a little while ago i, look you see, wrote one of those rambling things that i do. in this instance it was about the quite difficult to fathom trend of blaming librarians for the books people read, or if you like blaming "the internet" for the actions of people. i note with as much dismay as i do interest that this trend would seem to be going to go on for a little while just yet, then.
but first, clarification. no i do not believe in some sort of "internet free for all" whereby all that is illegal remains freely available. further, i absolutely do not condone nor support these cowards that use any sort of resource to harm others. it is with reason i sign off (most of) my blog posts the way i do, you know. can't we all just get along?
carrying on then and i noted, over the course of the last week, that this "blame the internet" thing is spreading as an idea for all that is wrong in society. there has been a movement or expansion, though, as it would seem Amazon is getting blamed just as much as Google.
do bear with me, in a little while we shall get to what that headline on The Sun, stacked here for convenience with newspapers, s a "follow up" to in terms of their ace investigation.
every news and media source is presently "seeking angles" on this horrid incident where some thankfully incompetent, even more cowardly than usual as they didn't have the guts to be a suicide bomber social misfit tried to set off a home made bomb on a train in Parsons Green. the most popular angles would seem to all have a significant degree of blame for "internet". to them internet must stop it, whatever it is that it does, and then no one would want to cause harm, or at least not be able to do so. oh, for a life of such simplicity.
for a few days now the coverage has been "how easy" it is to find the instructions to cause harm via using Google, the world's most popular search engine. now the attention is on "how easy" it is to purchase instruments of darkness, which is to say everyday things that you can use or otherwise combine to make weapons. Amazon, being the leading global grocer, is but of course the target for the "journalistic investigations" into just "how easy" Amazon lets you buy, for example, a bomb.
hopefully, as an aside, one or two of you have noted the interesting alphabetical approach to paragraphs thus far. good if you have, for this means that i can stop any time i like as somehow i doubt that i can carry on with it.
i would have thought, to be sure, that these part time extremists purchasing their devices of harm off of the internet, in particular Amazon rather than this so-called "dark web", was a very good thing indeed. why? not for the sake of Amazon's profits, as jealous as the newspapers might be of such. no, the reason for me saying that this is surely a good thing is that it means those who purchased it can be all the more easily traced, and they so kindly give a paper trail of evidence in respect of their guilt.
just think about this. the journalists didn't and presumably won't think that their readers would either. if you purchase off of Amazon, or any such legitimate online store, you need banking details. that's a debit or credit card, or even one of these fancy new things like a PayPal account. there's all your personal details, chap. further, you have to give them a delivery address. so even if you elect not to have whatever you've ordered delivered to home you still have to get it sent somewhere. and so the authorities - the constabulary and beyond - are gifted a lovely starting point for tracing your steps and finding you.
kindly indulge me some, then. should i wish to buy things that i might be doing less than legal stuff with it is highly likely that i would not make it quite so easy to trace it back to me. whatever equipment i needed would be stuff that i drove around, even if it was dozens or maybe a hundred or so, miles to purchase from different places. also, i would pay in cash. beyond being tax free, cash is relatively difficult to trace as such. questions are seldom asked when cash is presented as a payment method.
likely, as in very. no doubt some "journalist" might stumble on this blog post and declare that the last bit above is guilty of inspiring would-be types to purchase things in a more difficult to trace way. erm, yeah, ok. that's after they have encouraged them to do the same off of Amazon, though, isn't it?
my feelings are a mixture of animosity, jealousy, bitterness and disappointment that someone ordering stuff off of Amazon is now considered to be not just investigative journalism but front page journalism, if you please. how very sad, and what a slap in the face to the legendary journalist investigators of the past.
no, yes, go on then. if you cannot beat them, join them. what counts for "journalists" these days, and not these ghastly individuals who wish to cause harm. i have, with some five minutes on my hand, gone off and investigated other means of harm what you can buy off of the internet and have delivered to you. let me see if i get any messages asking if my research can be on the front page of a national newspaper, or failing that The Sun.
obviously the first place i started off was the device one needs to engage in such darkness, according at least to newspapers and Theresa May (she never come to harm). yes, a fancy calculator, or if you like a computer sort of device.
particularly scary, this. look at that. i can get a device which lets me on an "internet" for south of £100, in some instances even south of £61 (ex p&p). for that money i can be up and running, getting information on how to do harm, ordering things to do harm with, reading newspaper websites that would seem to influence and how i think. also, i could get up to all sorts of mischief with it, doing things like, i don't know, hack people's private email accounts and phone messages.
quite co-incidentally, look at what other harmful things i could be getting off of Amazon in particular and the "internet" in general. yes, one of the most harmful inventions ever - books.
sure, it is a happy co-incidence that i by random chance found a whole load of books about Rupert Murdoch to illustrate the dangers of using the internet. but, that's the hand in play. if we stick with this example, we find it is a good one. if you got these books and read them you might be able to follow in his footsteps, doing things like [text removed on legal advice] in order to secure power, influence and wealth.
to say that it is just Amazon who is guilty of selling possibly dangerous stuff is wrong. it is wrong of the newspapers, wrong of printed matter such as The Sun and thus wrong of me. let me make amends in some small way, then, by looking at the means of harm that one could purchase from other website.
under this idea, i found myself quite by chance on the website of The Sun. needless to say i was horrified by what i could find to buy. not that i would buy of course as these prices are clearly highly inflated. but still. how brazen of them to sell vessels such as mugs. what is there to stop me buying one of these, filling it with boiling liquid and throwing it over someone? also, i could fill it up with some sort of corrosive acid and use this as a weapon.
verily, surely, is how The Sun will react to the above. i am sure they had absolutely no idea at all that they were as guilty as Amazon, in their assessment, of selling things which people could misuse to cause harm with. no doubt the editor, or whoever, with contact the constabulary or other such internet police at once and request that they come to investigate them.
writing. that is another thing what the internet, and Amazon, "let" people do. through an internet or if you like Google search and a browse of Amazon, you can find the means to get things what let you write things down.
xanthic is indeed how i would also describe the yellow colour on Amazon stars, i am glad you agree. so anyway, can there be any worse crime that Google, "internet" and Amazon allow than to let people write things? if you go around letting people write, you encourage them to compose their thoughts and ideas on paper, leading to the possibility that they might share such thoughts and ideas with others. no newspaper would encourage this. we know as fact that Theresa May (she never come to harm) is very much against this sort of thing.
yes, then, that would be that. bravo to the journalist who somehow got paid - and a front page exclusive - for discovering that you can buy things off of Amazon. you have surely made the world a better place. perhaps i am being amiss - maybe The Sun elected to have an entire team of crack investigative journalists carry out this work to reach the finding.
zigzagging through what i have written here it feels like it's laboured, disjointed and spends too long trying to make the same point. sorry about that, but thank you for reading anyway.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment