Well Edward, this is what you signed up for! But fair enough, you wanted to give it a go. He then becomes NSA’s own Arnold Benedict. Oh joy! (I say in a slightly sarcastic voice) and he ends up feeding the information to the PRESS. I will add that this is slightly better than dumping all this on Wiki-leaks. I will also applaud him for going to the Guardian as I personally see these people as slightly more devoted to Ethics then anything Rupert Murdoch has at present in my humble opinion. Still, Arnold, oops, I meant Edward goes out into the limelight. Consider that his job was to make sure that the American people remained safe. Did he? Many people including terrorists knew this was likely to happen. Now they have confirmation and they might employ new methods, making it harder for the NSA to find them. So who did Edward Snowden actually service? From my point of view it was not the American people. Oh, and Hong Kong of all places? It seems to me that he preferred to be bankable to several potential donators. (But that is just my view).

The NSA has an uncomfortable job that must be done. The terrorist (or perhaps better stated the extremist) threat is real, and as such organisations like NSA, GCHQ and DSD need to look at information as it flows to keep its citizens safe. There is an ugly looking sterile approach to information. It has no emotion; it is simple collection of data. Yes, if anyone gets the wrong phone call we could be checked. Yet, the data is up to a point so complete that these organisations can easily see whether this is a fluke, or if there is more. Is that not the best solution? Most people have this illusion that we have some kind of privacy. The reality is that our information had been collected and data mined by large corporations well over a decade before governments started to collect data.

Do you think that I am kidding?

Take a day in your life. You fill up the tank at a gas station. You use your tank pass to get the 3% extra discount. You pay with either ‘their’ card, or your card. Nowadays it is rare that people pay cash. You go to work. Lunch means that you get lunch at some place. You get a snack and you get 1-2 extra items. Anything at these points that have a pass, or card is in 70% of the cases collected data. Now you go home, get dinner, use your customer loyalty card and you go home. Whenever you did not use cash (and in some cases even if you did) your details were recorded. EVERY day of your life! Whenever you use your mobile, your mobile carrier knows roughly where you are (with some smart-phones they know exactly where you are). All that data has been collected in one way or another.

Yes, even beyond what Orwell contemplated, you are a data collection point, you are marketable!

This is the ugly reality that has been happening since even before 2001. The big problem for you is that many of these companies need to survive, they need revenue, so to survive and you are for sale. Whatever you did is for sale. No matter the amount of cleaning you think they do. It takes but one linkable fact to your raw data details to know exactly who you are, where you are and where you are likely to go. People like the NSA only want to know whether you are a danger to the nation and the people around you. Are you? The others want to make money off you? Only you know how ‘dangerous’ you are, the others want you to spend cash where they like it. It is a never-ending story of greed. So who do you really need to worry about?

So when we see the news on how politicians are all about worries, all about what was done, then ask yourself, what questions have they been asking, investigating and contemplating when it came to the data handed by all to commercial facilities.

Getting back to Edward, whatever his views are. If he was TRULY for the people, and TRULY doing something to make the world better, then he would have done something about the real issues and all those e-mails from bankers and so on. That did not happen, did it? Didn’t Julian Assange ‘vanish’ to Ecuador before he could make good on that promise? So when people are driven by who hold the usage of their credit card, what do we call them then? As for bankable matters, seems that his move to Hong Kong could be all about bankability, but who is banking who?

The press has another go

It is always fun to see a repeat of what has been there already. So I was not that surprised watching Sky News and getting another press approach for their regulations. They found another person to step in front of the camera. They made sure that this time there is an utter lack of arrogance. It turned into a casually moment of pointing blame on the politicians. In this case it was John Witherow from the Times. Well, the message is actually simple Mr Spokesperson we the people do not trust you at present!

All this is happening right when another editor of the Sun is being charged (Duncan Lacombe).

So we have the journalists in a corner for a change, oh goody! THEIR view of ‘the people have a right to know‘ has so far seemed to be nothing less than the option to overrule the people’s privacy at a moment’s notice.

It is of course an issue listening to Sky News for the simple reason that they are journalists themselves. Things seem to be pressed on one side and trivialised on the other. I still hang to the original idea that the Leveson report should completely be implemented with a (non-)political option of legislation.

Before you judge me to be against freedom of speech then you are wrong. I am all for freedom of the press, yet the Murdoch crowd (sorry for generalising this) has proven that their freedom to do whatever they like should not be an option even again. You see, one side we have the freedom of speech and on the other side we have the right to privacy, which too often is crushed by the press stating ‘the people have a right to know‘, whilst in reality it is just about making the quick visible exclusive visibility and their need of ego at the expense of anything else.

Issues that also surfaced (the Milly Dowler case) is yet another example. In that case not only was there no investigation, there is even more issues with a police force that as stated by sky news on April 25^th ‘has a case of collective amnesia‘.

Or as quoting a line by the Guardian of April 24th 2013 “while a former senior officer from Surrey police said the press was ‘untouchable and all powerful’“. So not only is the press doing whatever it likes, it is interfering with police investigations, like they are the flipping ‘Special Branch’ (since 2006 known as SO15). Perhaps Commander Richard Walton could confirm whether the press is currently on their pay roll, which would allow for some awesome cost cutting solutions. Mr David Cameron would be so pleased.

We might never know what happened in the case of Milly Dowler. It is not unlikely that the phone hacking resulted in a loss of messages. Lost voice mail messages that could have assisted the Surrey Police department in their investigation. It is interesting that I read in the Guardian “An NoW journalist (name redacted)” It is interesting how that Journalist was redacted. So, Mr Witherow, how about the option of name redaction to be removed as a right for Journalists? How about an open name and shame issue where those people who seemed to have harassing the Surrey Police to be openly known to all. By your own words: ‘the people have a right to know‘.

My bigger issue is with some of the points mentioned (I will be playing the devil’s advocate here).

1. A majority of independent members on all the bodies of the new regulator, with open and transparent appointments.
– My worry is that those appointments might not be as independent as we would like.

2. Public involvement in how the new Code of Practice will be framed.
– My worry is that this is one certain way to get loopholes placed and more of an issue is the delay that this public involvement brings. Delays the press would love to see going on and on and on.

I do agree that regulation should remain outside of the reach of politicians. Yet, adding regulations, even if it was a clear regulation to the conduct of the members of the press is needed. This is the part all media seem to be fighting, as they seem to prefer to remain footloose, fancy free and non-accountable. This is where I am no longer on their side (as the evidence over the last few has proved).

Yet, there is another side to journalism which I do not want to ignore. For every 500 half-baked phone mail chasers that call themselves ‘investigative jounalists’ there will be a real journalist like Paul Lewis or David Bergman (that group is larger than these two, but a lot smaller than most might realise). Here is the crux as they say. I would not want to hinder a journalist like David Bergman, or those hoping to step in his footsteps. Yet, the kind of ‘writers’ that many have been confronted with in the past, especially celebrities and victims of high profile cases there is one journalist that is there to dig into the shady sides of people, collecting specific information in whatever way they can to uncover the truth and the reality.

This reminds me of a scene in the West wing Season 2 episode ‘War Crimes’:
Will: “I don’t like being a stenographer. And I don’t like writing gossip. I read a column last week where a lady bemoaned the decade of scandals she’s had to cover, as if the news was to blame for the quality of journalism. I don’t know if there’s ever been a more important time to be good at what I do. Can you imagine how much I don’t give a damn about what Toby said to a staffer?“

It makes my point stronger then I could (it is Aaron Sorkin at his best). Too many Journalists are way too happy to cover gossip and get their stardom visibly shown in any way they can. The environment made them that way and it must change. I am still baffled by the issues, delays and opposition against the Leveson report. If anything, that report shows the weaknesses and also called for proper legislation and regulation to protect the privacy of people (without stopping the freedom of speech). Of course this is not what the press wants as they want to just do, post and publish whatever they like, especially when it is about ratings and circulation.

The only thing that is currently interesting is that at present politicians are trusted more than journalists are. Who would have ever thought that such a day would ever become a reality?

More phones on the hack

So, apparently the phone hacking scandal is far from over. Not only are more claims placed against Murdoch, there is also additional talks of other papers being involved in these matters.

This happens just as a royal charter on press regulations could end up getting vetoed by Nick Clegg.

There are definitely sides the parties do not agree on. Also mentioned in the articles from the Guardian is the response by Lloyd Embley, editor in chief for the Mirror. In an article by Mark Sweney he states: “the protracted talks could turn into a ‘political football’.” (article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/13/leveson-discussions-castrate-press-lloyd-embley)

He has a good point, instead of a few pollies thinking they know what they do, it seems decent, to follow Lord Justice Leveson who actually knows what needs doing. Lloyd Embley also states in that article “If we don’t get it right it will end up castrating the press“. To be honest, with all the new phone hacking allegations, making those editors members of boys choir ‘Mare Castratum’ does not seem to be an overly bad idea at present.

I am all for freedom of speech, yet it seems that those members seem to value the news and revenue at the expense of everything and everyone. This has all been said before (by me), but the part that is still lacking visibility is that the investigations will now run into the deep end of 2015. So, the taxpayer will be paying groups of police officers and members of the CPS to get through this mess. So, as the press seems to be lacking in professional issues like ethics. The issue that arrests were made on Thursday 13^th March, including FORMER Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver. The arrest does not yet mean that Weaver is guilty (others were arrested too). There is now however a phase of damage control which likely falls largely on the desk of Lloyd Embley. With all his efforts in growing the Mirror brand on-line, it seems to me that he needs all this like a hole in the head.

There is however another side to this all. The Tories might find themselves out of the political office sooner rather than later. Reason for this is twofold. First there seems to be a breach between Nick Clegg and David Cameron. They do not seem to be in full agreement here and Labour seems to partner with Liberal Democrats as they seem to be fully in agreement with Lord Justice Leveson on the implementation of regulations.

So next week the PM will have a fun day as he tries to get past attempts to make press regulations to be too toothless. This is in my view the effect if the industry gets to vote on who is in charge of the watchdog that watches them. So Labour definitely has a point there. There is however another side we must not forget. It seems that there is a sizeable group of Tories who are pro-Leveson. This gives Labour a staggering amount of power. So, considering these facts, why would the PM try to continue his approach? Is it because of ideology? Consider that the Guardian reported last November that 30 Tories supported the Leveson report. Whether the all still support that remains to be seen, yet the idea of both sides of the isle supporting such a charter is not that common. Still, it could be a close call. Should labour truly unite, considering the 30 additional votes and perhaps even most from the group of Clegg (aka Liberal Democrats), then the chances of the Leveson report getting implemented would be really strong. The fact that Nick Clegg seems to align with Labour on this only increases the pressure on David Cameron.

This must be one of Rupert Murdoch’s worst nightmares!

Not only is he going to face additional time in the ‘dock’ answering questions regarding the new cases, there is every chance that anything he tries to state with a style of…. what is that word again? Ah yes, diplomacy, will send even more Tories breathing fire as they defect to the side of labour in this case. There is of course the risk that some labour members will actually not support the Leveson report. I did not see any strong voices of this, but it is possible. It seems however that David Cameron would need slightly more than 5% of labour to walk to his side if he is to avoid a not so slightly uncomfortable defeat.

This option seems however less and less likely. Consider other Tories like Lord Fowler (served during Dame Margaret thatcher’s cabinet), who gave his direct support against PM David Cameron in the British Huffington post last January and in favour of the Leveson report. Considering these facts and also considering that Lord Fowler is not the only Tory thinking this, why would the PM continue on the path he currently is on?

In the end should this all come to pass in favour of the Leveson report then Lord Justice Leveson will move as the with an epic achievement as he becomes the new Chancellor of LJMU (Liverpool John Moores University).

My remaining worry? Whomever takes over from the Lord Justice needs to have the strong backbone the Lord Justice has shown. In addition, those new reported cases, who will sit in judgement when the Lord Justice moves to his new position in May 2013?

I am more than happy to volunteer, as it is on my road to become a law lord. However, I reckon I should finish my Law Masters first and after that at least half a dozen other achievements until the position of Judge of Appeal could be realistically mine. (We should however never ignore our dreams).

Tag Archives: Rupert Murdoch

The Hunchback of the NSA

The press has another go

More phones on the hack

Recent Posts

Archives