10.04.20
Posted in Standard at 7:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The World Wide Web (or WWW, or Web) is becoming more and more user-hostile over time; it has gotten so bad that people are pushed to use proprietary browsers (mostly Chromium-derived binary blobs) and are being spied on down to the level of mouse motion
THE DAYS of ActiveX may be behind us (more on that when we revisit deposition tapes, then scrutinise the contents).
Java? Mostly gone, but not JavaScript (it’s everywhere and it actively obstructs access to many sites).
“We’ve long explored alternatives to the World Wide Web…”Flash? Well, it’s gone like Adobe Shockwave, but in its place we now have DRM/EME and YouTube is practically inaccessible without a big pile of JavaScript. Most Web browsers I use in 2020 are no longer allowed anywhere near YouTube (it worked fine last year, but of course Google had to break it). Konqueror and QupZilla receive no love from YouTube any longer, but then again, remember that a couple of decades ago video on the Web typically meant downloading a bunch of Windows Media Player files, which would barely be playable on GNU/Linux (RealPlayer was hardly better). Days ago youtube-dl became broken again (Google’s fault, API changes apparently), which means that Techrights is waiting for a fix and isn’t publishing a bunch of planned videos (except Bill Gates deposition tapes, converted to Ogg format over a decade back).
The Web is not improving. Each time we think there’s a “win” for the so-called “Open Web” (like Adobe burying Flash officially this year, being the Trash Player that it is) there are actually new setbacks, including IRC being replaced with JavaScript-intensive tools of corporate espionage. A lot of today’s World Wide Web — like the Internet at large — is a massive surveillance machine. We’ve long explored alternatives to the World Wide Web (we’re still constantly looking and assessing substitutes), as HTTPS alone hardly tackles the big issues and many use certificates of questionable legitimacy “because it’s free!” (No, it’s not; nothing is really free when there are operational costs and considering the Linux Foundation‘s biggest sponsors we know it’s all about ‘surveillance capitalism’ or companies with spying interests)
It may take another decade or two for the “Web” (WWW) as we know it to be phased out, probably for something better (or more malicious, depending on our action/inaction) to gradually replace it. We cannot predict the nature of this thing, but it won’t be Gopher and we rarely move in the direction of growing simplicity, only growing complexity and obfuscations. To a lot of people around the world the “Web” is synonymous with “Facebook” and Facebook went out of its way to ensure people never navigative out of Facebook (or that moreover they use Facebook as their ISP/VPN).
There’s a lot of sinister stuff going on behind the scenes, putting aside the fact that Facebook wheels its data to Microsoft by the truckload. The Linux Foundation further encourages such “data sharing” (mass surveillance euphemised), as we noted last year.
Very few geeks will challenge the allegation that the “Web” (HTTP/2 or later) went the wrong way; what’s sorely needed is a good alternative that can gain inertia/momentum. The creator of the Web (Tim Berners-Lee) foolishly enough put his own alternative in Microsoft’s proprietary trap (GitHub). Can he not remember what Microsoft did to his ‘baby’? Pure sabotage.
Keep an eye on GNUnet, which Wikipedia describes as follows: “GNUnet is a software framework for decentralized, peer-to-peer networking and an official GNU package. The framework offers link encryption, peer discovery, resource allocation, communication over many transports (such as TCP, UDP, HTTP, HTTPS, WLAN and Bluetooth) and various basic peer-to-peer algorithms for routing, multicast and network size estimation.
GNUnet’s basic network topology is that of a mesh network. GNUnet includes a distributed hash table (DHT) which is a randomized variant of Kademlia that can still efficiently route in small-world networks. GNUnet offers a “F2F topology” option for restricting connections to only the users’ trusted friends. The users’ friends’ own friends (and so on) can then indirectly exchange files with the users’ computer, never using its IP address directly.
GNUnet uses Uniform resource identifiers (not approved by IANA, although an application has been made). GNUnet URIs consist of two major parts: the module and the module specific identifier. A GNUnet URI is of form
gnunet://module/identifier where module is the module name and identifier is a module specific string.”
Keep a close eye on GNUnet; we’re always eager to defect away from the broken “Web” and hop onto something else, whatever it may be. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software at 6:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Bullies (or Internet trolls with a corporate badge that lends them credibility) have a habit or a hobby of destroying the careers of people rightly or wrongly perceived to be an obstruction/barrier to their employer’s financial agenda
ONLY SEVERAL weeks ago we wrote about Salesforce that “[r]eaders must recall that this is the company whose head staff was pushing not only to oust [Richard] Stallman but everyone who supported Stallman as well (collective assassination),” taking note of someone who according to our job survey earns somewhere between £80,000 per annum to a lot more; a new job opening here in Greater Manchester says “£500 – £600 per day”. Alex Oliva was next in the ‘firing line’. I’ve long objected to separating workers from their paymasters when they express their views on matters directly related to their job. If a technical person writes something about politics, then fine, it would be unfair to hold the employer accountable for it (the person isn’t a politician after all but a technician or similar). But when you have some troll from Salesforce defaming Stallman repeatedly, and Salesforce has something to gain from demonisation of Stallman, then yes, it kind of matters.
“If a technical person writes something about politics, then fine, it would be unfair to hold the employer accountable for it (the person isn’t a politician after all but a technician or similar).”It matters even more and it’s worse because of money that Salesforce was moving around Stallman at the same time. A widely circulated and controversial storm of tweets (maybe over a hundred of them) said that not only should the FSF kick Stallman out but also kick out (from the FSF) everyone who still supported Stallman. Imagine the audacity. The person who said that wasn’t some ‘low-level’ employee but a high-level person. Ironically, Salesforce was also a top sponsor of CopyleftConf, along with Google and Microsoft. Copyleft is one of Stallman’s babies; so while pushing to remove Stallman and everyone who thinks like him Salesforce was also interjecting itself into a conference on copyleft. Copyleft-hostile companies funded the event, almost exclusively, and the person who set up the event... is now the GM of the OSI, i.e. the only salaried member of staff at the OSI. Something doesn’t pass the smell test, does it? It’s almost like a conspiracy by GPL violators and haters to weaken enforcers and make infringement acceptable. As today’s OSI mostly boosts Microsoft’s proprietary GitHub, which is GPL-hostile, one can draw and then connect dots.
Salesforce said nothing about Stallman in its capacity as a company (formal); even Red Hat was careful in the wording (it did mention "diverse"), as was the FSFE. A female worker did all the slandering, defaming Stallman repeatedly using faked 'evidence' that incited many people and gave momentum to the hashtags. Of course this female worker used “chauvinism” as a weapon, so to defend Stallman would instantaneously be seen as chauvinistic. Even if women who actually know Stallman (e.g. as a colleague) defended him at the time.
“We understand that this is a difficult subject to a lot of people because it’s often conflated with right-wing politics.”As we noted before in our Linux Foundation collection (chronologically sorted), Linus Torvalds is now bossed by several Microsoft employees, almost all of whom are female (perhaps all, 3 in total), so to moan about Microsoft would be risky; we’ve already seen what Sharp and other trolls did to him using the veil of “tolerance” (even half a decade ago). To misuse causes like this can actively harm those causes, especially if the underlying motivation has nothing to do with those causes. It can be an indirection.
There are similar examples in the EPO wiki (sorted both chronologically and by topic/theme, plus concise introduction at the top). The gist is, the EPO loves hiding its crimes and corruption behind the cover of “diversity” and then it can accuse people who ask hard questions of “abuse” or “harassment”.
We understand that this is a difficult subject to a lot of people because it’s often conflated with right-wing politics. People who are new to this topic quickly find a compelling reason (or many reasons) to distrust those who speak about the modus operandi, not the organisations/executives who leverage these methods, even though evidence can be extensive with no lack of examples of misconduct. We recently showed several from Debian. We need to spend some time organising these examples in a wiki page (where the titles alone give a gist for content of pertinent items/examples).
Last month Sharp’s sidekick, who attempted several times (in vain) to ‘cancel’ Torvalds, entered our IRC channel with bad intentions. He’s still lurking there, perhaps looking for a trigger event, having already demonised yours truly by attributing to me a position I do not hold (and never held). These are troublemakers and provocateurs; this one describes himself as “social justice warrior” (complete with a flair that says so in Reddit) and he receives his salary from Google.
“People start with false claims and then start an uproar (over their manufactured falsehood/s), in turn directing this uproar to employers (to force a resignation if not a humiliating firing).”Considering the nature of articles we’ve been publishing lately, it’s understandable that there will be attempts to shoot the messengers and harm the site’s credibility (e.g. by falsely claiming that it defends rapists). We’re no encyclopedia, we have nowhere near the budget of CommonDreams (or the corporate media, typically owned and controlled by selfish oligarchs), as we’re just a small group of volunteers with limited time and zero corporate strings.
This whole 'cancel culture' thing (Twitter’s ‘business model’, where the above troll demonised us last month) is why I no longer engage in Twitter. For a number of weeks the above troll kept messaging me with entrapments (loaded questions in Twitter); since I no longer participate in Twitter, as a matter of policy, he then came to our main IRC channel. The motivation and the methods remain largely the same. People start with false claims and then start an uproar (over their manufactured falsehood/s), in turn directing this uproar to employers (to force a resignation if not a humiliating firing). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Finance, Fraud, IBM at 5:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Techrights examines more of the past IBM does not want anyone to know about, ranging from serious crimes (like bribery, fraud, corruption, and bid-rigging) to abuse of women
ONE recurring theme here this past spring/summer was IBM weaponising diversity to oust men whom it cannot control (such as Richard Stallman) whilst ignoring IBM's own guilt. As covered here twice before [1, 2], IBM’s very leadership and top-level officials have much to hide themselves. Their history with women isn’t exactly stunning. It just takes a bit of effort to better understand what happened and at the moment we dig up very old press archives (1960s and 1970s) though “if anything is written,” an associate emphasised, “the direct relevance to today’s organization must be clearly visible. Arthur K. Watson (AKW) has been dead for almost half a century.” Here’s an old article about his appointment and his death one decade later. He died quite early.
For Watson, as a brand that IBM still champions (foremost marketing focus), the past should definitely matter. Not only did Watson the father receive a medal from the Nazis (for his service in implementing the Holocaust). What the Nazis did in the war didn't seem to bother him until the US entered the war. He became very wealthy and IBM became very powerful owing to racist eugenics agenda even prior to it. They literally helped the US Government commit ethnic cleansing of blacks, targeting “mixed” couples in particular (with sights on compelled sterilisation). The few historians who bother learning this subject are being obstructed by IBM, which goes out of its way to bury evidence.
That’s aside from the women’s rights aspects; and the purging of words, much like authoritarian regimes looking to control language itself. I reassured our associate that “the subject [of AKW] might become relevant and of use when IBM preaches from the high heels, claiming to be protector of women’s rights to defuse critics of its corporate conduct…”
4 years ago Arne Alsin published “The IBM Hall of Shame: A (Semi) Complete List of Bribes, Blunders and Fraud“
Just over a year ago, in October 2015, IBM disclosed to its shareholders that the company was facing (yet another) SEC investigation. This time, federal agents opened up a probe into how Big Blue reported revenue on “certain transactions” in the United States, the UK, and Ireland. In layman’s terms, it means that the SEC is looking into whether or not IBM is cooking the books.
Surprised? I’m not.
The jury’s still out on that particular case, but I’ve been doing my own research and investigation into IBM for the last decade, and the new revelations fits within a certain pattern: IBM gets implicated or accused of some corporate wrongdoing, the company “cooperates” with investigators, and then — just maybe — the government will slap them with a relatively minor fine. But more often than not, it seems to me, nothing happens, and it’s business as usual.
Don’t believe me? Well, that’s why I’ve compiled this handy guide that exposes the long and sordid history of IBM’s alleged violations, both domestic and abroad. Though the company has defended itself in every single case, the list does not paint a pretty picture: There are multiple cases of bribery, fraud, corruption, and bid-rigging. And they appear to be happening with increasing frequency.
Microsoft does the same thing, in effect defrauding shareholders and faking its financial performance. But let’s focus on IBM for now. Here are some excepts:
1993 — 2000, Argentina: Bribery through Swiss bank accounts
Let’s begin with one of the first IBM bribery cases on record.
In Argentina, the scandal was front-page news: Three high-level executives at IBM were caught bribing government officials with multi-million dollar kickbacks, routed through Swiss bank accounts, in order to win a $250 million contract to modernize the computer system of Argentina’s largest government-owned bank.
[...]
2004–2009, South Korea and China: Slush funds and fake invoices with more than 100 IBM employees involved.
Only a few years after the Argentina scandal, IBM was accused of another overseas bribery case — this time in South Korea and China.
[...]
2013, Poland, Argentina, Bangladesh and Ukraine: “Allegations relating to transactions…”
For this case, it looks like the SEC took a break and let the Department of Justice try its hand at investigating the overseas alleged fraud.
[...]
2011–2014, India: Did top IBM executives cook the books in India?
The important thing to know about IBM’s troubles in India is the scope of what happened: repeat accounting troubles over a period of several years. While this may have been swept under the rug in American media, after doing my own research, IBM’s trouble in India (where it has likely over 100,000 employees) gives me a lot of concern.
[...]
2013, USA: IBM under investigation for how it reports cloud revenue
May 2013 was apparently busy month at IBM and the SEC.
As noted above, in the spring of 2013, the SEC opened up investigations into IBM abroad. But at the same time, SEC also apparently opened up an inquiry into IBM in the United States.
[...]
2013–2016, Australia: “The worst failure of public administration in Australia’s history” — IBM is banned from doing business with Queensland’s government
The average American probably has no idea that IBM is completely banned as a contractor within Queensland’s government. Yes, really.
[...]
2015, Canada: Another bribery case at IBM
More allegations continue to surface that IBM is bribing government officials.
[...]
2015 — Present:
Bribery always involves phony books and records — it’s necessary to hide the transactions on the balance sheet. And in order to circumvent internal controls, bribery usually requires the involvement of senior management.
As we noted here before, this kind of bribery is "business as usual" at Microsoft and fraudulent reporting about "cloud" likewise. It’s a longstanding tradition and Microsoft tries to bribe and/or blackmail whistleblowers. It’s all in the public record now, albeit it takes some digging to find.
Speaking of digging, we’ve managed to locate additional reporting on what happened to the IBM chief who fell from grace, left his job (maybe forcibly), and died not too long afterwards. Not much is said about his premature death in mainstream sources. Decades of googlebombing make that rather difficult. His New York Times profile is 100% a puff piece. The obituary from the New York Times says “Mr. Watson, who was 55 years old, had been injured in a fall at his home in New Canaan, Conn., on July 18, and had been taken to the hospital.” Another drunken tirade, this time at his home/mansion?
It does not say much. There was, however, quite a bit of press coverage about his airplane tirade (“incident”), which led to admission that he had serious problems (apparently with alcohol and with women). In the words of this old article:
Key parts with our highlights added:
The report by Jack Anderson, the Washington columnist, that the Ambassador indulged in a “glorious drunk” on a transatlantic flight last March had hurt him. “Inwardly, and in the spin‐off on the family,” Mr. Watson said.
In the aftermath of the incident, Mr. Watson denied in a letter to Representative Wayne, L. Hays, Democrat of Ohio, that he had become intoxicated. He acknowledged in the letter, however, that “I was exceedingly, and, I think, uncharacteristically, rude.”
The incident was widely considered to have shortened his term at the embassy, but Mr. Watson said, “It didn’t hurt my job. There was hardly a ripple here.”
Here’s another one:
This article does not say who paid Mr. Nixon before getting this job/post:
He defended the conduct of Arthur K. Watson, the American Ambassador to France, who had been accused of being drunk on a recent flight from Paris to Washington.
Mr. Nixon, smiling, said that Mr. Watson had been carrying out talks with the Chinese Ambassador in Paris “with great competence — and, I understand, total sobriety.” [Question 18.]
He added that he had noted that some members of Congress had raised questions about “the personal conduct of an ambassador when he travels to his post.”
“I would say that people in glass houses should not throw stones,” he said.
Here’s yet another one:
Key parts with our highlights added:
Mr. Watson, a major contributor to Mr. Nixon’s 1968 campaign, was involved in a, controversy last March after Jack. Anderson, the columnist, reported “that he had been drunk and disorderly on a commercial trans. Atlantic flight, an accusation that Mr. Watson denied.
In his article, Mr. Anderson said that Mr. Watson became “gloriously drunk” on a flight from Paris to Washington shortly after he had been given the delicate job of establishing diplomatic contacts with the Chinese Communists in Paris.
He wrote that Mr. Watson had a chronic “liquor problem” that could spoil the Chinese American detente that followed President Nixon’s trip to Peking.
Both the Senate and Foreign Relations Committees and the House Foreign Affairs Committee opened investigations into the incident, and Mr. Watson said later that the Anderson account had been exaggerated.
The investigation was dropped after Secretary of State William P. Rogers wrote that Mr. Watson had apologized for the incident.
Some more:
Key parts with our highlights added:
The State Department expressed confidence today in Arthur K. Watson, Ambassador to France, following a newspaper columnist’s report that he had been “gloriously drunk” on an airliner.
The columnist, Jack Anderson, said the incident occurred aboard a flight from London to Washington last Thursday when Mr. Watson was returning for consultations on establishing contacts with the Chinese Ambassador in Paris.
The department spokesman, Charles W. Bray 3rd, declined direct comment on the columnist’s charges, but he said: “If you’re asking whether the department has confidence in Ambassador Watson and whether Ambassador Watson will continue to carry out his ambassadorial functions and other functions in connection with the ambassador of the People’s Republic of China, the answer is yes.”
Mr. Anderson quoted witnesses on the plane as saying:
“He kept up a holler for scotch and grabbed at passing stewardesses. He then tried to stuff $40 down the fronts of their blouses. Finally he passed out and slept for about three hours.”
And finally:
Key parts without highlights added:
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced yesterday that it would drop its inquiry into an alleged drinking incident involving Arthur K. Watson, United States Ambassador to France.
Senator J. W. Fulbright, chair man of the committee, said the committee “does not expect to pursue the matter further.” He made public a letter on the subject from Secretary of State William P. Rogers.
Columnist Jack Anderson wrote that Mr. Watson was “gloriously drunk” and abusive toward crew members on a Pan‐American flight, March 9, from Paris to Washington. Mr. Watson denied he was drunk, but acknowledged in a letter to Representative Wayne Hays, Democrat of Ohio, that he was rude and had “harsh exchanges” with the crew.
Mr. Rogers said in his letter to Mr. Fulbright “Ambassador Watson has said that he deeply regrets the episode, and assures me that it will not recur.”
So it’s his word against that of the eyewitness (we’re talking about First or Business Class here, so it’s not some random eyewitness but quite likely a high-profile person, maybe even plane crew like pilot).
Watson isn’t denying there was a major incident. Watson was very drunk at the time, so maybe his recollection is conveniently selective. He already acknowledged the rudeness and he left his position not too long afterwards. Airline crew was reportedly gagged about the incident, after threats had been made and deterrents issued (to protect the “VIP” and his reputation). As a reminder, as per tapes from the White House (President Nixon, who had received financial contributions from Watson), the abuse of women was seen as “OK” because Watson was “Chasing Girls” and not “Chasing Boys”; how typical of Nixon.
Mr. Watson died at his home (well, after hospitalisation albeit the incident occurred at his home) less than 2 years after stepping down. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Microsoft, Videos at 4:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Today we proceed to part 4 of the deposition tapes, where spoiled brat Bill Gates is actually being questioned about crimes committed whilst at Microsoft
BILL GATES hopes you forgot (or never saw) these tapes. In the first part we saw a relaxed and arrogant (overconfident) Gates, who soon (second part) became a wilted flower with not much to say in his defence (third part). Here’s part four, which starts with a seemingly demented person who takes nearly a minute to answer a very simple question (with a partial lie, Netscape was the only competitor which worried them in this domain):
After the first question he tries to attack the interviewer, dismissing him as misinformed and evading the actual question, which needs to be asked and re-asked again and again.
“After the first question he tries to attack the interviewer, dismissing him as misinformed and evading the actual question, which needs to be asked and re-asked again and again.”It’s quite revealing, isn’t it? Gates isn’t a computer scientist but a well-connected and ambitious businessman who never graduated from college yet regards himself or views himself as an incredible genius who can talk down anyone who does not agree with him, dismissing perfectly informed people as dumb and a nuisance (to him at least). The judge in this case rightly characterised this sociopath (see below).
This attitudinal defect or social deficiency was widespread at Microsoft at the time and it prevails until present days. Willingness to lie and to commit crimes is almost like a job requirement, as evidence presented and extracted from the company serves to show.
Not many people remember this deposition anymore (and young people never saw it, probably not even aware of it; some were born into the era of Gates as “philanthropist” and “vaccine guru”).
“There’s plenty of material about Bill, however, from the late 1990′s,” we’ve been reminded. “No one in tech liked him, and that included all the magazines and newspapers. So he used his ill-gotten gains to eliminate the trade press at the same time he replaced tech with Microsoft resellers.”
For example:
BBC News (before Gates was bribing it every now and then, obviously for bias, and Microsoft UK executives took positions of power over there): Gates, a modern-day Napoleon?
“The BBC was already sucking [up to him] by then but the others cover it more neutrally,” an associate of ours noted, adding some more links about it:
At the end we’ll tie together all the parts and closely examine the contents, based on available transcripts and legal documents. Over a decade ago we published a lot of material obtained through subpoena. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA