Tag Archives: Twitter

October 21, 2021 · 16:45

Political tools

We all daydream and I am no exception. Yet I believe that my brain is bonkers (probably related to the casing it is in). This all started last week when I saw Official Secret (2019), now I need no encouragement to watch anything with Keira Knightley, so when I saw the name, I picked up the title. I saw it was a spy story based on actual events. It was seeing the film that overwhelmed me. The movie was amazing, one that John Le Carre would have ben proud of if he had written it (it was written by history). It was still in the back of my mind when it crossed tracks with an event that started to play out two weeks ago. A man named Sywert van Lienden had allegedly “send a series of critical tweets to ensnare the Dutch health ministry, the tweets were arranged to create pressure”. From my side (not the most popular one) I believe that the Dutch Health department was foolish on a few levels. In the first Twitter is not a reliable source, so ego driven politicians jumped up fast and they did not do their homework by testing the tweet origins. Trolls have been using that method for years, so I think that Sywert was aggressively creative, some will call him deviously sneaky. Yet the two parts gave me an idea. In the proposed setting of all these honourable military complex vendors. You see, hackers are always the ones copying data FROM servers. Now consider the setting that an ammunition maker has devised a new kind of shell, a .50 shell that works like a drill, it might only in part get through bulletproof glass, but the delay and impact pressure will change the course. So the inner part like a mercury exploding bullet, there are a few items that [secret patent content deleted from story] 

So here we are, a manufacturer who has the inside track that no one else has. However, the Pentagon is not willing to buy it, because there is no need. So the maker engages with hackers to insert a secret file into the RFARP (Russian Foundation for Advanced Research Projects) server. The department also known as “Фонд перспективных исследований” will be hacked (the makers arranged that via another channel), so the hackers upload a similar but not identical one, it even has a fixed flaw that the makers left untouched. So when the CIA makes enquiry the report is given (a little) praise with the setting that they will incorporate that design in the next batch for testing. Now with the Russian data the maker secures an initial order of 50,000 bullets with a larger order coming if the first order proves its worth (and of course it does). A station where the CIA is ‘used’ as a tool for selling hardware the Americans never really needed. 

Now consider the setting as the hackers overwrite the server with an inserted trojan over a seemingly empty damaged file. Now they are in the clear and it becomes a CIA versus GRU game. The stage of what some think they need whilst the deciding players never correctly did their homework. A setting that could make for an entertaining (thrilling) 97.2 minutes.

Just an idea.

P.S. To any Russian investigator, I have no idea how this story got on my blog. (Nudge nudge wink wink)

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, movies, Politics

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

October 19, 2021 · 05:41

Adaption 103

I just had an idea, it got to me when I was tweeting with a person I know. A few minutes later my mind grabbed back to the age when I had a Dell laptop. Then an idea grabbed me. I wonder why Apple never considered this. When you have more than one device, when you need your MacBook Pro or air too regularly. Did no one consider the power of the docking station, or the port replicator? Instead of connecting device after device, having a station on your desk where you can connect your iPod touch, your iPad, your MacBook, iMac or Mac Pro to all with one replicator in the centre of it all. A setting where they are all connected, with the station also connecting to an external keyboard, external drive and optionally a larger screen. The power of direct connectivity when you get home. The songs, the tablet and all of it to a  larger screen, more storage and not to forget interacting all with one another. No worry whether you had the document on your tablet, your laptop or even your iMac or Mac Pro. Connecting them all through one station. You see, when you have one Apple product, you might have more, I do and many other do too. Even for non Apple products the setting of connecting laptops, desktops, music solutions, and tablets, all whilst giving any the power to connect to Bluetooth speakers is becoming increasingly important, especially as streaming will go from device to device. A multi system station, no matter if it is a docking station or more aptly seeing it as a connecting port replicator will take the foreground in the near future. I synch my iPad, and soon my iPod touch (my iPod Classic will not connect), a larger setting of interactivity is required and consider that when you get home, via the replicator. Connecting to data on tablet, laptop and desktop they can all grasp the data of one another and they can all be used in conjunction. A setting that none have offered, always in the second degree, so why not in the first degree? That would be real innovation and so far none have opted for it, They all want to do each other work, they all want to do the same, but the laptop makes you less mobile, the tablet has its own restrictions, but on the road it is OK. And so on, yet at home we need access to all, we need it all without a larger setting and the cloud is too often a limitation, especially when it is confidential data. The people need their secure environment and anyone stating that the cloud is a safe space is lying to you. Some give you “Cloud security is tight, but it’s not infallible. … But the bigger risk with cloud storage is privacy. Even if data isn’t stolen or published, it can still be viewed. Governments can legally request information stored in the cloud, and it’s up to the cloud services provider to deny access.” 

So why not set the stage where it is with you and with you alone? And when we look at the data breaches with. Microsoft, Estee Lauder, MGM Resorts, Facebook, Zoom, Magellan Health, Cognizant, Nintendo, Twitter, and Whisper. These are places with large infrastructures and cyber sections and they could not keep THEIR data safe, how much of a chance do you have? I am not anti-cloud. It has its uses, but it has a bad safety reputation, as such the replicator gives more and offer more too. It is just a thought, but it Tok me less than 30 minutes to seek out part of all this and write it down and when we add the streaming gaming platform the need increases rapidly.

All devices that need connection, whilst the connection does not always exist. 

So consider what you have and how easy it would be to connect it. Now, if you only have 2 devices the value is not really there, but consider a desktop and a laptop connected giving the user access to both, would that make it? I thought initially to connect the Apple devices, but the setting is much larger and will grow over time. Consider that the MacBook Air has a max of 2TB and so does the new iMac, so why have 2 backups when both can be connected and be connected to a much larger drive, seagate offers 4TB for $99, WD has 6TB for $200, and that offers perspectives to keep your music in one location, not on all locations. Option after option are added as we see more devices connected and I am surprised that no one took it into that direction, especially Apple. 

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Science

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

June 30, 2021 · 01:27

The future doorstop

That is how we sometimes see a book, a doorstop, a missile towards our partners (and sometimes really annoying elderly teens), a weight for the papers we need, when a book is not really what we wanted, it gets a secondary function. So even as some saw this specific book as ‘A beautiful defense of the common man and woman against a technological elite’, I consider a book like ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech’ as one that is not stating the issues. 

Did I read it?
Nope, and I do not have to, the article clearly shows a republican (who looks like he recently stopped being a teenager) who is aiming for money from both the left and the right. When we see “According to Hawley, it’s not our politicians, our lawyers, our Ivy League graduates, or our Hollywood celebrities. It’s Big Tech – those big names like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and Google that have embedded themselves in our lives to an almost irreversible degree”, I see the beginning of a BS string of texts that will most certainly become debatable and utterly rejectable. You see Zuckerberg attended Harvard whilst designing Facebook, Dorsey came up with the idea for Twitter at NYU, Jeff Bezos was already done with Princeton when Amazon became the idea, Apple was the child of Steve Jobs who attended part of Reed and dropped out, Sergey Brin and Larry Page came from Stanford, so what is left of “not our Ivy League graduates”? Oh and I with my 5G IP am from UTS (Sydney), so there! And when we get to “have embedded themselves in our lives to an almost irreversible degree” we get a lot more. Apple (Macintosh) offered what consumers wanted, Google did the same, Facebook did it even more and created a new digital era and they all OFFERED it to consumers, they planned long term and they won, the small minded people lost. The exception is the Amazon guy who doesn’t need to spend on Shampoo, he offered something to rural people all over the world which they never had access too. In the US this is 60,000,000 people and in the EU it is 125,000,000. One firm aimed for a little over 180 million consumers. The people shops forgot and now Amazon is the bad guy? So this is the setting from the start and the man with the teenager look (Josh Hawley) is already off to a bad start. So when we see “the robber barons reshaped the economy into a corporate monopoly to serve their own ends, in which an aristocratic elite govern above the labouring masses”, all whilst the US government stole from the native Americans whatever they could (99.655% roughly) is like the pot calling the kettle black. In this one pushed what they wanted, the other (current big tech) let the people decide on WHAT they desired and the consumers liked the free 1GB email (Google) whilst the internet providers offered 20MB for a fee. What would you do? That same grocery store (still Google) came up with additional ways to service the consumers (cookies anyone?), the offered shopping, information and choice, whilst those dabbling on the internet wee all about grabbing whatever coins they could get. When the consumers were happy players like Amazon created the Amazon Web Services offering a pay as you go approach, a cloud approach to small businesses. First web services in 2002 and cloud services in 2008, it would take IBM and Microsoft years to offer anything near that, the big tech of then were made basically redundant. And with the pay as you go there was a larger SaaS (Software as a Service) setting. The big 5 became big not because “Big Tech is a direct descendent of the Gilded Age robber barons”, but because they offered choice when the others were unwilling to do so. In this Apple stands alone. They were always the elite DTP solution (a lot more expensive than others) and in 1998 they recognised the needs of the consumer and the iMac was born, all whilst the consumer got the amazing phrase “There’s no step 3!”, an affordable solution in an age where PC’s were still running behind the facts. If you were not up to speed you were either lost or you became an Apple user. All this whilst the writer wants to push “descendent of the Gilded Age robber barons”, a stage none of them pushed for, it merely is in the statements of those who were asleep at the wheel between 1996-2006, they lost it all by not pushing the envelope and 5 companies got ahead. The fifth (Netflix) was like Facebook, it offered something never offered before and whilst we had to seek TV provider after TV provider, they offered what we wanted, movies and specifically movies not hindered by advertisements. They went from sales to rental to streaming and as the firm started in 1998, Hulu, Stan, HBO Max and Disney Plus, some well over a decade AFTER Netflix, so the statement from Josh Hawley is not just bogus, it is utter nonsense. So when we see “Washington, D.C. politicians routinely protect the interests of Big Tech over and against the freedom and well-being of the American people” we see the joke that this book seemingly is. These systems were offered to consumers, you can walk away! I kept my Yahoo account for years later, until the information offered was too outdated or too much adjusted for localisation (against my will), so when we see ‘well-being of the American people’ I wonder what data he can actually produce (raw data, not aggregated and weighted data) and in the grand scheme of things, the US has 320 million people, Europe has 750 million and India has 1.3 billion. All enjoying what the five players are offering. In all that, the US is a mere 15% and on the global scale they do not add up to much, and the US is actually part of that failing. In the era of 1990-2010 American firms remained largely absent on the international scale, relying on someone to pick up the ball and none of them did and the American needs were swallowed by the voice of the consumers, no barons, no lawyers and no politicians. The people wanted what Google offered and Youtube now has over 2,000,000,000 viewers (I am one of them), so far none of the offerers were able to meet this and more important by 2005 both IBM and Microsoft were merely relying on Adobe Flash, these two players had nothing to offer. In 15 years they never really woke up and here I get to use Microsoft against itself with “Microsoft Stream is a corporate video-sharing service which was released on June 20, 2017 that will gradually replace the existing Office 365 Video”, so 12 years of inactivity, in comparison, the Chinese (the makers of Won Ton soup) gave us TikTok one year earlier and now has 100,000,000 active users. Players like IBM and Microsoft have been that much asleep at the wheel. As I personally see it, American BigTech is the only player (all 5 of them) that stops the USA from becoming utterly irrelevant, if they were not there China would be superpower number one and they are close of becoming that anyway, any issues with BigTech and every BS article in every newspaper with  some ‘alleged’ and ‘watchdog’ is merely another delay and it will help China to become the greatest tech power, US politicians (EU politicians as well) are helping China meet that goal.

