04.04.21
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Series index:
- The EPO Bundestagate — Part 1: How the Bundestag Was (and Continues to be) Misled About EPO Affairs
- The EPO Bundestagate — Part 2: Lack of Parliamentary Oversight, Many Questions and Few Answers…
- The EPO Bundestagate — Part 3: A “Minor Interpellation” in the German Bundestag
- The EPO Bundestagate — Part 4: Parroting the GDPR-Compliance Myth
- The EPO Bundestagate — Part 5: The Federal Eagle’s Disconcerting Metamorphosis
- You are here ☞ Dr Petri Starts the Ball Rolling…
Summary: Our story begins with a letter from the Bavarian Data Protection Commissioner in May 2014
The events which form the focus of the present series began to unfold back in April 2014 when a member of the public requested the Bavarian State Data Protection Commissioner, Dr Thomas Petri, to investigate the EPO‘s data protection framework.
Dr Petri took up the matter and came to the conclusion that the EPO’s data protection framework was not fit for purpose.
“Dr Petri took up the matter and came to the conclusion that the EPO’s data protection framework was not fit for purpose.”In particular he found [PDF] that there was no independent supervisory authority which could supervise compliance with data protection regulations at the EPO. This basically meant that “data subjects” had no effective means of enforcing their rights under data protection law.
However, Petri’s examination of the legal situation noted that the authorised contracting party to the European Patent Convention was the Federal Republic of Germany, not the regional states (“Länder”).
This meant that the deficient character of the EPO’S data protection framework was an issue that he could not pursue on his own.
It would need to be taken up at a national level by the competent national data protection authority, namely the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (German abbreviation “BfDI”).
“In August 2014, Voßhoff proceeded to contact the Justice BMJV to draw the Minister’s attention to the matter and to propose the establishment of an independent data supervisory authority for the EPO.”Following the conclusion of his investigation, Dr Petri, contacted his counterpart at federal level, the BfDI’s Ms Andrea Voßhoff, in a letter dated 5 May 2014 [PDF] in which he summarised his findings and expressed his concerns.
In particular, Petri proposed that the BfDI should “work towards the establishment of a data protection supervision at the European Patent Office by a fully independent oversight body.” He noted that the competent government ministry was the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV).
Ms Voßhoff concurred with Dr Petri’s legal assessment of the situation his concerns on the issue of independent data protection supervision at the EPO.
In August 2014, Voßhoff proceeded to contact the Justice BMJV to draw the Minister’s attention to the matter and to propose the establishment of an independent data supervisory authority for the EPO. The Minister for Justice at the time in question was Heiko Maas of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD).
The BMJV responded to Ms Voßhoff’s communication in November 2014 [PDF].
“Hubig explained that Germany could not unilaterally pursue reform of the EPO’s data protection framework because of the EPO’s “autonomous” status in international law and the fact that institutional questions were regulated in a multilateral treaty, the European Patent Convention (EPC).”The response was issued by Dr Stefanie Hubig, an SPD party member and State Secretary (“Staatssekretär”) at the BMJV reporting directly to the Minister Heiko Maas.
Hubig’s response is full of the usual pious platitudes about data protection being “an extremely important issue for the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection” and the typical waffle and hand-waving about how “the BMJV is committed to high data protection standards and their constant further development on many levels.”
Hubig explained that Germany could not unilaterally pursue reform of the EPO’s data protection framework because of the EPO’s “autonomous” status in international law and the fact that institutional questions were regulated in a multilateral treaty, the European Patent Convention (EPC).
According to the BMJV, any revision of the EPC would require a diplomatic conference of all contracting states, “a time-consuming procedure by means of which changes cannot be implemented in the short term.”
The letter ended with the standard run-of-the-mill assurance that “the BMJV will continue to work within the framework of the EPOrg to ensure that high data protection standards and an independent data protection structure are maintained and further developed.”
“At that point it seemed as if the EPO file had been consigned to the BfDI’s archives – at least as far as the German authorities were concerned – and that nothing further was likely to happen at a national level in the foreseeable future.”In December 2014 Ms Voßhof wrote back [PDF] to Dr Petri to inform him of the BMJV’s response.
She noted with regret that the BMJV did not take up her proposal to establish an independent external data protection supervisory authority over the EPO by amending the European Patent Convention (EPC) because of the necessity to convince a diplomatic conference of all 38 contracting states.
Ms Voßhoff described the BMJV’s reluctance to push for a review of the matter within the EPO as “regrettable but understandable” in view of the large number of countries that would have to be engaged and convinced.
Because of the lack of uptake on the part of the BMJV, Ms Voßhoff thought that an approach that addressed many member states of the EPC simultaneously was likely to be more effective.
For this reason she proposed to raise the issue of independent data protection oversight of the EPO at EU level “within the framework of the [EU] Article 29 Working Group in Brussels”, an advisory body of the EU made up of a representative from the data protection authority of each EU Member State, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Commission.
Voßhoff took the view that “a letter from the chair of the Working Group to the EDPS could provide the necessary European impetus for an amendment of the EPC.”
At that point it seemed as if the EPO file had been consigned to the BfDI’s archives – at least as far as the German authorities were concerned – and that nothing further was likely to happen at a national level in the foreseeable future.
However, as we shall see in the next part, not long afterwards in June 2015 the BfDI was prompted dust off the file following revelations in the press about unauthorised covert surveillance activities by Battistelli‘s Pinkertons, the notorious EPO "Investigative Unit". █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 10:41 am by Guest Editorial Team
Article by Mitchel Lewis, reprinted with permission
There’s currency in appearing progressive and woke in this day and age and manufacturing this appearance is body of work that all PR people are tasked with. But it’s important to remember it doesn’t take a PR specialist to tell the truth; anyone can do that. Generally speaking, PR is a critical component of corporate Machiavellianism and PR people are skilled in the art of manipulating and bludgeoning the truth to polish a public image, lying if you will, and it’s wise to assume that the inverse is true of whatever PR says because of this; hence why so many already take what PR says with a grain of salt. And this is especially the case when PR specialists are employed by monopolies.
“Unsurprisingly, anyone that has worked at Microsoft can confirm that they operate in an authoritarian or mafia-esque manner when evaluating their structures and hierarchy from the inside.”With this in mind though along with the fact that FAAMG monopolies (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google) are perpetually trying to establish themselves as egalitarian entities filled to the brim with employees that are as progressive as they are diverse via exhaustive PR campaigns, I’m forced to question whether the inverse is true of this as well and if there is a plurality of conservatives, incels, qanon followers, magats, proud boys, and the like, losers if you will, within their ranks instead. So let’s pick on Microsoft like always and see if my PR Inversa hypothesis holds up.
In order to advance this armchair hypothesis of mine into the realm of theory though, I feel that it’s important to first highlight that if these companies were brimming with egalitarianism and diverse progressives throughout their ranks as they claim in their mission, value statements, and fluff articles then we would see ample evidence of them actually behaving in a more progressive fashion. Among other things, we’d also see added transparency and a track record of being more receptive to progressive ideas and the like too, but none of these emergent properties of progressivism seem to immediately evident upon further inspection.
Unsurprisingly, anyone that has worked at Microsoft can confirm that they operate in an authoritarian or mafia-esque manner when evaluating their structures and hierarchy from the inside. Of course, some internal employees may disagree with this, but few can recall the last time that they voted on anything meaningful instead of simply being told what to do. I spent 5 years there and I don’t recall a vote about anything substantial.
“Much like any criminal enterprise, transparency and speaking to the press are heavily frowned upon to say the very least.”Not only does Microsoft have a strict and authoritarian chain of command which rarely gets broken and meets anyone that falls out of line with an iron fist, but their very structure also functions as a hedge against unions and seldom have to resort to traditional union-busting tactics because of this. As a result, FAAMG monopolies are virtually union-proof with their workforce diversified through a coctail of internal employees and vendors distributed through countless contingent staffing firms which function as organized labor shelters. If you think unionizing one company with endless resources and the wealthiest people in the world running them is hard, then imagine unionizing 100 such companies simultaneously; basically impossible. None of which lends credence to their progressive narrative given the importance of labor unions to said narrative. Strike 1.
Much like any criminal enterprise, transparency and speaking to the press are heavily frowned upon to say the very least. Whistleblowers and people pushing for changes on ethical grounds are swiftly removed from their ranks like melanomas while PR people are the only ones allowed to speak to the press. Everything is on a need-to-know basis, password protected, encrypted, and wrapped in a bow of security clearance. And they seem to have a penchant for recruiting from the CIA, NSA, DOD, and the like; they’re the only people who can obtain the clearances to manage the JEDI and other dedicated government infrastructure. Heck, with Frank Shaw, their head of PR, being a former marine and graduate of the Department of Defense Information School (DINFOS), it’s safe to assume that Microsoft is leveraging military grade PR tactics too. And upon accepting this, it’s safe to assume that whoever is structuring these monopolies is more influenced by The Art of War and Mein Kampf than anything that Noam Chomsky has written. Strike 2.
Further and when evaluating their employees on their individual merits, trends emerge and these companies do not appear to be the GAP commercial that they claim to be either as any quick trip through their weird open offices will reveal. Instead of the multicultural utopia we’re often sold by PR people and their stenographers throughout the media, it’s often a binary of white, often American, and Asian men hiding behind an outlier rainbow of tokenized PoC, women, and foreigners; almost like some weird form of corporate blackface. Some working there certainly think that they’re hard-line Democrats, but there are many kinds of delusion and it’s hard to be a democrat while working at a monopoly. Nice try, but Strike 3.
“When is the last time you’ve seen Microsoft or any other tech monopoly lobby for better worker protections like a group of actual liberals would do?”Their ranks are also clearly divided politically, just like the rest of the country, but their desire for blind loyalty leads them to favor those prone to zeal, idolatry, and herd think, loyalty if you will, during the candidate selection process which these aforementioned losers are vulnerable to falling prey to. Meanwhile, corporate whistleblowers and people deemed disloyal tend to be blacklisted from all of these companies regardless of their competencies.
While their various PACs indeed funnel money to both sides, they seem to funnel a disproportionate amount to right-leaning candidates and authoritarian causes that expand the use of predatory surveillance, AI, and right-wing agendas; even after the presidential election and the January 6th riot. And that’s only when they aren’t lobbying for stripping employees of even more of their rights, benefits, and earning potential.
When is the last time you’ve seen Microsoft or any other tech monopoly lobby for better worker protections like a group of actual liberals would do? Never? Unsurprisingly, you can often find them lobbying against the best interests of individuals and the societal whole like your average loser, almost as if it’s some emergent property of having a plurality of said losers throughout their ranks or something. Strike 4.
And still to no surprise, you can even find countless instances of monopolies harboring these loyal losers throughout their ranks if you know where to look. At Microsoft, they have internal message boards on Yammer and distribution lists in Outlook/Exchange that are dedicated to these aforementioned losers, their delusions, their paranoia, and their resultant conspiracy theories. At one point in time even had an internal gun club (msgun) that was 20–30,000 members strong distribution list (almost all gun nuts are fervent Trump supporters mind you); only removing said groups when their existence is revealed so as not to threaten their elaborate progressive narrative. In 2000 alone though, msgun donated $100,000 to the NRA which Microsoft matched and they only got bigger since then.
“Unsurprisingly, you can often find them lobbying against the best interests of individuals and the societal whole like your average loser, almost as if it’s some emergent property of having a plurality of said losers throughout their ranks or something.”Most recently in late March though, Microsoft deleted another wannabe 8chan board on their internal Yammer site, presumably due to looming outrage, which resulted in an incel engineer meltdown that later digressed into them trash-talking me of all people for reasons that escape me; as if a bunch of white nationalists disliking me wasn’t a compliment or something. While flattering after all this time, that’s strike 5.
Adding insult to injury, Github, a subsidiary of Microsoft recently fired a Jewish employee for warning their peers about nazis on January 6th while turning a blind eye to employees saying that Nazis gave the jews free healthcare; only offering to reinstate the fired employee after the atrocity of it all was made public. Strike 6.
“None of which should come as a surprise though upon considering that Kathleen Hogan, their chief of people, is a Harvard grad of all things; you know that place with the stellar ethics record whose graduates aren’t consistently destroying the world from every possible angle and ruining work for everyone. Strike 7.”But wait there’s more. With a plurality of antiquated and deranged men like this dominating your organization, it often goes overlooked that it requires a gaggle of bonafide Stepford wives to comprise their HR department to keep these dimwits installed throughout their ranks. These people don’t just have a habit of voting against their best interests, they often act against their best interests throughout their lives. And keeping the loser brigade of cement feathered birds employed while militantly chasing their opposition and victims out of the company is a full-time job that Microsoft pays handsomely for. None of which should come as a surprise though upon considering that Kathleen Hogan, their chief of people, is a Harvard grad of all things; you know that place with the stellar ethics record whose graduates aren’t consistently destroying the world from every possible angle and ruining work for everyone. Strike 7.
Despite these losers being mainstream with their conspiracies, ignorances, pathologies, and degraded capacities which most definitely limit their ability to function at the largest software company in the world/only software company left in the world, they still have the utmost job security without even having to apply for ADA protections that any other delusional demographic would have to obtain in order to keep their job in such a privileged and secure environment. Something tells me that an progressive organization wouldn’t be so accommodating of such demographics despite their obvious mental illness. If anything, they’d likely be put on medical leave, forced into an independent medical evaluation, and fired if they refused. Strike 8.
As if this were not bad enough, you can also see all of these FAAMG monopolies sycophantically competing against each other to outfit low brow government agencies with their services and wares like it’s their führer. So far as I can tell, there is nothing that our government can do that would compel FAAMG to withdraw or restrict service to any of its entities. For example and even though using Microsoft products to harm or endanger children is expressly forbidden in their terms of service, you can’t find a branch of the KKK…err DHS that isn’t standardized on their ecosystem despite their blatant and consistent human rights violations. So far as I can ascertain, ICE could be eating immigrant babies on live TV every night and Microsoft probably still wouldn’t flinch at offering them their suite of productivity tools and services; the same goes for GitHub.
ii. Don’t engage in any activity that exploits, harms, or threatens to harm children. — Microsoft Services Agreement
SSO configured for Office 365 by Newsmax and Fox News.
Microsoft also doesn’t seem to take issue with offering services to misleading propagandists such as Fox News or Newsmax just the same as agencies mentioned above. Presumably, they’re also standardized on Windows and Office on top of Office 365 as there’s little to no draw to Office 365 without Windows and Office necessitating its demand, rendering Microsoft analogous to their central nervous system. Strike 9. For what it’s worth, Google hosts email for several right-wing propaganda sites too.
All said, this progressive narrative perpetuated by Microsoft, FAAMG, or any other monopoly for that matter is unequivocally false. You just don’t have to spend billions of dollars to tell the truth; it’s the lies, spin, and confusion that costs you. Not to mention the whole thing about it being impossible to be an egalitarian and progressive entity and monopoly simultaneously, let alone a monopoly functioning like gasoline on an authoritarian bonfire or a megaphone in the hand of a populist like Microsoft. But that’s the whole point of propaganda, to get you to believe nonsense like this and it works.
Talking through both sides of your mouth is a thing, especially among the wealthiest of us and their companies. This Machiavellian approach of seeming good but being evil is the standard throughout FAAMG, Microsoft, or otherwise, just as it is throughout the rest of the world. But even this really isn’t news as this is already the default assumption of many throughout the tech space albeit on its fringes. Seemingly, the only people with the audacity to lock horns with this default assumption of PR being paid liars or the reality of there being a plurality of loser white nationalists throughout the ranks of monopoly tech are those that have their livelihoods entrenched with said monopolies; employees and journalists alike; anything for Tesla though am I right?
But if you’re waiting for a bunch of 6 figure nationalists, supremacists, and monopolists to identify as such or confirm any of this then you had better pack a lunch. One of the many maladies of ignorance-fueled delusions is that they aren’t self-actualized; actions made in ignorance are involuntary. These delusions are why nationalists, supremacists, and monopolists seldom identify as nationalists, and supremacists, and monopolists and give the shocked tucker carlson confused face whenever it’s implied instead. Although there are many kinds of delusion, they all defend themselves the same way and you can see the hallmarks of these defense mechanisms in their petulance and primitive rhetoric in response to such realities just like every other delusional person that’s forced to look in the mirror.
“But Mitchel! We have an Indian iMMIGRANT for a CEO! We can’t be a company of white nationalists! PWned yOu LIb!” — Cum-brained Redmond Incel
Ah yes, who can forget dear Satya; that guy. One problem with monopolies is that their founders are often replaced by ineffectual figureheads while slowly deferring decision-making power and rule to their corporate counsel. Past a certain point, understanding acquisitions, managing public images, and navigating legal grey areas become more important to monopolies than actual leadership and engineering qualities at their highest ranks; whether that’s requisite of becoming a monopoly or a consequence of becoming a monopoly is irrelevant to this discussion. That said, it’s safe to say that Brad Smith is the true head of Microsoft while Satya merely functions like some sort of figurehead or corporate Bindi; corporate bindi-face?
Who do you think kept Satya out of the limelight and under wraps after his flub at the Grace Hopper Convention where he told a room of women to trust the system instead of asking for raises and advancement? Whose department do you think curates Satya’s mailbox, maximizing his plausible deniability, and keeping him in an information bubble where he can pretend to be a detached ideologue when it suits him? Who do you think works on his image with fluff articles, get ghost-written books, and all matter of cushy savior propaganda; none of which existed in any capacity prior to being named CEO? Who do you think has HR keeping these people installed in the company while running out their opposition? Hell, who do you think bailed them out of their antitrust woes? Why do you think Satya is never surprised by interview questions and is only thrown softballs? Brad Smith baby, that’s who and why.
While the CEO position has changed hands several times, Brad Smith’s role in the company has only increased exponentially and is to the point where he is both wearing the pants and leading the dance while Satya is wearing the skirt and doing what he’s told. Brad is so powerful that he seems to have a millionaire for an indentured servant in Satya. Similar is probably true of Sundar Pichai and Google but I cannot speak from firsthand experience. As much as they try to run on their merit, the reality is that no one even knew who they were before being name CEO nor do they have any real background in the duties required of a CEO at this scale for that matter; those qualities aren’t requirements of figureheads.
When measured by his actions and history, Satya is just as bought into their corporate culture as anyone else. After all, Satya has almost a 30-year long-established history of not questioning a single thing that Microsoft has ever done, profiting immensely from their terrible behavior in the 90s and 2000s. Yet you expect him to change everything now after he’s been hyper-rewarded for this behavior for decades and at an age where we’re at peak change aversion?
We seem to like to forget that Satya comes from a culture known for its caste systems and was a beneficiary of these caste systems due to being born into a high up caste with a father working in the Indian Administrative Service. It’s no coincidence that he gravitates to, thrives in, and perpetuates a caste system here in corporate America too; it’s what he knows. The only problem with said caste systems, Microsoft, India, or otherwise is that it isn’t the cream that rises to their top ranks; quite the opposite. Satya is no exception and neither is Brad Smith, hence why both need so much PR in the first place.
Meanwhile, the notion of Satya being some transcendent guru who fixed Microsoft on day one because he’s an Indian is actually quite racist in itself. As if Indian men, especially executives or monopolies, can’t be morally bankrupt or something even though there are plenty of examples of this in India and everywhere else in the world. You can’t find a philosopher within their ranks yet you think they’ll put a legit Hindu in their top spot? Get real. As if a proper Hindu would work with and arm the likes of ICE, CBP, DHS, CIA, NSA, DOD, Fox News, and News Max like it’s their religion, let alone work for world-destroying FAAMG monopoly? Again, there are many kinds of delusion and PR Inversa is still holding true.
In summary, it should be abundantly clear that the inverse is true of whatever a PR department happens to be peddling, especially from the PR department of the preeminent monopoly of the Information Age that Microsoft is or any of the FAAMG monopolies. This includes their narratives about being egalitarian, progressive, left-leaning, diverse, inclusionary, ethical, feminist, and humanitarian organizations. It’s all bullshit, hogwash, and a corporate Santa Clause. [sic]
What makes more sense? Microsoft being a monopoly where their PR people don’t spin the truth that’s full of left-wing progressives but coincidentally provides its fleet of services to what can best be described as the axis of evil/the antithesis of everything that progressive values stand for? Or Microsoft being a company with a plurality of white nationalists happily serving white nationalists causes as consistently as the planetary motions while spending billions to present itself as being seen as the inverse of this; no differently than Theranos or these insolvent gig economy scams have done in the past? I mean, where do you think these aspiring monopolies learned this behavior?
Let’s not forget that Machiavellian corporations are a thing. Corporate blackface is a thing. Figureheads are also a thing, especially in the absence of founders, hence Satya’s position as CEO. And contrary to Microsoft’s progressive narrative, they are most definitely brimming with white nationalists, white supremacists, proud boys, incels, conservatives, magats, frat boys, NRA goons, and their tokenized sympathizers at the moment which confirms my PR Inversa hypothesis and advances it to the realm of theory; none of which should be surprising. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA