Tag Archives: US Federal Reserve

FI01, becoming offensive

I will leave the entire Novichok alone for now, there is rustling in the weeds and it is important to look at it, but only when more actual quality information is available. It is time to take a look at the FI protocols. It is time for FI01.

This might not be the article for many of my readers, I will not shun hash words and I will not shun those wading in hypocrisy. Yet to do that, we need to look at certain definitions too and that is the part we get to after we look at the Guardian article (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/13/social-media-firms-could-face-huge-fines-over-terrorist-content). The article ‘Remove terror content quickly or be fined, EU tells social media firms‘. the setting given is “Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter will be forced to take terrorist content off their sites within an hour or face multimillion-pound fines under EU proposals“, is probably the biggest part, but let’s look on; when we see some of the parts given by Julian King, the British security commissioner in Brussels. We are given a few truths that matter. “We have got a problem with content; it is not an entirely new problem, we are not starting from scratch, we have agreed to do some voluntary stuff, and we got some good progress – but not enough” is the first part and I will get back to that, yet the more important part is “Every attack over the last 18 months or two years or so has got an online dimension. Either inciting or in some cases instructing, providing instruction, or glorifying“. I get it, something needs to be done. In the first we need to see the list and the proper setting of evidence. I get it that this is not offered online for several reasons. Yet there needs to be a lot more scrutiny. As we see the utter screw up regarding Novichoks, the lack of evidence and linked statements without evidence. We also need to state clearly that the press (to a larger extent) is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Julian King needs to realise that if his peers are dragging their heels on one side, he cannot be part of anything acceptable stating the utter impossibility of: ‘take terrorist content off their sites within an hour‘.

From my point of view, this is about something else; this is about giving governments’ direct access to social media to filter ALL content (at their leisure). To get anything done within the hour is just not realistic and they know it. It is also very clear that when 5G is here, it will be too late and that is what they fear even more, and being stupid about it is just not a solution in any place.

It becomes an even more laughable setting with: “Parties could be fined up to 5% of their annual budgets for breaching data protection rules in order to deliberately influence the outcome of the European elections, including those for the European parliament in May 2019“. So instead of making it illegal and rejecting that party from elected consideration, they get a fine? Allowing for big business to sacrifice via some small institution to cop a few million whilst still getting what they want. So when we see Julian King state: “given the track record, there has to be a chance, and we have to up our game and be more resilient“. How about setting the stage that the use of social media for elections is just out of bounds? Limit it to TV, Newspapers and magazines?

We see the problem a lot clearer when we consider the ‘High-Level Commission Expert Group on Radicalisation (HLCEG-R)‘ report from May 18th 2018. Where exactly is the definition of ‘terrorist content’? You see, the EC is all about definitions all the time. Yet here we see an interaction and a level of interchangeability of ‘terrorist content‘ and ‘illegal content‘. It is found to some extent in the report referred to in footnote 19 where we see the report ‘COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 1.3.2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online’. So is all ‘illegal content’ ‘terrorist content’? It seems to me that this sudden trivialisation is about something else entirely (at least to some degree).

When we look at the second report, we see: “At the collective level, important progress has been made through voluntary arrangements of various kinds, including the EU Internet Forum on terrorist content online, the Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online and the Memorandum of Understanding on the Sale of Counterfeit Goods. However, notwithstanding this commitment and progress, illegal content online remains a serious problem within the Union

This is reference to Article 292. Yet now we see Illegal Hate Speech Online, the Sale of Counterfeit Goods as well as terrorist content online. So is this about a Nina Ricci bottle or a Prada backpack, because the devil is not in the details, the devil wears Prada plain and simple. We see to some extent the ‘aggregation’ of stupidity (as I personally see it) in item 32, where we are treated to: “In light of the particularities related to tackling terrorist content online, the recommendations relating to tackling illegal content generally should be complemented by certain recommendations which specifically relate to tackling terrorist content online, building on and consolidating efforts undertaken in the framework of the EU Internet Forum“, so when illegal content is online, we now see the implicated setting that these people could be regarded as terrorist. With ‘be complemented by certain recommendations‘, which now becomes a rather weird setting. You see ‘political opinion’ cannot be seen as illegal speech, so not getting to barrier one, also avoids barrier two. In this setting, any political drive must be proven to give the reading of proven the need that the speech instils the drive to act illegally. Until a clear act is connected, there will be no success.

This now gets us to paragraph 33, where we see: “Considering the particularly grave risks associated with terrorist content and hosting service providers’ central role in the dissemination of such content, hosting service providers should take all reasonable measures so that they do not allow terrorist content and if possible prevent hosting it“. So at this point what exactly is ‘terrorist content‘? And the reference to that paragraph refers to ‘without prejudice to Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC’, are you effing kidding me? That is the privacy part on a section in ‘legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market‘.

So we get this mess presented?

In that regard when we see: ‘Commission proposes new rules to get terrorist content off the web‘ It is my personal agitated view in the matter that protocol FI01 is set to President Jean-Claude Juncker, he is the Eff…ing Idiot number 1.

When we again look at the headline: “Terrorist content is most harmful in the first hours after it appears online because of the speed at which it spreads. This is why the Commission is proposing a legally binding one-hour deadline for content to be removed following a removal order from national competent authorities“, a one hour deadline? Really? Most EC parts have not been able to clean their act in years, so now social media gets sliced and cut? Is Europe so broke that they want the millions from the three social media providers because they cannot clean their own stables?

Consider the Statistics, Facebook has 2 billion active users a month, and this is not static. We see from sources that Five new profiles are created every second, there is a registered amount of photo uploads approaching 300 million per day as well as the setting that every minute on Facebook: 510,000 comments are posted, 293,000 statuses are updated, and 136,000 photos are uploaded and that is ignoring languages and expressions. The entire setting of removal in an hour is so unrealistic it is close to hilarious. When we are confronted with that, whilst ‘the Conservative’ (not the greatest source, I admit) gives us: “The structural defects of the European Commission are plentiful: an insurmountable democratic deficit; not a hint of accountability; and an opaque process of legislative formulation to name but a few“, that whilst labelled individual FI01 is also connected to: “The president of the European Commission is embroiled in a new criminal investigation into claims that “tampered” evidence misled an inquiry into phone-tapping. Jean-Claude Juncker faces accusations that his officials presented inaccurate information under oath in a case involving an alleged illegal wiretap more than ten years ago when he was prime minister of Luxembourg” (source: The Times, December 13th 2017), that is the person giving social media providers an ultimatum of an hour? You have got to be kidding me. The Telegraph gave us in addition: “The new evidence, which led to the postponing of a trial of three senior formers members of Luxembourg’s SREL intelligence service, according to The Times, showed that a key telephone transcript had apparently been doctored

That’s the person who is part of throwing ‘illegal content’ and ‘terrorist content’ on one pile?

Good to know!

So now we get to the fact sheet!

Here we see (at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-factsheet-terrorist-content_en_0.pdf) the setting of ‘How does the new procedure for removing terrorist content work?‘ We now see the following

  1. National authority detects and makes assessment
  2. If considered terrorist content, removal order issued to host
  3. Host must remove content within one hour

That seems almost harmless, does it not?

Yet we also see:

  • Right to challenge: Hosting service or content provider may appeal the removal order. If the appeal is successful, the content is restored; if the appeal is rejected or the deadline lapses, the removal order stands and the content must be permanently removed.
  • Obligation to report: If issued with a removal order, the host must report on proactive measures taken to address terrorist content online three months after receiving the removal order.

I am missing any level of accountability, too much ambiguity. So from my point of view, anyone abusing the ‘terrorist content’ for mere filtering and censoring on behalf of anyone else needs to be held criminally liable. I reckon that after 2-3 cases there will be suddenly a large need for postponed trials.

When we investigate the member states part in all this, we see no fine for the state when wrongful removal was done, we see a pressure on removing (or else), yet there is a shallow point when it comes the other way around. In addition, we see “coordinate with other Member States and Europol to ensure that evidence of online terrorist content is flagged, and that duplication and interference in national investigations is avoided“, yet there is no registration on who ordered the removal, also, there is no registration per removal id and in that stage set penalties for those having set the stage for recurring unjustified removals giving ample voice to the earlier: “not a hint of accountability“, if this is about terrorist content, is that part not equally important?

