Watch out Your Member of Parliament Maybe a Person of Interest.

This is an updated verion of an article originally published by Tom Koltai at 01:54PM (EST) on October 6, 2009

Man is a competitive member of the animal kingdom.

Our nature is to compete with one another for food, shelter, mates and attention. Attention? Well yes, the more attention you get the better your prospects of :

Obtaining a mate and earning money.

So Koltai, the attention seekers are the most likely candidates for Presidential election?

Well think about it. Imagine being a 17 year old pimply faced boy.

How often would he get laid? (Whatever your answer, the 17 year old would say – “Not enough”…..)

Now imagine if the pimply faced boy were President of the USA?

How often would the President of the USA get laid? OK – I’ll say “could” for the benefit of the female married audience.

So Koltai you blog because you want attention and want to get laid?

No, I don’t want attention for moi, I want attention drawn to the plight of the world that all seems to stem from four main issues. (As for the other – I’m starting to get a bit long in the tooth for that.)

Problem with the World ISSUE #1

Commercial interests have turned amoral. They are unable to distinguish the difference between making a profit and killing large chunks of the world population [through “designer” pigs, corn et al, that are unable to reproduce,] by controlling their products through international trade agreements like ACTA.

So ACTA is an excuse for Genocide.

Yes. But unfortunately it’s been prettied up to be about Internet file-sharing.

Problem with the World ISSUE #2

The Federal Reserve Bank of the USA has devised a securitization methodology of building an economy based on future Debt.

Other Governments have followed the lead of the Federal Reserve as being an ideal model to create an economy around that benefits those at the top.

It would appear to benefit all mankind, being able to live in a nice house, being able to drive a late model car and having a 50” LCD cinema in the lounge room.

But unfortunately, all of these “trimmings” are essentially a result of consumer programming.

You are successful if you drive a Mercedes.

You can only be successful if you take holidays first class.

You must wear Armani to be considered for the top job, top earning boyfriend etc etc.

The majority of the world can’t afford Armani. But armed with a credit card, they forget this.

Most of us don’t drive Mercedes cars… or live in Belair Cote de Zur or Double Bay.

But Koltai isn’t it fair to reward the achievers?

Yes I think it is.

But not by creating funny money that then bites the entire world in it’s arse.

Problem with the World, ISSUE #3

Lying to the population.

Advertising has always about getting the public to buy something that commercial interests need you to buy so they can buy their new house on the cote d’azur.

They are not really objects without which man couldn’t survive.

This brings us to the great equalizer. The Internet.

The Internet has enabled the world – i.e. those that are not living in Double Bay, Cote d’azur or Beverley Hills to talk about the unfairness of certain policies deemed by the population to be unfair, unjust or lacking in moral fibre.

(No, no examples – go and read some blogs.)

Problem with the World ISSUE #4

Expressing Dissatisfaction with any element of officialdom on the Blog-sphere, Twitter and Facebook.

Those that speak of any of these topics out loud are branded “insurgent, trouble maker, activist, investigative journalist, commie, revolutionary”.

In other words, the official documentation of the worlds law enforcement officials are sending free speech underground, forcing people to hide their commentaries behind pseudonym user names like the now renowned/infamous Anonymous.

The recent Wikileaks leak of the UK Government secret internal document on how to manage leaks made me realise that the Governments of the world don’t really want free speech. They preach it, but then instruct their minions to stamp it out. To place those who practice it on watch lists as “enemies of the state”.

From Wikileaks: "2389 classified pages on how the UK stop leaks"

This significant, previously unpublished document (classified "RESTRICTED", 2389 pages), is the UK military protocol for security operations, including counter-intelligence.

The document includes instructions on dealing with leaks, investigative journalists, Parliamentarians, foreign agents, terrorists & criminals, sexual entrapments in Russia and China, diplomatic pouches, allies, classified documents & codewords, compromising radio and audio emissions, computer hackers.and many other related issues.

The document, known in the services as the "JSP 440" ("Joint Services Protocol 440"), was referenced by the RAF Digby investigation team as the protocol justification for the monitoring Wikileaks, as mentioned in "UK Ministry of Defence continually monitors WikiLeaks: eight reports into classified UK leaks, 29 Sep 2009".

