Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't do this here.
Oh, I see. I can cry foul towards Microsoft all day here, but not some faux charity which hosts fuck parties with underage and forced prostitutes. Makes sense.
Two things can both be bad!
Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds
151–158 of 158 posts
Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like what? I'm not sure what that could be, but a general answer would be that neither faction wants too much scrutiny. They would therefore have mutual self-interest in maintaining a system where they can keep crappy records (or none) while still keeping mountains of money.
Influencing relative promotion prospects?
I mean maybe. They probably are doing everything they can do maximize their own budgets, but not so hard that they might expose themselves to more oversight or regulation which means the no real change to how the system operates.
Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds
#153Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds
#154Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct, I had to do a bit of research. Because Chrome even explicitly states that traffic to a site with an expired certificate is unencrypted. But I guess that's mostly to scare you, because the truth is that it just opens you up to potential MitM attacks and other similar issues with regular ole HTTP, but traffic between you and an unverifiable identity is at least TLS encrypted.
> Because Chrome even explicitly states that traffic to a site with an expired certificate is unencrypted. If that's the case, then Google's condescension is doing a disservice to its users.
(Tested with Chromium, at https://expired.badssl.com) It says "Not Secure" on the left side of the address bar. It says "Privacy error" as the tab title. And then the body of the page:
Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from expired.badssl.com (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more about this warning net::ERR_CERT_DATE_INVALID
Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
unless the kickback takes form of cash or favors
Cash is for criminal activity so if the CEO is withdrawing large amounts of it then clearly he's committing some crime.
They'll figure something out, some ideas:
1. The cash doesn't have to be withdrawn all at once, it can happen over the course of months 2. The cash can come from earlier cash transactions, not withdrawal 3. Payment can be indirect: CEO donates to a non-profit that hires sheriffs family 4. Instead of kickback the CEO can repay the sheriff with another favor at future time
I hope we're not planning to outlaw cash and implement total invigilation of every transaction just to make corruption slightly more inconvenient.
Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds
#157The funds probably went to funding terrorism. That is what happened with the UN funds in Africa and elsewhere.
Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds
#158My small startup (Chrysalis Digital Asset Exchange) developed an anti-corruption solution using a fully vetted digital wallet and stablecoins network to provide disaster relief funds to emerging economies worldwide. This solution could be applied to climate finance. With the maturing of the digital asset/tokenization economy, there is no reason corruption should be considered a "cost of doing business." DMcCalmont@ChrysalisDAE.com