I am all for getting all terrorist content removed, yet the systems cannot get it all, that is too unrealistic and pushing a one hour timestamp whilst the other side has no accountability at all is just a discriminating joke in the making. It is also still interesting to see that they claim to fight terrorism and terrorist online activities, whilst Iran state sponsor of terrorism in still a welcome debate and trade partner in the EU. In addition, the entire matter of Iranian diplomat Asadollah Assadi and terrorist was given light a week before the EU approved plans for the European Investment Bank to do business with Iran. So you want to stop social media, whilst still doing business with these people? How unacceptable is that part in all this? If the EU cannot clean its stables, it has no business enforcing anything on social media that is how I personally see it. Yes, we can agree that terrorist content must be removed ASAP, yet what is that? One hour? 24 Hours? 72 hours? The fact that the EU does business as usual with a terrorist funding government implies that they are clueless on several grounds and the fact that we see an increasing amount of evidence growing on the matter of Iranian Missiles fired into Saudi Arabia is further evidence still that the EU is merely the pot calling the kettle black. It is in that setting that we should conclude that they have no business ‘fine giving’ any social media, especially in light of such a massive funding failure.

You see, what angers me so is the mere filtering of politicians and that needs to stop too! In this I present two elements. The first part comes from Bloomberg last year. We are given (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/facebook-says-99-of-is-al-qaeda-content-spotted-by-ai) where we are treated to: “Today, 99 percent of Islamic State and Al Qaeda-related content Facebook removes is detected by the company’s AI before any user flags it, Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, and Brian Fishman, head of counter-terrorism policy, said Wednesday. They said in some cases the software was able to block the content from ever being posted in the first place“. Yet the other part that the Guardian gives us is: “We have got a problem with content; it is not an entirely new problem, we are not starting from scratch, we have agreed to do some voluntary stuff, and we got some good progress – but not enough“. Now we get to the good part, what EXACTLY is ‘not enough’? From my point of view Either Bloomberg lied to us, or Julian King is what some might consider as: ‘an unacceptable piece of trash’. If he wants 100%, he better give us clearly add a few elements of EC accountability and holding them criminally liable when they abuse their power. Also is any abuse of that ‘filtering content’ is found, he is to be dishonourably discharged and shamed in the entire EU, with a clear banning from ALL official positions in the EU and the Commonwealth.

Why the overreaction?

We have been fed two versions again and again and we see a lack of accountability on the EU side too often; for example the elitist banking group of 30 with Mario Draghi as a member. When the Financial Times gave us: “the close links between central bankers and the private sector have aroused public suspicion since the global financial crisis triggered a series of bank bailouts” we see suspected levels of nepotism that raises more issues than 50 successful Islamic State attacks. The article (at https://www.ft.com/content/dc64b6e2-8060-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d) also gives us “The Ombudsman has also attacked the ECB’s argument that it was standard practice for top central bankers to join the club. The central bank chiefs of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, India, Brazil, Russia, Canada, and Australia are not members and Janet Yellen suspended her membership during her time at the helm of the US Federal Reserve”, showing that the European Commission has a truckload of issues, it is my personal view that it has no business acting in the way it does.

Yet, defence of the actions instigated by Julian King can be seen in Forbes. The article (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/05/15/the-problem-with-using-ai-to-fight-terrorism-on-social-media), an Article from last May gives us: “the general public would be forgiven for believing that Facebook’s algorithms are vastly more effective. The New York Times summarized the statement above as “Facebook’s A.I. found 99.5 percent of terrorist content on the site, leading to the removal of roughly 1.9 million pieces of content in the first quarter,” while the BBC offered “the firm said its tools spotted 99.5% of detected propaganda posted in support of Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and other affiliated groups, leaving only 0.5% to the public.” In fact, this is not at all what the company has claimed. When asked about similar previous media characterizations of its counter-terrorism efforts, a company spokesperson clarified that such statements are incorrect, that the 99% figure refers exclusively to the percent of terrorist content deleted by the company that had been flagged by AI.

This could be easily tested and as such I decided to do so and with ‘ISIS images’ I got hundreds and hundreds of images, videos and other matters in my browser and I got even more with the search term ‘Jihad Islamic state’. The video (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzCAPJDAnQA) shows actions of Islamic State, with sounds, vision and comments. It is News from Vice News, a video from 2014, still online today. At some point you need to as just how ludicrous and useless actions are. We get it that there are actions, we see that numbers become debatable. Yet in all this the mere reported numbers are already an issue, and if I added Vice News articles to me Facebook news feed, would that constitute ‘Terrorist Content’? This small part alone shows us that this is about something else and as such we better take a real hard look at the Actions of the EC, demanding that the censoring side should be held equally liable and prosecutable for their overreaction and inaction. Yet that is never ever going to happen, is it? This is making the EC actions (in my personal opinion) a lot more questionable in all this. It was the overreaction and the emphasis of ‘One Hour’ that set the tone of mistrust, I wonder what else we will see over the coming week.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Brexit? Because Pizza!