Example excerpts (WikiLeaks, [see http://bit.ly/CgxBY], "D Def Sy" means Directorate of Defence Security):

"Non-traditional threats

The main threats of this type are posed by investigative journalists, pressure groups, investigation agencies, criminal elements, disaffected staff, dishonest staff and computer hackers. The types of threat from these sources can be categorized in six broad groups: a. Confidentiality. Compromise of politically sensitive information. This threat is presented by: (1) Pressure groups and investigative journalists attempting to obtain sensitive information. (2) Unauthorized disclosure of official in formation (leaks)..."

"Investigative journalists have exploited personal tax information; they also target commercial and financial information as do criminal elements seeking financial advantage. "

Continues....... At http://tinyurl.com/wlmod

As the reader can see, the document attempts to smear investigative journalists and members of the public by associating them in the same sentences as foreign agents, terrorists & criminals, sexual entrapments and; GASP…. Parliamentarians those most despicable of people – our elected representatives and their staffers.

I always thought that when the Military attacked the Head of State that was termed Revolution; however it would seem that in the UK it’s just normal business.

I would say this is the biggest problem in the world.

Although in Australia we seem to be inventing our own version of of unattainable orwellian control devices...
Problem with the World ISSUE #5

Inteligent men whom unfortunately don't understand the Internet, thinking they can halt the digital tide and implent outmoded concepts of "content classification"  (like Australia's proposed rabbit proof Internet filter).

Rabbit proof ?

Koltai joke. It has as much chance of keeping back the hoards of rabbits as the internet filter has of keeping back just .0001% of the words unsavoury websites.

So why are the Australian politicians introducing a filter?

To satisfy the 20,000 christian lobyists who voted 93% in favour of it.

Koltai, you said "problem for the world", but that filter is only for Australia.

So it is. So tell me that you don't think that other countries will look at the level headed, friendly Aussies and calculate that the benefit to them of implementing a filter also? Politcally, a filter in Australia is a perfect "first step" in implementing a 1984 world globally.
As I have suggesteed before, Politicians and magicians have a lot in common; "Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and grls, now watch this hand waving in the air....... " and then implementing an unexpected magic trick (with the other hand) that either gets them applause/re-election, or not.

So what are we left with ?

A world where persons expressing themselves can automatically land themselves on “terrorist suspect lists” just for speaking their mind.

Didn’t we pass some laws a while back allowing freedom of speech?

Oh, not in the UK.

Oh, and not in Australia.

I guess it’s probably too late for me to start blogging as “anonymous”.

I blog under my own name because I think the world would be a far better place if more people stood up to be counted.

The Danger of Social Computing or Publishing Maps

by Tom Koltai at 10:25AM (EST) on April 30, 2009
 
On Neil Diamond's Album, Hot August Night, he calls out… Hello out there Tree People…..

His words – which impressed me over thirty years ago are obviously an acknowledgement by Neil, that even the non-paying tree people had a value, by adding to the carnival atmosphere of the concert and just by being there, were therefore worthy of his recognition.

He didn’t chastise them for being free-loaders – everyone knew they were freeloading. He merely acknowledged them warmly as part of the event of a Hot August Night. (The Album became the number one seller in the US for a considerable time).

Could it be that part of the reason for his success was his treatment of the freeloaders and the subsequent public understanding of his comment to the the tree people?

However it was also those words that in my mind justified the actions of myself and three friends jumping the fence at the Western Springs Stadium in Auckland New Zealand a few years later to watch Led Zeppelin.

Did we break the law, obviously, so why did we do it ?

Well at the time – we were poor starving students that couldn’t afford the $7.00 concert entry ticket price.

Hell, for me, $7.00 equaled 2 loaves of bread, 2 dozen eggs, a ½ pound of  butter and a jar of coffee and bag of sugar for two weeks (Basically I lived on a variation of poached egg on toast for breakfast lunch and tea). In other words – the price of the concert tickets was two weeks food bill but I had serious conflict. From a higher power than that which employed the security guards around the Western Springs venue - my girlfriend wanted to see “Stairway to Heaven“ being performed live.

Can you imagine me saying no? (Especially when we were staying at digs only 800 meters from the Western Springs Stadium fence-line.)
The peer pressure was to jump the fence.

Now imagine if we had been strangers to the area and the four of us had driven there by car and stopped to ask a lone walker for directions to the Concert.

Hi, can you give us directions to the Zep concert please.
Sure, the average citizen would answer – and then they would proceed to give directions.

Then we would proceed to jump the fence and enjoy the concert for free.

Can you imagine the following Newspaper story in 1976 …..

Individual giving directions to Rock and Roll concert freeloaders gets 12 months Jail and $50,000 fine.

No you can’t because in 1976 – jumping the fence wasn’t much of a crime.

The judges would have laughed it out of the court…. And on the question of jailing the signpost, the directions giver, the guidebook, the UBD map, the community pin board, the search engine;
well I think on that question, thirty years ago, our Judiciary would have said – no – that’s quite impossible.
Giving directions to people that you suspect might jump the fence is certainly not a crime.

So – tell me. Am I growing crazy or did we with the Pirate Bay case just see the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms  get overturned in Stockholm.

What happened to the right to give directions without being automatically associated as a criminal?

Here’s the link to the Translation of the Courts ruling in the Pirate Bay Case – now translated to English  http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/04/piratebayverdicts.pdf

Here’s the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html
Keywords:  Berne, Hot August Night, Neil Diamond, freedom of speech, Human rights, tree people, P2P, pirate bay

P2P the New Hardware Buzzword.

by Tom Koltai at 01:13AM (EST) on April 1, 2009

In years to come, we will see P2P “Enabled” hardware advertised by the Goodguys. For the moment, P2P users must get used to the idea that just like in the early eighties, prior to the Sony Betamax decision, everyone that owned a VCR was a criminal.
In 1984, after seven years of litigation, the Supreme Court largely upheld the lower court's initial ruling. In the most far-reaching portion of that decision, that court said flatly that a product is not liable for contributory infringement if it is also used for legitimate purposes. "Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial non-infringing uses," the court wrote.
The court also held that home recording, at least for the noncommercial use of "time shifting," was not infringement.

Those last two sentences become rather important when compared to P2P software. With the BBC’s iPlayer, TVUplayer (30,000 users to 400,000 users in 5 months) and number of smaller but legal implementations and uses of P2P software (e.g.: CNN news broadcasts), the numbers of P2P users are swelling. Consequently it is becoming difficult for statisticians to differentiate between legal file sharing and unapproved file sharing.

Which makes today’s anecdote rather exciting.

The other day I was talking about a Time Machine.

P2P is a constantly evolving technology/activity.

Users on the east coast (Philly) apparently are Time-shifting new episodes of House (MD) – removing the adverts with Video Redo and Posting it immediately on the Internet.

Users on the west coast (San Fran) have got used to being able to download the new episodes and watch half the program (advert free – TiVo proof)  before the scheduled timeslot arrives on the west coast.

Now half an hour may not seem like much of  a time machine – but when you add the fact that TiVo cant now sell “Guaranteed – Skip Button over-ride House MD advertising” to P2P enabled content watchers on the west coast any more, it starts to become a little more interesting.

Remember, the judge ruled that the technology, if capable of being used substantially for non-infringement uses was not liable as a contributor to the infringement AND that time shifting was legal.

I don’t think he meant forwards in time – but what the heck….. I’m sure the US Judiciary likes to watch House and Judge Judy adfree as well.



Keywords:  iPlayer, time shifting, judge judy, House MD, TVU, tivo, time machine, P2P

The War between the RIAA and The Rest of the World

by Tom Koltai at 05:31PM (EST) on March 29, 2009


War throughout the ages has been traditionally declared for the acquisition by one sovereign state (or Warlord) of another’s (sovereign state or Warlords') possessions.
The legitimacy of the process is provided for by the Charters and Constitutions of nearly all of the World Governments.
Censorship, introduced by those Governments has traditionally been in force to prevent the people from observing that which the Governments decided was not good for them. In this manner, throughout the ages, Governments have prevented their populace from being able to seed revolution.
Unfortunately, the Internet has provided the tools of Global free speech uniting the world, not against their Governments, but against Corporate America.

Definition (US site) DECLARATION OF WAR - An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between a nation and some other nation. This power is vested in Congress by the Constitution, There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act. The public proclamation of the government of a state, by which it declares itself to be at war with a foreign power, and which forbids all and every one to aid or assist the common enemy. A manifesto stating the causes of the war is usually published, but war exists as soon as the act takes effect. It was formerly usual to precede hostilities by a public declaration communicated to the enemy, and to send a herald to demand satisfaction, but that is not the practice of modern times. If the content Industry with its own peculiar accounting systems, offshore bank accounts for the receipt of licensing and royalty fees, international lobbyists (Content Industry Ambassadors) to all Governments isn’t a recognized Independent State, it should be.

SunTzu provides an insight [http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html] into how the result may turn out.
(Using the Stanza numbering from the web site)

12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let
      them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:--

13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law?  
      (2) Which of the two generals has most ability?  
      (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth?  
      (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?  
      (5) Which army is stronger?  
      (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?  
      (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?
14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat

The answers at the moment are in my opinion,
(1) The Global Internet Community
(2) The Global Internet Community - IF it bands together
(3) The Global Internet Community
(4) RIAA
(5) The Global Internet Community
(6) RIAA
(7) RIAA

Therefore - at the moment we have a slight advantage. In the last week, that advantage started to grow.

Last week a colleague stated that US Corporations were currently in survival mode. “Telcos and Content Companies are going to be squaring off to try to monetise the consumer in any way that they can.”
This week some extraordinary comments started emanating from some of the biggies.
AT&T"We are not under any circumstances going to suspend or terminate any customer's service as a result of a third-party allegation unless they have a court order," Mr. Cicconi said. "The copyright owner has legal rights, and we are not going to be the agent to enforce their rights."
Comcast:"Comcast, like other major ISPs, forwards notices of alleged infringement that we receive from music, movie, videogame, and other content owners to our customers. This is the same processwe've had in place for years - nothing has changed. While we have always supported copyright holders in their efforts to reduce piracy under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and continue to do 50, we have no plans to test a 50-called 'three-strikes-and-you're-out' policy."

It would appear that survival is becoming more important than Corporate comradeship.
Governments are also starting to see where the tide is swelling and siding with the voters (filesharers).New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said last Monday:
“We have now asked the minister of commerce to start work on a replacement section [for 92A]… There is a need for legislation in this area. Some progress was made between copyright holders and the ISPs but not enough to agree a code of conduct… In our view there are a number of issues that made it difficult to complete that code of conduct without fixing the fundamental flaws in section 92a.”

And it would seem that even in the courts, the content industry is managing to upset the judges.According to this story recently on P2PNet, the RIAA lawyers basically snubbed Juctice Nancy Gertner and told her to Stick her Decision…... ( a request for additional detail on a motion that the RIAA didn’t want to respond too).

The History of Censorship in Australia.
Many in Australia consider the Governments Internet Filter a methodology of returning Australia to the days of old when Censorship was the norm.
From the 1930 Australian National Yearbook [large pdf file] page 760 under the heading........
CHAPTER XXVI.—MISCELLANEOUS.§ 11. Film Censorship.
1. Legislation. The censorship of imported films derives its authority from section 52 (g) of the Customs Act, which is the section giving authority to prohibit the importation of goods. Under this section proclamations have been issued prohibiting the importation of films and relative advertising matter except under certain conditions and with the consent of the Minister. The conditions governing importation are contained in regulations issued under the Customs Act and provide, inter alia, that no film shall be registered which in the opinion of the censor is,(a) blasphemous, indecent or obscene; (b) likely to be injurious to morality, or to encourage or incite to crime;(c) likely to be offensive to the people of any friendly nation; (d) likely to be offensive to the people of the British Empire; or (e) depicts any matter the exhibition of which is undesirable in the public interests.

Therefore the Governments desire to be able to filter P2P content is demonstrably based on the historical methodology of prudent governance of a Nation.

However, there appears to be some objection to this being able to occur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sYTuP_UnM&feature=player_embedded

With the Population making anonymous Manifesto threats – there is no doubt, some would say, the world is most definitely at war.
With Corporations and Governments siding with the people does the content industry have a chance?
The financial and voter reality is – probably not.



Keywords:  NZ section92a, SzunTu, censorship, war, RIAA, P2P