Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:31 pm The company whose founder was forced to turn over data to the British parliament had not committed any crimes as far as I am aware. Rather, he was forced to turn over data for the purposes of investigating a third party, Facebook, from which they had originally obtained said data by decision of a US court. Of course you know this.

And? Aiding and abetting a crime - by, for example, having evidence of a crime and attempting to conceal it from the legal authorities - is itself at least potentially criminal. And there is no 'journalistic source' defence here.

Also, it is naive to think that foreign countries force people to turn over data solely in investigation of actual crimes. There are other reasons, such as state-aided industrial espionage (this is far more common than one might presume), harassing people whom said foreign governments do not like (e.g. journalists, human rights activists, etc.), and so on.

Yes, we "foreign countries" are all nightmares of tyranny and injustice compared to your glowing utopia over there, aren't we?

Another example of the way Americans demand that their laws should have jurisdiction everywhere in the world, over everybody, yet want themselves to be above the law of any other country. They should have the right to take over the economies of other countries, and to prosecute their competitors under American law, but god forbid they be expected to subject to the law in those countries the same way that their competitors are...

Oh, I am not stating that the US government is innocent of anything here. And in this case, the British government ought to have been able to subpoena those documents from Facebook directly. But threatening someone belong to a third party with imprisonment, and imprisonment not in conviction for any crime but simply for the sake of coercion outside of the court system, to get them to turn over documents belonging to Facebook is not something I have much taste for.

As far as I can tell, US Congressional Committees have the authority to legally subpoena stuff under threat of jail in case of non-compliance, too.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:02 am As far as I can tell, US Congressional Committees have the authority to legally subpoena stuff under threat of jail in case of non-compliance, too.

In theory, yes, but the last time Congress has arrested and detained someone was 1935; since then, they have always referred such cases to the Department of Justice. Of course, this is a similar situation to that which was the case in the UK up until just now.

Except that in the UK we can't refer cases to the Ministry of Justice...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:22 am Oh, I am not stating that the US government is innocent of anything here. And in this case, the British government ought to have been able to subpoena those documents from Facebook directly. But threatening someone belong to a third party with imprisonment, and imprisonment not in conviction for any crime but simply for the sake of coercion outside of the court system, to get them to turn over documents belonging to Facebook is not something I have much taste for.

I don't really understand that objection. As far as I understand, all of this happened under due process of (British) law anyway. It's a very unusual procedure, but under British rules, it's perfectly legal (unless I'm missing something). The curiosity is that it's an MP initiating the whole procedure.

Remember, the UK is the country that innovated legally compelling people to decrypt data. I haven't forgotten that.

Hardly. We do the same in France, and arguably did even before the UK (I remember that in the nineties it was actually illegal to use PGP keys over a certain size -- though I doubt that was really enforced much at the time).
It's actually quite widespread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#France and judging from that page it could conceivably happen under US law.
Not mentioning the NSA backdoors, of course.

According to the Torygraph:

it emerged that a Downing Street task force set up to save Brexit is already resigned to losing the vote on the deal, and is engaged in damage limitation. Aides reportedly believe that if Mrs May loses the vote on December 11 by more than 100 votes she will have to resign immediately, but if the losing margin is lower than 100 she will battle on and try to win a second vote.

Here's hoping for a big loss...

Yes, the US has NSA backdoors (e.g. the ones suspected to exist in every Intel and AMD processor) and national security letters and so on. You can be compelled to give up information if you are not under investigation for any crimes committed (the fact that you cannot be forced to give up information in an investigation of oneself is due to the 5th amendment to the constitution), and furthermore you can be gagged so you are legally not allowed to tell anyone that you have given up said information. So yes, the US sucks too.

What gets me about this particular case, though, is the unusualness of the procedure involved, and that it is at the instigation of a politician rather than an ostensibly apolitical judge. Sure, Parliament legally has the power to do this. But normally this is something done through the court system, which means being able to be represented by a lawyer and so on. (I do have to state that with national security letters in the US, oftentimes one is not allowed to get a lawyer because one is not being investigated for any crimes.) Also, being given a mere two hours to turn over the information is a bit much.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:45 pm Yes, the US has NSA backdoors (e.g. the ones suspected to exist in every Intel and AMD processor) and national security letters and so on. You can be compelled to give up information if you are not under investigation for any crimes committed (the fact that you cannot be forced to give up information in an investigation of oneself is due to the 5th amendment to the constitution), and furthermore you can be gagged so you are legally not allowed to tell anyone that you have given up said information. So yes, the US sucks too.

What gets me about this particular case, though, is the unusualness of the procedure involved, and that it is at the instigation of a politician rather than an ostensibly apolitical judge. Sure, Parliament legally has the power to do this. But normally this is something done through the court system, which means being able to be represented by a lawyer and so on. (I do have to state that with national security letters in the US, oftentimes one is not allowed to get a lawyer because one is not being investigated for any crimes.) Also, being given a mere two hours to turn over the information is a bit much.

In the US, do people generally hire lawyers so that they can avoid giving evidence?

And again, exactly the same thing happens in the US: a politician can summon you to give evidence. The difference is, in the US you can go to jail for refusing, whereas in the UK you can be threatened with jail for refusing (but it hasn't actually happened since 1880).

chris_notts wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:24 pm According to the Torygraph:

it emerged that a Downing Street task force set up to save Brexit is already resigned to losing the vote on the deal, and is engaged in damage limitation. Aides reportedly believe that if Mrs May loses the vote on December 11 by more than 100 votes she will have to resign immediately, but if the losing margin is lower than 100 she will battle on and try to win a second vote.

Here's hoping for a big loss...

My understand is that a count by a major paper has around 400 declared against the deal, I think it was 231 declared for the deal, and twenty-odd undeclared (or not present). There may be some shift in those numbers, but she'll be very lucky indeed to lose by fewer than 100 votes. I suspect of course that trying to make it into an unofficial VONC like this, by briefing anonymously, is an attempt to improve her numbers.

Because what do Tories do if she goes? Does the next leader try to push the same deal, and likewise fail? Does the next leader just go for No Deal, and get blamed when the bodies start piling up? Can the next Tory leader even still claim the support of the DUP, and hence a majority, given that both Maydeal and Nodeal are unacceptable to the DUP?

The only sane and functional way forward is new elections that take the DUP out of the equation. Otherwise, I don't see what else can be on the table...

-------------


Meanwhile, we've had the first respectable, thorough analysis of where we stand economically. Actually, we've had two versions.

NIESR, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, calculate that between 2020 and 2030, the UK will lose around 3.9% of its GDP. On the other hand, a consortium of the London School of Economics, King's College and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have calculated that between 2020 and 2030 the UK will lose between 1.9% and 5.5% of its GDP.

For context here, because these numbers are being thrown around in the media without much attention to what they mean: both groups are talking about, on average, a loss similar or greater in total magnitude to the Great Depression or the Great Recession. Except much, much more long-lasting (the dip caused by the Great Recession, for example, only lasted 5 years in total - that is, we got back to 0% after five years, whereas the economist predict this time we'll still be at -4% after ten years). This would be arguably the greatest economic catatastrophe in this country for centuries - perhaps since the Long Depression (similarly long but less severe), or since the Napoleonic Wars.

On the other hand, that's actually the good news. Because the bad news is that the same consortium has run the numbers for No Deal, and that comes out at between a 3.5% and an 8.9% collapse by 2030. That could be more intense than the post-WWI depression*, and much longer in duration.

Now, of course, economists. Pinch of salt and all that. Truth is, no-one knows what this will be like, it's unprecedented and complex. And these aren't official numbers from the Bank of England or the Office for National Statistics or the like. Nonetheless, both groups are very serious and reputable - this isn't one of those scaremongering numbers dreamt up by a tabloid mishearing some historian they know - and the fact that two independent analyses have come up with very similar numbers should be really alarming. Because even their best-case scenarios are still armageddon.


Of course, it might not matter, since we may all be dead by then. One of those fun No Deal facts: our water purification systems run on chemicals imported from the EU, which cannot be stockpiled as they are volatile with a short shelf-life. The government expects water purification plants to stop operating within a few days of a no deal brexit. By law, that means nobody can be sold any water. Of course, in practice, if this happened, the government would keep the water flowing - but it may mean a surge in water-borne diseases.




*in the UK, the Great Depression was actually much milder than the 1919-1921 depression had been. Although we're not taught that, because we import our history from the US.

All I can say is that the hardline Brexiteers want to ruin Britain. May's deal may suck, but rejecting it and opting for No Deal is utterly insane.

I suspect the economists' estimates are underestimates, not overestimates. Economists are fond of steady state equilibrium type models, but these are misleading in a dynamic situation like a cliff edge Brexit. You can't model such a situation by interpolation between snapshots.

Even so... there are some things you can't trade for economic advantage. I'd prefer to Remain if possible, or joining EFTA, but if not then May's put us in the situation of having to choose the unchooseable. How can any democracy sign a deal that gives it both no say and no unilateral way out? Could the UK government legitimately sign away democracy for economic advantage? If not, then how is this any different except in degree?

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:56 pm Of course, it might not matter, since we may all be dead by then. One of those fun No Deal facts: our water purification systems run on chemicals imported from the EU, which cannot be stockpiled as they are volatile with a short shelf-life. The government expects water purification plants to stop operating within a few days of a no deal brexit. By law, that means nobody can be sold any water. Of course, in practice, if this happened, the government would keep the water flowing - but it may mean a surge in water-borne diseases.

I think that this is one of those things that would be sorted at all costs. The EU might happily sit by and let the UK economy crash, but they're unlikely to want a humanitarian crisis on their doorstep, or to risk getting blamed for one. I expect that food, medicines, and clean water will continue even if all non-essential goods end up piling up at the border.

The crucial one for me is gas. I work in the energy industry, and in the short term I'd argue that gas is our most important import after food. If there's any interruption to gas supplies then, since the UK now has very little of its own storage and cunningly outsources it, at best you're talking about shutting down energy intensive industry, and at worst you're talking about rolling blackouts and/or loss of domestic heat. Without combined cycle gas turbines we can't supply the peak national electricity demand. And bear in mind that food storage, water processing, almost everything needs power.

What I don't know is the chance of disruption. Even if flows from the EU were cut off, we can still potentially import large volumes from Norway and via LNG. But a lot of gas is tied up in long term contracts, and volumes that could be bought at short notice will go to the highest bidder. If UK exports are suddenly curtailed then the pound will sink like a stone, so energy will suddenly become a lot more expensive.

If only Thatcher and her successors hadn't wasted all the oil and gas tax revenues back when we were a net exporter....

chris_notts wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:40 pm

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:56 pm Of course, it might not matter, since we may all be dead by then. One of those fun No Deal facts: our water purification systems run on chemicals imported from the EU, which cannot be stockpiled as they are volatile with a short shelf-life. The government expects water purification plants to stop operating within a few days of a no deal brexit. By law, that means nobody can be sold any water. Of course, in practice, if this happened, the government would keep the water flowing - but it may mean a surge in water-borne diseases.

I think that this is one of those things that would be sorted at all costs. The EU might happily sit by and let the UK economy crash, but they're unlikely to want a humanitarian crisis on their doorstep, or to risk getting blamed for one. I expect that food, medicines, and clean water will continue even if all non-essential goods end up piling up at the border.