BigTech, the virgin
BigTech is not holy, it is not innocent and it is no virgin (they got screwed by global politicians again and again, so they are definitely not virgins), BigTech are merely the innovators we always needed and the rest is merely a wannabe player, even Microsoft and IBM have fallen that much from grace. Microsoft had the most powerful console in the world and within 2 years they were surpassed by the weakest console of all (Nintendo Switch), IBM has its own stream of non-successes, and they are all crying to their politicians as to the bad bad tech companies. Most of them had no idea what the digital era was until they were surpassed by a lot of other players (some of them Asian). So when we consider the stage, we need to see the whole stage, not some setting of “Ending Big Tech’s sovereignty is about taking back our own, and we can begin to do that in the lives we live together. Big Tech works relentlessly to force individuals into its ecosystem of addiction, exhibitionism, and fear of missing out. It seeks to create its own social universe and draw all of life into its orbit. But the real social world, the life of family and neighbourhood – the authentic communities that sustain authentic togetherness – can act as a counterweight to Big Tech’s ambitions”, in this phrases like ‘force individuals’ is massively wrong, people have choices. I do not have Facebook on my mobile, I have no need for it there, I do not order from Amazon (I am a support your local hooker kind of guy) and I have currently no Netflix or Disney Plus subscription. That is 3 out of 5, I have an Apple because Microsoft dropped the ball 4 times in the last 5 years and IBM is too expensive for what it offers. I chose! We can all choose and that is where we realise that ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech’ is like a Chicago politician, all hot air and not too much on substance (judging from the article (at https://mindmatters.ai/2021/06/a-book-review-the-tyranny-of-big-tech/). He might at some point present a few parts that are relevant, I am certain that he will, but as a former Missouri’s Attorney General he will tread on places where he knows the answers, so as I see “holding Big Tech accountable where others don’t dare tread. In investigations, in legislation”, I merely wonder how much legislation against BigTech made it through? It matters because it is what you can prove that matters, not what you claim. I made no claims, it is all timeline stuff, including the Chinese parts. 

Consider the choices YOU have, and make choices, it is your right. You need not be on Google, you can select Microsoft Bing. You will lose out on a lot but that is the choice you make. For well over 20 years Google offered choices, YOU were the consumer that selected WHERE you wanted to go and you went there. All whilst Microsoft could not be bothered, it seems to me that the Netscape Victory made them lazy and now they are no longer the relevant company, they are merely the Column B (or C) company. And consider being in a place like Antigo Wisconsin. Now try to buy a game, a DVD, a bluray, a 4K movie, a CD and a book. How many of these items will require Amazon? It was the foundation of 4G (Wherever I am) and it will be the stage of 5G (wheneverI want it), so when will 5G be available in Antigo Wisconsin? Consider these points and consider whatever Josh Hawley is trying to imprint on you and consider what you can find out for yourself. BigTech is not evil, BigTech is because the others became lazy, BigTech merely is and governments do not like the self sufficient organisations, the ones that do not make large contributions to them. In the end if you look into the shareholders and stakeholders of some of these players you get a very different picture, one you need to be wary of.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

May 2, 2021 · 21:11

Brain what?

Today I stopped (via YouTube) to watch one movie that I had not seen for some time. Who could pass up the chance to watch Natalie Wood again, in this movie with Louise Fletcher and Christoper Walken it is all about recording the brain. The movie Brainstorm (1983) is all about what is not possible and it is done well, the story takes a little dip when the military gets involved (like it was in the 80’s) but overall still an entertaining movie. I wondered what would happen if some young upstart (new director) gets to talk to a decently financed producer and makes this into a mini series for whatever streaming service takes it. A friend of mine (yes, I actually have those) wondered why I am not going that distance myself. Well, I turned 59, I am not a director, I do not feel that I would make a decent director and starting a new career as well as getting schooling at 59 is not my idea of retirement preparations. 

So as I was pondering that field we were not meant for show business, apart from the optional new anime by Ridley Scott where I am considering to do the Dutch voice over, there is no real flame to go that distance. Yet, in that same setting I was wondering the advances that Electroencephalography has made (if any), you see that is still an important part, if there is to be any real AI in computing, a better recollection and parsing systems is required and Electroencephalography might be the only technology that gives (at some point in time) a more human (or is that humane) setting towards AI. That drive could be part of the brainstorm mini series. It is not the weirdest idea, the writer Bruce Joel Rubin did make a real good script, he was also behind Ghost, Jacob’s Ladder, and Deep Impact (and a few more), as such this man has earned his stripes. But the nagging feeling that the movie left behind beckons exploring. The 80’s was a great era for loopy ideas, but not one for deeply thought through options. I reckon that these movies are all under investigation by the streaming houses as remaking IP tends to be a lot cheaper than making new IP. The fact that this movie is almost 40 years old gives it the forgotten tender group.

Yet in all this we need to wonder if this all we are, are new IP settings (Harry Potter, Game of Thrones) so rare that remaking is all we can do? There are almost 130 million books out in the open, is finding new IP that hard? The producers seem to clamp down on the bestseller lists and when the going gets tough they fold (example: Percy Jackson series), yet in all this the world has so much more to offer. It had one additional thing to offer, because my mind got the better of me. It started with me reading a part wrong ‘One idiot abroad’, this was accentuated with the slightly ‘psycho’ look of Stephen Merchant. It showed two additional people and the thought came ‘One won’t make it out alive’ and I giggled. That is a popcorn moment, it is reality TV that I would watch, especially when death becomes a factor. Consider all these celebrity survival games. We all get it, there needs to be a winner, but let’s be honest, should the losers survive? 

There is no way that you haven’t had  similar thought at some point. It is almost as corny (and perhaps essential) as letting an anti-vaxxer Twitter influencer die of Covid-19, some things are just meant to be and should that person be allowed to deprive actual victims of essential oxygen? We are setting the stage that the makers have given us and we twist that setting a little more. It is almost like walking into a bookshop and placing some of the Stephen King books ‘the Stand’ in the non-fictional section, there is a little demon on our shoulder whispering “You can do that, do not be the pussy you usually are”, and at some point we just give in.

If we are out thinking patterns, is it not equally so that intelligence will be shaped by the quirks we give into? Yet what is the stage where we record these impulses and can they actually be recorded at present? If electroencephalography is the way to that, is it not also the way towards an actual AI? If a biochemical computer can be mapped and truly be understood, is that not a first step in creating a silicon version to do something similar? Yes, I understand that they are not the same, but to get the other version working, it needs to be able or an effort needs to be made to mimic the other version, that has been true for the longest time. You see, mimicking also shows what goes wrong and when we understand, truly understand why it is going wrong, we can work towards new levels of innovation.

The path to innovation is never a straight line, only according to some person with a business degree and basic knowledge of Excel, they think it is a simple formula, but the rest, those treading innovation will tell you it is something different entirely, perhaps a new Brainstorm might reveal a lot more scientific paths than we give the art credit for.

Speaking of credits, those who follow me, let it be known that a certain counter is at 21,447, as such certain revelations will not take much longer.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, movies, Science

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

January 10, 2021 · 21:54

Pirates of a feather

For me this is a little new ground, until recently I was not aware of the ability to speak ‘Parler’, as I see it, they refined it from Parley, which comes from the French ‘Parler’ meaning ‘to speak’. The event was set to “a discussion or conference, especially one designed to end an argument or hostilities between two groups of people”, as such I was aware of the term, but not the setting that President Trump uses. CNN (at https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/15/media/rebekah-mercer-parler/index.html) gave us a little while ago ‘Meet Rebekah Mercer, the deep-pocketed co-founder of Parler, a controversial conservative social network’, and the co-founder to Cambridge Analytica and a few others, so when I saw the Cambridge link, I wondered what data Parler is capturing. This is added in other ways too, but let’s keep to the CNN story for now. And when the article start with the quote “John and I started Parler to provide a neutral platform for free speech, as our founders intended, and also to create a social media environment that would protect data privacy”, all whilst another source gives us “journalists and users have criticised the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors” (source: Washington Post July 2020), and it basically goes from bad to worse. That is given with the quote “The ever increasing tyranny and hubris of our tech overlords demands that someone lead the fight against data mining, and for the protection of free speech online. That someone is Parler, a beacon to all who value their liberty, free speech, and personal privacy.”” And let not forget that this comes from the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica. I still wonder what Parler was capturing, especially with the restrictive rules in place. And if these restrictions were limited to the stage of “But Parler is quickly discovering the limits of free expression. On June 30, Matze used Parler to explain its house rules, apparently frustrated with some of Parler’s new users testing the limits of its free-expression motto by posting pornographic images and obscenities”, I believe that this is up for debate. So even as I take notice of “Wernick wrote a Fox News opinion piece in support of Parler this month, saying Twitter and Facebook are using “technology intended to liberate, instead to subjugate”, I wonder what we will learn when we make a cross section of those on Parler AND on 4Chan, I even wonder if the FBI is not already on this. You see, there is a problem with ‘philanthropists’, the true philanthropist not, but the stage we see “Robert Mercer, who helped oversee Renaissance Technologies hedge fund, and his wife Diane, donated more than $23 million to groups that backed conservative candidates, according to a tally by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics”, in light of Cambridge Analytica, I am still in the personal opinion, that these people would not set $23,000,000 out in the open, unless they can bank at least double that, and with them owning Renaissance Technologies hedge fund, I feel certain I am right. The power of $110,000,000,000 reaches far and too many want scraps from that table of plenty. In this I wonder if Parler is a way to identify and unify the scattered right, it is not a bad plan, if they succeed they have the means to oppose the Democratic side of things to a much larger extent than anyone is willing to give them credit for.

Even as the Wall Street Journal (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-backed-by-mercer-family-makes-play-for-conservatives-mad-at-facebook-twitter-11605382430) gives us ‘Parler Makes Play for Conservatives Mad at Facebook, Twitter’, I believe this goes deeper. Even as the blinker are attached with “After The Wall Street Journal reported on the Mercers’ ties with Parler, Chief Executive John Matze confirmed that Ms. Mercer was the lead investor in the company at its outset and said that her backing was dependent on the platform allowing users to control what they see”, the seting given to us in the beginning, gives us a different tory, and when ‘allowing users to control what they see’ falls away, the one important part remains is identity, when you look in the past, no one has tried to unify the extreme right, there is every chance that the Mercer family see the power and the massive amount of gains that this optionally brings. It took me less than a day to figure out the parts that the media was so eager not to mention, I wonder who else is on tht train, actually, I believe that they all are, even big tech. I expect that they too want the bucket of gold at the and of that nightmare rainbow, and Mercer might have gotten way more than double the investment on that 23 million dollar train, if he unites the right wing and far right wing, the democrats have much to be worried about, they have been used to a scattered opponent in the last 25 years, a unified one is an opponent that they haven’t faced before. And as I see it, the Mercer family is at the speculated centre of all that. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

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

January 9, 2021 · 21:23

What is a weasel?

Well, a ‘weasel’ that imply deception and irresponsibility include: the noun form, referring to a sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person. Yet this is not complete, the words person and company are interchangeable. That is the feeling I see at present (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55597840), they label themselves with “It comes amid a Big Tech purge of the online platforms used by Mr Trump and his supporters”, and it comes now AFTER congress ratified the win of president elect Biden, AFTER the stage and settings that American endured for years. The BBC is fair enough to give us “Some lawmakers and celebrities have been calling for years on Twitter to ban Mr Trump altogether. Former First Lady Michelle Obama tweeted on Thursday that the Silicon Valley giants should stop enabling Mr Trump’s “monstrous behaviour” and permanently expel him” we are seeing the price of enabling and facilitation and the people are catching on, it is a bad day for Facebook and Twitter altogether. For years they facilitate and there will be a price down the lane, they will pay it because they see it as an essential price for doing business. Yet is that enough?

The BBC gives a quote that is out there is it is debatable with “as mere mortal, repeatedly spreading disinformation, fake news and inciting violence will get you thrown off mainstream social media platforms”, you see what constitutes ‘repeatedly spreading disinformation’ and when exactly does it become disinformation? It is a serious question because it optionally shows the initial inactions of big-tech, the message that President Trump gave on ‘landslide victory’ is one, his views and his statements on ‘black lives matter’ is another. To see this we need to take you back to July 2020, there we see “The US president tweeted on Wednesday about New York City’s decision to paint “Black Lives Matter” on Fifth Avenue, calling it “a symbol of hate””, what clear evidence is there to call ‘black lives matter’ a symbol of hate? All whilst the people behind it state clearly “builds power to bring justice, healing, and freedom to Black people across the globe”, we might agree, we might disagree, we might not care, but it clearly is not set as a symbol of hate, and that is merely one of many examples and big-tech did not act, only after the next guy is ratified  do we see “after close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account”, as such I ask you, what is a weasel?

Those who follow my blog know I am not anti big-tech, I am not against Google, Apple, Amazon or Facebook, but that does not mean I will not hold them to account when the time is there. And in this case, after close to 4 years of facilitating it is time to hold them to account. In this, I do have a sense of humour and state that I am against discrimination and Microsoft devices, so there! 

In this I wonder if these weasels will act on a global scale as ABC gives us ‘Victorian Liberal MP Bernie Finn posts Trump election conspiracy theories to Facebook’, we need to accept the freedom of expression, but I wonder how much freedom is in jeopardy when elected officials are spouting conspiracy theories, especially on elections that they seemingly have a lack of knowledge of. 

And locally ABC covered their ass by also giving us “The ABC is not suggesting Mr Finn supported the violence or rioting at the Capitol”, consider that when the power players in this world start to wield actions based on facilitation and return on that investment, in that premise consider personally how much facilitation would happen towards you personally and when you realise that you do not matter, what will facilitation cost you?

I wonder if you tallied that part of the equation yet, if not you have some work to do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

December 17, 2020 · 21:51

Thanks for the support

We all have to say thanks, I in this case to the BBC, they were just able to give support to two issues that I put out in the open over a year ago (too tired to find these articles, they are at least a year old and it is 33 degrees Celsius at present (at 21:30), The first is the lacking approach to Common Cyber Sense within the US Administration, I found that failing in the Pentagon in 2018, I found Cisco routers still carrying the password Cisco123 in at least two sensitive areas and there was the use and abuse of non secured USB sticks in more than two sensitive places and on top of all that, the US ends up with an idiot in the White House relying on a password like MAGA2020, how bad do things need to get? I agree that the man Victor Gevers did everything right, including alerting the proper players, but this is a much larger problem. So when we see “The president’s account, which has 89 million followers, is now secure. But Twitter has refused to answer direct questions from BBC News, including whether the account had extra security or logs that would have shown an unknown login”, the quote forgets to give a larger part, you see, this was all on the user, when the user is thick as molasses and equally stupid, can we blame Twitter? And this now also reflects back to ‘6 simple questions’, which I released on February 3rd 2020, there we see the simple setting that the Daily Mail, the Daily Mail of all sources that there was a way to infect accounts yet no way to establish by who or how. It gets us back to the original question ‘Where is the evidence that Saudi Arabia infected ANY phones?’, a question that FTI Consulting and the United Nation essay writers can not inform us. It shows a much larger lack of cyber security and proper cyber defences, all whilst these so called investigators are happy to accuse whomever is a political and not a true target, is that too much?

I ended that article with question 6 ‘Why on earth is the UN involved in an alleged Criminal investigation where so much information is missing?’, now we see a new page turned, can any criminal investigation hold any water when the users are that thick? MAGA2020, really?

So when we consider “Mr Gevers also claimed he and other security researchers had logged in to Mr Trump’s Twitter account in 2016 using a password – “yourefired” – linked to another of his social-network accounts in a previous data breach”, in all this the need to employ Common Cyber Sense is a situation that becomes more and more essential and we need to catch on quicker than we are, because it is people like that who will claim things against Russia and China, whilst letting their security services in at their leisure because they cannot be bothered with Common Cyber Sense. 

As I see it, President Trump will optionally get two additional Christmas cards this year, one from 76B Khoroshevskoe Highway, the other from 14 Dongchangan Avenue, Dongcheng District, Beijing. Both will be stating “Thanks for the support”, what a lovely way to end a presidency and probably the first time that a US President gets a Christmas card from both locations.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Science

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

October 2, 2020 · 02:14

You’re useless and you know it

Yup, quite the opening headline and  would like to tell the reader the it is about him or her, but no such luck, the headline (as is) can only be given to the most useless of useless, the US Senate. Yup, as some voices stated in the past, the US has fruits (US Congress) and nuts (US Senate) and there we sit in the middle of the tutti frutti of the dance floor, one might almost invite Madonna to come over and add a little spice to the mixture.

Yet Reuters who gives us (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-tech/senate-panel-approves-sending-subpoenas-to-ceos-of-twitter-facebook-google-idUSKBN26M6FA) the headline ‘Senate panel approves sending subpoenas to CEOs of Twitter, Facebook, Google’, with the quote “The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday unanimously voted to approve a plan to subpoena chief executives of Twitter, Alphabet’s Google and Facebook for a hearing likely to be held before the election on a prized legal immunity enjoyed by internet companies”, We can go in every direction possible, but lets start with “passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content”, In this we see two elements, the first being that in 1996 there was no Google, no Twitter and no Facebook, in the second on larger beneficiary was the online presence of FoxNews, Yahoo and lets face it as I personally see it, Microsoft who started part of the mess we have now. 

To invoke what I did (the useless part), it is important to see “After passage of the Telecommunications Act, the CDA was challenged in courts and ruled by the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) to be partially unconstitutional, leaving the Section 230 provisions in place. Since then, several legal challenges have validated the constitutionality of Section 230”, in this Justice John Paul Stevens (Supreme Court) wrote in June 1997: “We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve. … It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials. But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults. As we have explained, the Government may not “reduc[e] the adult population … to … only what is fit for children.””, as such how stupid does a US Senator tend to be? It passed the Supreme court, it passed a few stations over the term of 20 years and optional alleged beneficiaries (Google, Facebook, Twitter) are called into a Senate hearing? Some sources even state ‘Letting Platforms Decide What Content To Facilitate Is What Makes Section 230 Work’, the latter one is up for debate, but the setting of section 230 is not, it is a legal thing, so why would someone set the stage for a hearing the is basically pointless set the stage? To get a few free dinners and perhaps tax deductibility? I do not know, I merely ask.

The setting of a stage 40 days before election, is the current view and when we see “top Democrat Maria Cantwell, who opposed the move last week, saying she was against using “the committee’s serious subpoena power for a partisan effort 40 days before an election,” changed her mind and voted to approve the move” I wonder what this really is, because as I see it, it has nothing to do with big tech, and optionally section 230 is also not in play, but what is? There is the optional quote given “Republican President Donald Trump has made holding tech companies accountable for allegedly stifling conservative voices a theme of his administration. As a result, calls for a reform of Section 230 have been intensifying ahead of the elections, but there is little chance of approval by Congress this year”, yet optional settings of “stifling conservative voice” would not change that, this is about intentional hurting facilitation, changing the premise of free expression, the moment big tech is held responsible, no opinion is heard and the anti-Trump (those who highlight stupidity) is seen nearly everywhere, as such, President Trump needs every amount he can get. I do not think that this is the right path and more important changing law on this scale to bake (not make) awareness of something set almost in stone for 20 years does not help. 

In this I want to extend my friendliness to give a shout to the largest part of the problem, mainly Republican Senator Roger Wicker, even s he gives us “After extending an invite to these executives, I regret that they have again declined to participate and answer questions about issues that are so visible and urgent to the American people”, I merely wonder if he has any clue who the American people are. This train of thought is seen as Politico gives us “under the newly unveiled Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, the legal shield would protect the companies only when they take down specific types of content, including material “promoting terrorism” or which promotes “self-harm” or is otherwise illegal”, as such, when was there an upside when we consider ‘specific types on content’, as I see it it the setting towards a biased filter of what constitutes free speech and freedom of expression. As such the simple question becomes: ‘Who has seen S.4534 – Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act?’ Deputy Counsel Elizabeth Banker did and gives us “Section 230’s otherwise objectionable clause underpins crucial content moderation efforts that make their platforms safer for everyone. Eliminating that clause will make it harder, not easier, for online services to remove content like misinformation, platform manipulation, or bullying that’s neither illegal nor in the bill’s new description of allowable moderation. This bill would also hamper platforms from adapting to future moderation challenges.“We also have serious First Amendment concerns with this bill. This bill would limit the ability of private online platforms and services, including small forums for schools, churches, and local sports leagues, to set and enforce rules for their communities.””, a direct powerful view given on September 8th (at https://internetassociation.org/news/statement-in-response-to-the-introduction-of-the-online-freedom-and-viewpoint-diversity-act/), as such we takeaway “Eliminating that clause will make it harder, not easier, for online services to remove content like misinformation, platform manipulation, or bullying” does this constitute the idea that the speculated biggest bully in America wants a free pass? And there are also “serious First Amendment concerns” which cannot be ignored. 

When we see this level of issues from the very beginning, how stupid is any senator participating in this, and when we demand under freedom of information their names and tell people that this lit constitutes a list of people attacking free speech, how happy will they be? There is of course the issue of the elected Democrat from the state of Washington Maria Cantwell, I wonder what she has to say for herself, especially it he hearing happens before the elections, I reckon that President Elect Biden will not have too much need for her, but that is merely my speculation.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

September 29, 2020 · 01:30

The A-social network

That is a stage, it is a big stage and it does not care whether you live of whether you die. So let’s take this to a new level and start with a question: ‘When did you last cause the death of a person?’ I do not care whether it is you mum, your dad, your partner, your child. When did you cause their death? Too direct? Too Bad!

You see, we think that we are innocent, some are risk programmers into debt insolvency programs, yet there it is not about the people, it is about the business that needs maximisation. We pride ourself in compartmentalisation, yet in the end the programmer is just as efficient a murderer as the sniper is. When I look through the sight of a .308 rifle, the sight allows me to go for a target 450 metres away, an optimum distance, the silencer will make is silent enough so that anyone more than 4 metres away will not hear a thing and 450 metres away, a person falls to their knees, the chest wound is damaging enough to ensure that the target will be dead on arrival, even if it happens at the entrance of a hospital, for the target it is over. You think this is bad? 

The programmer writes the formula that sets a different strain of insolvency. It is a form of credit risk, as such we get “In the first resort, the risk is that of the lender and includes lost principal and interest, disruption to cash flows, and increased collection costs”, as such the credit firms hire programmers that can stretch the case to lower the risk to the lender, set the stage where there is an increased option to pay back at much higher cost. In that same way we see programs and risk assessments being created where the facilitators are not at risk, they are not to blame and they are not to be held accountable. 

So here comes Molly Russell and the BBC gives us ‘Molly Russell social media material ‘too difficult to look at’’, it starts with “The 14-year-old killed herself in 2017 after viewing graphic images of self harm and suicide on the platform”, so what ‘platform’ was that? How much was viewed and what time frame was in play? These are the first questions that rise straight from the bat. It is followed by “A pre-inquest hearing on Friday was told not all the material had been studied yet as it was too difficult for lawyers and police to look at for long”, basically at least two years later lawyers and police are unable to view what a 14 year old did, and this does not give us the hard questions? So whilst the article (optionally unintentionally) hides behind “The inquest will look at how algorithms used by social media giants to keep users on the platform may have contributed to her death”, the basic flaw is at the very basic level. How did this stuff get uploaded, why was it not flagged and hw many viewed it, in addition towards the small setting of who was the uploading party? So someone gave a 14 year old the settings and the access to materials that most adults find unwatchable and I think there are bigger questions in play. It is the line “He added certain parts of the material had been redacted and lawyers and police were trying to find out why”, as I personally see it, redaction happens when you need to hide issues and this becomes an increased issue with “the investigation was seeking the cooperation of Snapchat, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Facebook and Twitter, although until recently only Pinterest had co-operated fully”, as well as “Snapchat could not disclose data without an order from a US court, WhatsApp had deleted Molly’s account and Twitter was reluctant to handover material due to European data protection laws, the hearing was told”, On a personal footnote, Twitter has been on a slippery slope for some time, and the deletion by WhatsApp is one that is cause for additional questions. As I see it, these tech giants will work together to maximise profit, but in this, is the death of a person the danger that they cannot face, or will not face in light of the business setting of profit? Even as I am willing to accept the view of “Coroner Andrew Walker said “some or all” of those social media companies could be named as interested parties in the inquest as they would be “best placed” to give technical information for the case”, are they best placed or are we seeing with this case the setting where Social media is now the clear and present danger to the people for the case of extended profits into the largest margin available?

That is a direction you did not see, is it?

We have never seen social media as a clear and present danger, but in case of Molly Russell that might be exactly what we face and there is every indication that she is not the only case and it is possible that the redactions would optionally show that.

Yet in all this, the origin of the materials and how they were passed through social media remains a much larger issue. I wonder how much the inquest will consider that part. You see, for me, I do not care. I am sorry, the picture of the girl in the BBC article is lovely, she is pretty, but I do not care. It is cold, yet that is what it is. In Yemen well over 100,000 are dead and the world does not seem to care, as such, I need not care about one girl, but the setting, the setting I do care about. It is not for the one case, under 5G when the bulk of the people will get drowned in information and all kinds of movies, one girl will end up being between 8 and 20 people. The setting is larger, 5G will make it so ad if you doubt that, feel free to wait and watch the corpses go by.

Suddenly sniping seems such a humanitarian way to pass the time, does it not? 

We need to consider that one process influences another, as such the process is important, just like the processes risk assessors write to lower risk, the stage of what goes one way, also has the ability to go the other way. This translates into ‘What would keep Molly Russell with us?’ Now implies a very different thing, it sets the stage of a lot more. It is not merely who messaged Molly Russell, it becomes what else was send to Molly Russell on WhatsApp, so suddenly the deletion of her account does not seem that innocent, does it? It goes from bad to worse when you consider on how social media links and how links and usage is transferred. Like footprints the links go form one to the other and no one has a clue? It is in my personal view more likely that they all have a clue and for the most it is extremely profitable, Molly Russell is merely a casual situation of circumstance, so under 5G when it is not 1, but up to 20 times the victims, what will happen then?

I will let you consider that small fact, the setting where your children become the casualty of margins of profit, until death deletes the account, have a great day!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

August 19, 2020 · 02:09

Click bitches

Yup, that is what they are making us out to be. We can offer the thought that Facebook and Twitter are not aware what is happening, but the reality is that they do not care. It is the price of a free service. I knew that from the start, nothing comes for free, but the choice of advertisement that Twitter and Facebook Arte giving us is becoming a larger issue, in addition I received some news that some people were allegedly approached to get scammed, this happens, but one person gave me that from 2-3 times a year that there has been an attempt to scam through his phone once a day for the last three days, the scales have been altered and in all this we need to set a much larger stage. And as some advertisement is aimed to turn us into click bitches to go from picture (with a dozen advertisements) to another picture we have no way of knowing as to what the role behind it is, perhaps it is $25 on the house from +6797234009, perhaps it is allegedly winning GBP 6,500,000 from www.m65s.net with the helpline info@mobcollas.com, or even it is facing jurisprudential fines from 18000243109. The numbers start adding up and Australian law is seemingly clueless on what to do, because it is not their prerogative, merely stating the face of the Sydney Morning Herald and Rupert Murdoch through the stated news ‘Google clashes with Australia watchdog over proposed law to force it to pay for news’, so how about changing the setting to avoid more issues by also stating that newspapers and media are not allowed on social media? Would that level the playing field? When we do that, we see that ALL the remaining news on social media is fake, is that a solution? Does it fall back to the ‘News Media Bargaining Code’?, I do not belief that to be the case, I think that there are two issues and I think that they influence one another. The ACCC gives us “The Government asked that a draft mandatory code be released for public consultation before the end of July 2020, with a final code to be settled soon thereafter.” It is perhaps the first time that a law was drafted up so quickly, and in that view when we see “The development of a code of conduct is part of the Government’s response to the ACCC’s Digital Platforms Inquiry final report to promote competition, enhance consumer protection and support a sustainable Australian media landscape in the digital age”, in all this the lacking ‘enhance consumer protection’ is very much out in the open and it is failing more and more.

So when we look at ‘Protecting yourself from scams’ on the ACCC website, and the ACCC Scam watch had NOTHING on the dangers of advertisements handing over details for scamming, in the same way there is a chance that data is being gathered by games, so how far is that investigation going? It seems that some are waiting for us to become click bitches and as we consider Click Fraud with the underlying quote “Click fraud is a type of fraud that occurs on the Internet in pay-per-click online advertising. In this type of advertising, the owners of websites that post the ads are paid an amount of money determined by how many visitors to the sites click on the ads”, as such, how much investigation did the ACCC do into the danger to the consumers before running to help the media? 

The dangers to the consumers is larger than Hacking, Identity theft, Phishing and Remote access scams and seemingly too many people are unaware, perhaps they have been turned into click bitches. 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,