Yes, it sounds nuts (honey covered ones), but that was pretty much the first thought that came to mind. You see, I have been trying to see beyond mere Brexit and Bremain, because comprehension gives insights that hopefully leads to wisdom. That is the path we need to be on in many cases (those who can). You see, we have seen one irresponsible side exposed in Brexit, that side is perhaps the majority reason why people are in the Brexit camp. No matter how clever Mark Carney was, the notion we see soon thereafter as Mario Draghi speaks of a willingness to spend another trillion plus to ‘jumpstart’ the economy is giving the voters even more reason to jump on the Brexit train. So no positive part there. No we get the European courts adding fuel to the fire that steams the Brexit train is seen (at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/07/france-wrong-imprison-ghanian-woman-enter-britain-illegaly-eu-court-rules) in an article called ‘Imprisoning woman trying to illegally enter UK was wrong, EU rules‘. So these high educated judges are giving an outspoken ruling that it was wrong?

Perhaps this law student could give them something to consider ‘A person must not use a document which is, and which he or she knows to be, false, with the intention of inducing another person to accept it as genuine‘, which made it a crime as early as 1958 (actually long before that and not just in the UK). It is still a crime in most commonwealth nations. So perhaps this judge can explain to the people how having false identity papers is not a crime? It is speeches like these from the EU courts that makes people less interested to remain within the EU that the judges are trying to ‘non-enforce’. We have all heard the court stories about men who cannot get deported after a rape because he has the right to a family life. We tend to react really emotionally, which could be seen as equally wrong, yet the people who hear this will accept any verdict the victim gives, when she is voicing deportation, we all tend to shout it for the victim. In addition the case where a transgressor’s case is delayed for 2 years and in that time he has three additional children, so he can rely on article 8. I am not judging how appropriate the verdict is, I am merely voicing a thought most people in Britain tend to have. On the other side we see some statements that Bremain is the only option because of the damage to some profession when Brexit becomes real. There, the incomplete and incorrect statement that Metro gave recently (March 2016) ‘From April people will be deported for earning less than £35,000‘, whilst the evidence of this incorrectness is not correctly voiced does not help matters any. The fact that all media seems to ignore section 14(f) of the regulations that clearly state “In all cases, the pay must be compliant with National Minimum Wage regulations“, gives rise that unneeded stress is being created, making the issues muddy and stressful for all immigrants and it is in my view counterproductive. On that other side, we see misrepresentation voiced via the BBC, where we get ‘EU laws ‘prohibit UK from sending foreign criminals home’‘ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36467725), we see the two speakers with the quotes “Mr Raab said British families were being put at risk – and argued leaving the EU would make the UK ‘safer’” and “Immigration minister James Brokenshire, who backs Remain, said the UK had deported 6,500 EU criminals since 2010“. In my view the statement from Mr Raab is a bit of a joke. Not because of the validity of the claim, but it is my personal view that in a population of 68 million, 50 are less than a blip on any radar, in addition when looking at places like banks like the Royal Bank of Scotland and accountancy firms like Pricewaterhouse Coopers. So when we consider the ‘swap victims‘ and Tesco, how many victims did that lead to and how many of those involved in those matters are currently in prison? I partially agree that an immigrant when intentionally choosing a life of crime has no business living in the UK (or any nation that they were not born in), but let’s remain a little bit more realistic, shall we?

This is exactly why people are confused and some are scared. The fact that the political players are taking this approach to ‘mis-communicate’ the issues is matter of concern. As we see statements that are regarded as ‘credible independent experts’, should enough evidence be shown that these credible experts have been on any agenda, or that any clear level of miscommunication is found, than these so called experts should be barred from any government contracts for no less than 10 years. See how that works! Here my reasoning is what we initially saw in Iceland (source: Inside Job), there were these so called ‘experts’ and their reports and actions made for a change that should never have been allowed.

I reckon that last week’s position that includes certain stated by Ipso MORI, should be published with the raw data. It is time to make it clear to all that misrepresentation requires addressing on both sides of the isle!

So when we see the BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36464905), ‘Don’t sit on the sidelines over EU, PM urges‘, which is a week old. Yet the quote “hailing warnings against an EU exit from Japanese multinational Hitachi and the chairwoman of the US Federal Reserve” instils within me the quotes “Would Janet Yellen be so kind to remain quiet and address the 19 trillion debt, preferably by actually solving the issues?” and towards Hitachi I would state “Yes, please consider moving away from a 68 million consumer base, and the moment the UK is progressing forward in an economy, consider the competitors that will then surpass you with 99% certainty. So the empty statement should be considered to be retracted at the very next opportunity!