It's not all that easy, though, because our channels for imports are so bottlenecked - if something's on a lorry stuck on a road outside Calais, it doesn't matter if it'll theoretically be waved through customs - it has to get to customs first! We can helicopter some emergency supplies in, but there's a limit to that in terms of magnitude. I guess our best bet might be the container ports?

The crucial one for me is gas. I work in the energy industry, and in the short term I'd argue that gas is our most important import after food. If there's any interruption to gas supplies then, since the UK now has very little of its own storage and cunningly outsources it, at best you're talking about shutting down energy intensive industry, and at worst you're talking about rolling blackouts and/or loss of domestic heat. Without combined cycle gas turbines we can't supply the peak national electricity demand. And bear in mind that food storage, water processing, almost everything needs power.

What I don't know is the chance of disruption. Even if flows from the EU were cut off, we can still potentially import large volumes from Norway and via LNG. But a lot of gas is tied up in long term contracts, and volumes that could be bought at short notice will go to the highest bidder. If UK exports are suddenly curtailed then the pound will sink like a stone, so energy will suddenly become a lot more expensive.

How do we get our gas - is it all ships, or are there pipes now? Or lorries?

Pipes are great because they circumvent normal border controls... ships not so much, and lorries not at all.

If only Thatcher and her successors hadn't wasted all the oil and gas tax revenues back when we were a net exporter....

Mmhhm. To be honest, I think if the government has revenues, it should spend them - money gathering dust in the vaults is worth very little to the economy, compared to direct investment, or even tax cuts.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:17 pm All I can say is that the hardline Brexiteers want to ruin Britain. May's deal may suck, but rejecting it and opting for No Deal is utterly insane.

I disagree. They think they're going to save Britain.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:49 pm How do we get our gas - is it all ships, or are there pipes now? Or lorries?

Pipes and ships. But the ships don't dock at normal ports, they need special infrastructure to connect to the gas network.

Mmhhm. To be honest, I think if the government has revenues, it should spend them - money gathering dust in the vaults is worth very little to the economy, compared to direct investment, or even tax cuts.

Clearly saving money itself is not sensible. The government has no need to hoard bits of paper or 1s and 0s since it controls the currency and the magic money tree. The main point of taxation is inflation control, not enabling nominal government spending per se.

But if the government has real wealth, it has two choices: blow it on tax cuts and other non-productive uses, invest it in things that either improve the domestic economy long-term or generate future wealth from abroad (I.e. Norway's sovereign wealth fund), or even manage the rate of resource extraction so it benefits the country long term. The UK government's choice is always to enable extraction as quickly as possible and to blow the money as quickly as possible to buy the next election result, normally on unproductive projects.

The oil and gas was a one off inheritance, and now it's declining what does the country have to show for it?

Just to explain a bit more: the main thing about gas is that the network has to be balanced daily. We use other fuels for power as well, but most of these are stockpiled. Coal stations have months of coal in big piles, and nuclear stations are similar. Whereas if some obscure EU regulation shuts down some of the gas pipelines for a week or two, especially at the end of winter when storage is low, we might have a serious problem.

I think this set of tweets explains the crisis pretty well.

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1062983853260918784

(There's quite a few by now. I guess he posts a new batch every few days.)

I spilled my Coke at
LIDINGTON <on phone>: Hello, so we have an IT project and...
CAPITA GUY: It wILl bE 39 bILLiOn aNd wE cAn DeLIvEr tO ThAT deADliNE

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:56 am I think this set of tweets explains the crisis pretty well.

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1062983853260918784

(There's quite a few by now. I guess he posts a new batch every few days.)

I'm dying. These are all hilarious.

MAY: You put GRAYLING in charge?!
LIDINGTON: Literally EVERYONE in Cabinet is plotting against you!
MAY: So's he!
LIDINGTON: Yes! But he's USELESS!
MAY: And now in charge of the country!
LIDINGTON: It's just a week!

<The Kremlin>

AIDE: Grayling is in charge
PUTIN: Take Ukraine