Showing posts with label Murdoch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Murdoch. Show all posts

Monday, 30 April 2012

My view on YouView

"YouView will be everything you've ever wanted from TV in one easy-to-use box: Freeview, catch-up TV, High Definition and a personal video recorder (to pause, rewind and record live TV). It means the programmes you love will be ready to watch whenever you want. Simple."

 Telegraph:

Lord Sugar blow over YouView delay

It was supposed to revolutionise the way we watch television, blazing onto our screens in 2010 and doing for every broadcaster what the iPlayer has done for the BBC.


I am confused. How technically difficult is the YouView objective to achieve? Not so very me thinks.

I think there is a sub-plot behind the endless delays that is more about not being accused of launching a platform that is so easy, agreeable to the public and focal of free content that it all but corners and stifles the market. Pay to view and cable content providers can see the monster on the horizon. A platform that works, that is stuffed with free content and potentially provides an open pathway to each and every independent provider will kill 9/10th of their lucrative captive market.

YouView is the BBC: disguised in the outfits of its slowly dying terrestrial broadcast mates. Sky begrudgingly appeared at the table late on and apparently declined to join-up, but until the News International Murdoch 'phone hacking' debacle reaches its termination and the wooden stake is finally hammered home, they will not risk a launch; for fear it will all end-up in court where the international media power players may well then rule the day.

Between times they will stall even at the apparent cost of market share: if only because by allowing the market to commence and develop they cannot stand accused of monopolising and stifling it from the outset.

Perhaps the show will get smartly onto the road when it is clear the last nail has been hammered home to the door of the Maxwell Black Murdoch family mausoleum.

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

Fat little worms sitting in a tin - the time is nigh

In matters of 'hacking'.  However hard it looks like this shower will all eventually come tumbling down, police, press and government, I suspect there remains a can of really big juicy worms that will never be opened. That can is tucked away on a top shelf out of view. The one being kicked down the street, for all to wonder and gloat at, is a decoy.

Just one of these fat worms is hinted at with a story in The Sunday Times: ‘Apps spy on phone messages’ (which you cannot access without a subscription).
But the gist of it below is at this link : http://www.theweek.co.uk/daily-briefing/45566/ten-things-you-need-know-today-sunday-26-feb-2012
3. PHONE APPS SPY ON MESSAGES
Companies, including Facebook, are using smartphone apps to spy on users’ phone messages and gather information about their lives. A Sunday Times investigation also found that some apps can access users’ internet history which is transmitted to third party advertisers, while other apps can remotely control a phone’s camera.

My reading of the publication of this item is to set the ground for if and when it comes out that Screws Indigestible has been doing a lot more than just hacking mobile answer-phones or even computer e-mail. It is to say ‘look folks; everybody’s doing this stuff, its not really so bad and scary. It's the new normal’.
See here an idea of what else is possible when actually 'hacking' mobiles: http://eubrainwashing.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-to-phone-hacking-than-accessing.html

But the effect of such revelation still has the potential to be devastating for NI and the Mudoiks.

The can chock full of juicy worms could well go deeper still. That would be who helped, who allowed powers reserved for the highest levels of police investigation and state security to be usurped for ‘third-party’ surveillance. Surveillance not only of a meaningless celebrity’s toilet habits but such that could compromise national security and those in positions of real power and authority. And yet deeper; is it only the news rooms of NI that benefited from such knowledge and leverage that may have resulted or could this spying network have a darker beneficiary than just pennies on a news-stand.

Trust that such would not occur, just because it should not occur, is misplaced.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Who Pays Charon ?




In August 2009 James Murdoch spoke at the Edinburgh International Television Festival saying:

"In this all-media marketplace, the expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy," and "As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion"

From about this point in time the 'phone hacking' issue has become harder and harder to keep in the long grass.



My reading is James Murdoch does not have the blessing enjoyed by his father. He is having his wings clipped. He is being chastised.

And there are useful messages that can be transmitted from this unfolding series of events, such as: there is a difference between a mogul and a maverick.

On the 29 March 2004 the Guardian ran a 'joky' item revealing Evelyn de Rothschild was at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on the day candidates were being interviewed for the post of BBC chairman.




The BBC is blessed by the real ruling oligarchy, whoever that may be. The BBC is one of the most effective tools in the elaborate mechanisms of control. Trust in the BBC is paramount, both domestic and international, its credibility must never be brought into question; especially by one of such news-media standing. Calling the BBC "state-sponsored journalism" and casting its lack of "independence" to be a threat to "plurality and democracy" is a sin. And worse; using the 'Orwell' word in connection to the BBC, highlighting its 'near-monopoly of information' as being a 'guarantee' of 'manipulation and distortion' could not be allowed to remain unpunished.

Far from the BBC having the monopoly on information, it is the Maxwell organisations that has the international spread and keeping them under check is important to the elite too. Too much power in any pair of hands is not to be allowed. No invitations to the high table are granted.

This is a trial of strength. That does not mean the Maxwells (oops I mean Murdoch) will spend the rest of their days breaking rocks in Dartmoor. They will, though, be broken, whipped, pilloried and left to the scavengers as an example to whoever else thinks they hold a whip hand, who are careless with their granted powers and wealth or who think they can trample upon the labyrinthine and win.


Of cause, I do not doubt such a news empire has cupboards full of skeletons which many, on the rungs of power and authority, know of and fear revelation. It patently looks that this is why two UK governments, and their police, have strived to bury and minimise the affair. They are all implemented, deeply I have no doubt, and if the case expands to its full potential its destructive force will be unprecedented. In comparison Watergate will look like a washout.

The press will lose its confidence and power for any meaningful investigation and will instead just publish simple reiteration of the news agencies output.

From time to time, our glorious masters believe, the pack must be shuffled. Predicting the exact order of play is hard but, if they do not like the hands against which they play, they can keep causing a shuffle, again and again.

The outcome of this shuffle may include the end of the UK as it is absorbed into the EU as a series of regions, its economy shattered, the credibility of its government and law enforcement irrevocably discredited. Indirect collateral damage may be unintentional but it is also inconsequential. More likely it is also included in the plans or even is at the core of the plan.

Friday, 8 July 2011

More to Phone-hacking than Accessing Voice-mail with Passwords

There is far more to this phone hacking caper than simply accessing voice-mail with passwords.

Cell phones can be activated remotely, loaded with software that takes control of the phone, records text messages, records calls, uses the inbuilt microphones as a listening device/bug, takes all GPS location data, address-book data, call logs, web-history, everything - current and historic - and transmits all, as and when required, to the hijacker when it can then also receive new instructions.


The cellular network transmitter/station local to a target phone can be replaced with a decoy transmitter that relays the signal on to the real network.  The phone must give the transmitter a code to prove who it is to the network but the network does not have to give the phone any code to prove it is the real network.  The phone can be told to transmit without encryption and the false cell transmitter can gain control of the phone in such a way, to download hijack software to take permanent covert control of the phone.

A 'virus' can be sent to the phone to similarly take control of it or the phone can be infected if it is in the possession of the hacker for a very short time.  It is possible to hack a phone via it's wireless connection, blue-tooth or even via a text message.


This may be the reason why the 'authorities' do not want phone intercept intelligence used as evidence in court; because they do not want to plainly admit what can be done and what is being done.  Perhaps this is why the police have been reluctant to further investigations into this matter or perhaps there is another layer between the journalists, the cash, the police and who is doing the actual covert spying on mobile phones.


LINKS