These are just my views, but consider in a global economy of margins, walking away from a customer base of 68 million is completely unheard of. The fact that Hitachi did what it could to expand in the Netherlands, which is small in comparison to the UK implies clearly that it requires the UK to keep its top position. That view is strengthened when we consider the quote “Mr Nakanishi said his firm, whose European headquarters is located in Berkshire, had invested £1bn in the UK energy and rail sectors in recent years. He said it was in the process of recruiting 730 new workers to build the next generation of high-speed inter-city trains“, that part remains and it will make money the same way, it is a good investment, especially when the UK economy gets past the first wave and especially in light of the European economy slowing down for 2 more years. When Hitachi walks away and other Japanese firms come in Hitachi will find itself surpassed in more than one way. It cannot take that chance as I see it, yet again, it is my speculation and I could be wrong.

Now, I am not stating that this view is the right one, I am merely in the personal believe that my view is not wrong! Let me explain the difference. Hitachi might leave, yet why? Is that because of mere commerce or due to corporate tax shelters (or tax havens) that could fall away? How is a firm an asset when it relies on non-taxation? I think that it is time to completely overhaul that system. Revenue sounds sexy, but when it is not required to be taxed, how are they a good thing? We can argue about the semantics of a tax haven versus tax shelter until the oceans freeze over. The simple fact is that the tax coffers remain too empty to support the British way of life! If you do not believe me, than consider the shortage the UK currently has, it is nowhere as bad as in the US and Japan, but it is not good, the amoral approach that corporations have remains unaddressed. We were too eager to accept the amoral route of taxation, now that the backfire comes, we become all ‘holier than though’, yet it is not too late to take a different course, the corporations not adjusting will lose out. In the end, they have a product that requires a customer base, no customer base, no revenue, no profit. I am oversimplifying this! Am I wrong?

As I see it both sides seem to be misrepresenting the case, Bremain and Brexit are both coming with issues and to some extent they are intentionally miscommunicating the issue, creating fear for all those involved. The question here becomes the issue we see. When is a presentation for one’s position misrepresentation towards the people at large?

I showed yesterday with decent clarity that Bremain is misrepresenting the facts and I believe that we can see at present that Brexit is doing the same. It is the Independent that is now adding fuel to the fire. ‘EU referendum: Poll reveals massive swing to Brexit – with just 12 days to go‘ (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-leave-campaign-10-point-lead-remain-boris-johnson-nigel-farage-david-a7075131.html). On one side we see no wrong “The survey of 2,000 people by ORB found that 55 per cent believe the UK should leave the EU (up four points since our last poll in April), while 45 per cent want it to remain (down four points)” is fair enough. Yet, who was asked? I showed to all clearly that weighting and responses was an issue yesterday. Now we see the responses (2000), which is definitely indicative, but from where? You see, this article is from the survey point of view good. It gives us the numbers and other elements, yet the one part not given is where they were from. Perhaps that information was not available? And in this case geographic location is most certainly a factor!

The part that I do find interesting and valuable is seen in two quotes “According to ORB, 56 per cent of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back Remain when turnout is taken into account, but a dangerously high 44 per cent support Leave” and “Only 38 per cent of Tory voters endorse David Cameron’s stance by backing Remain, while 62 per cent support Leave“, which gives another light a part we did anticipate, it is the Conservative/UKIP side that has the largest Brexit sentiment. It is strengthened by 44% of labour voters. The fact that we see “the economy is more important than immigration” only gives additional value to this survey. If there is one issue with the article than it would be the ‘Take our EU referendum poll‘, because apart from Exit and Remain, the option ‘Undecided’ should be there, because that group remains too large and it will remain a significant group until the day before the election. In the end I would ‘casually’ predict it to be a 50.3 versus 49.6 result, because anything that is this important will nearly always be a close call. From a comical point of view it works, especially when we see the faces on Wall Street in the minutes after the results are announced.

What is nearly a given is no matter how it turns out, we will likely see the new version of Trivial Pursuit with an additional card. ‘What happened on June 23rd 2016?

The answer “Brexit, because Pizza!” or “Bremain, because Chicken Tikka Masala!” will be known in 12 days.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics