Google Calls For Drone Regulation

I've just about had it with Google. This corporation which, like Facebook, data mines everything about a person and steals passwords and information from unsecured wireless networks (and gets away with it relatively Scott free) is now making demands that the general public be prevented from owning drones (RC Planes with cameras on, essentially.) Yes, that's right. A corporation which takes aerial photos of your garden without your permission and makes them accessible on the internet, not to mention Google street view, doesn't want you to be able to fly a small aircraft around over your neighbors in case it breaches someones privacy. He also warns the technology could be used by 'terrorists' (read resistance cells against the coming fully autonomous military.) You couldn't make this shit up!






Here is the main story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22134898

So here is a small bit of light reading to find out just how privacy sensitive Google really is:

Concern about Google's data mining:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/google-data-mining-national-security

Google fined £7m for collecting information from wireless networks:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2292624/Google-hit-7M-fine-wifi-snooping-Street-View-cars-intercepted-emails.html

For fucks sake, Google doesn't even allow you to use a fake name for your Google+ account for bizarre reasoning which you know is bullshit.
(http://gizmodo.com/5830463/if-you-use-a-fake-name-on-google%252B-your-account-is-about-to-be-suspended)

Planes such as this are typical of the home made
FPV RC planes in existence.

So in this latest Google corporate fuck over, Google chief Eric Schmidt is calling for Governments to regulate ownership of devices which could be used as drones. If you are unaware, in the last few years civilian ownership of remote control planes and helicopters that are flown through cameras in real time (so essentially you feel as though you are really flying) are becoming very popular. They are used for multiple different purposes from aerial photographers to sheep farmers looking for lost sheep, and they are relatively cheap and easy to make with materials found online.

I wrote an article on this last year:
(http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3264003180989549681#editor/target=post;postID=2870208040734108609)

In the above article I highlighted some of the practical uses they could be put to, and it seems I'm not the only one to have considered this. They could be used to fly over protests to film the police to ensure civil liberties are not breached and fly reconnaissance in a SHTF situation for defence or hunting. Put bluntly, they don't want any 'terrorist' (read freedom fighter) from having any upper hand on the forces set against us.

 This has nothing to do with privacy, and everything to prevent the tool being used in a uprising.

The War on The Internet

So today we were greeted by news which was to be expected really, and to be quite honest I don't even know why I'm bothering to write about it seeing as every blog in the UK is probably already covering this story but for the sake of adding to critical mass, I'll state the issues.

Today the news was reporting on the '1984' style press control:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2295658/Press-regulation-Internet-targeted-MPs-time-chilling-threat-free-speech.html

Apparently the British Government has seen fit to bring in a bunch of new laws which not only strongly restrict the media's ability to report on stories (not that the mass media was ever that great at bringing things to peoples attention in the first place) but also means that there is a serious threat of ordinary internet users being sued for damages for cases of slander and or defamation. Those at risk includes me, for writing this blog and it includes you if you decided to post up unsubstantiated bullshit on Facebook or Twitter - quite literally you can be held accountable for saying anything, really, if someone can falsify evidence to the contrary to what you have said. 
 
That said, this is nothing new. Hundreds of people have already been arrested (and charged) for things said on Facebook, and I'm guessing the toll for people losing their jobs for 'I hate my boss, I think he is a cunt' comments, probably extends to the hundreds of thousands mark. Lets face it, the internet isn't safe anymore, in particular Facebook which was always an intelligence finding database from the get-up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/18030970

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19882618

You have to ask, is this really an attack on the 'free-press'? Or is it really an attack on the internet's ability to quickly get information across?

Lets be honest, if it wasn't for the internet most of us would still be believing there was actually a point to the wars in the Middle East, that the economy really was failing due to genuine mistakes and that politicians actually have our best interests at heart. The internet has been a brilliant tool for unlocking minds and dispelling the bollocks stories we've been told over the centuries, until now. This could be seriously damaging for everyone who actually cares about learning the truth about things.

Lets take a scenario for arguments sake:

A woman is kidnapped and gang raped repeatedly by a group of highly wealthy politicians and bankers. She gets out, and no one believes her, the police are too scared to chase up the case and so in desperation she posts her ordeal up on the internet, because currently if you have a huge problem which no one seems to be helping you with, you post it on the internet to try and get publicity. If these people were so rich that they could pay off the police and pay for some witnesses to vouch for them being some place else at the time this rape allegedly happened, they could then take that woman to the cleaners and infinancially rape her too, just to really rub the salt in the wounds.

Whilst this may seem a bit of an extreme example, there are tons of cases which have received publicity through the internet, people who have won against corruption and blackmail, this Act would potentially put a stop to that.

Thing is, its not just freedom of speech which is under attack.

The past few years has seen both the European Union and America try and bring in internet laws such as 'SOPA' which far extend past their premise that it is just for preventing online piracy. In any case, despite both SOPA in the states and the European equivalent, the legislation was rejected on privacy grounds. Despite that, starting from next year in 2014, in the UK internet service providers will be required to log and monitor your download habits and give you a 'three strikes' warning, where presumably your internet speeds will be slowed until eventually you receive nasty letters through the post asking you to come to court.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406323,00.asp

The same is happening in America too, albeit they get six strikes instead of our three.

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-braces-online-piracy.html

Europe and America both have the sinister issue of having to pay £20 (or $30) to appeal against an ISP's decision, because, you know, its not like the UK or America has a Bill of Rights or anything. And it gets worse. You ever posted something like a video of your mate falling over, onto YouTube? You put some music onto that clip? Guess what, if you did, you could be fined under these new proposals.

In any case just be glad you don't live in Germany where the lines between civil and criminal cases are blurred. If you are caught downloading porn illegally over there the porn studio send letters to your home demanding a payment settlement and then post your name publicly for everyone to laugh at (unless they pay £650 straight to the firm straight away without question.) Apparently the potential damage to relationships is neither here nor there to these arseholes.

Trouble is, its set to get worse. Gone are the days where the internet danced to the tune of dial-up tones and the anarchistic web pages ran wild, slowly but surely the internet is becoming standardised and my prediction is that eventually all the websites we take for granted today will be shut down and we will all be given some form of internet passport. The internet will be like a glorified Ceefax, except it draws more information out about you, than you do about it.

For example, there was huge controversy about Google's terms and conditions changing last year. People generally don't care that much anymore now its old news, but in my opinion people should be very scared of an internet organisation which demands you use a 'real name' when filling out your profile. Its not my belief that Google is necessarily some Government sponsored spy (that's Facebook) but I do think that they are deliberately and undeniably creating a file on you to know how best to sell products to you.

Facebook on the other hand is without question being used by police forces to gather intelligence on us, and as technology increases that ability will only grow. They are working on software which can predict where in the world flashpoints and crimes are about to take place and software which evaluates all your likes and dislikes in your Facebook timeline and makes a judgement on you about how likely you are to commit a crime.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/09/facebook-arrested-evgeny-morozov-extract

All we need now is some sort of drug which makes us all docile and apathetic.

Oh hold on!

Welcome to the New World Order!

UAF Conference 2013

This article has been a long time coming since its taken me a good week to have the time to upload all the associated videos that I took, but I'm finally in the position to release them to the world. 

Before I begin I would like to say that I'm not a supporter of the UAF, an organisation which suffers from atrocious double standards and ironic statements. At the same time (as I'm sure this will be read by a few UAF supporters) I'm also not a supporter of the idiotic EDL who run around making themselves look like your typical Chav cunt. So with that all cleared up, lets continue.

If you are unaware of who the UAF then take note; They are the ironically named 'Unite Against Fascism', or as many have taken to calling them 'Unite Against Freedom'. They are predominately supported by young adults who have studied at universities and have been brainwashed by Marxist doctrines but also seem to have a regular band of individuals with limited mental capacity at the ready to be used as muscle to prevent democratic demonstrations against multiculturalism, communism and international socialism.

The UAF seem to have endless resources, mainly because they have close links with the main Unions such as 'Unite' (as well as the scary support of teachers unions such as the NUT and NASUWT), political parties such as the Socialist Workers Party and more worryingly the Labour party. They have leaders and spokesmen from these parties and organisation, one of their main spokesmen is Ken Livingstone, former Labour Mayor of London but also seem to have a the strange support of practically every big-time Politician including current Prime Minister David Cameron.

Their mission appears at first glimpse to be an 'anti-fascist' organisation but look a little deeper and its obvious that this group is actually set up and financed by the state and top organisations which control society. Its not clear where their finances come from, although you can bet that they are likely paid for by Unions and 'special interest' groups such as Mosques and political groups like the Fabian society. 

They defend a stance of 'no platform', that is that fascists (who they are apparently allowed to  define) should not be allowed to voice their opinions, apparently the idea of free speech completely dead to them, which is a defining point of authority of fascism.

Their double standards runs right through all their politics though. Every time an ethnic minority is killed by a white British person, they go into overdrive and fight tooth and nail to make sure it goes as public as possible. If the tables are turned however, and is a white Briton who suffers racism, it is unceremoniously ignored by the UAF 'anti-racists'. The same applies to their rather dodgy philosophy of defending militant Islamists who preach against homosexuality, womens rights and alcohol consumption... whilst defending homosexual and women's rights organisations. In fact nothing has been said by them at all by the increasing prevalence of Muslim gangs going out and preaching their vile and twisted philosophies on English streets. 

Who's streets?


They purport to be against violent demonstrations yet none of their leadership seem to renounce violent behavior committed by their supporters. Take the darts thrown at Nick Griffin back in 2010 outside Parliament, caught on film. Of course the Crown Prosecution Service looked the other way despite calls by the BNP to have it looked into and despite evidence posted all over the internet. Ironically, a day before this attack on the BNP, Waymen Bennett (someone I got an interview with last week) was arrested for 'Conspiracy to organise violent disorder' at an EDL event in Bolton.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/5074044.74_arrests_at_protests/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8578558.stm


Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan said that:

"Today in Bolton we have seen some small evidence of this protest in the form of flag waving and vitriolic name calling - but we have also seen groups of people, predominantly associated with the UAF, engaging in violent confrontation.
"It is clear to me that a large number have attended today with the sole intention of committing disorder and their actions have been wholly unacceptable. Turning their anger onto police officers they acted with, at times, extreme violence and their actions led to injuries to police officers, protestors and members of the public.
"The police are not and should not be the target of such violence and anger and this protest and the actions of some of the protestors is roundly condemned by GMP and by Bolton Council. Were it not for the professionalism and bravery of police officers many others would have been seriously injured. I would also like to praise the efforts of the EDL stewards who worked with us in the face of some very ugly confrontations."

Trouble is, half the time the news reporting on these protests gets it completely wrong and attempts to tar the 'right-wing' as being the violent ones. Take the other week as an example where the BBC and the Guardian seem to report conflicting accounts, not unlikely because the Guardian is well known for its left leaning and therefore seems to be trying to play down the support of the 'right-wingers'.

The BBC account:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-21644784#story_continues_1
A bit different to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/03/edl-march-manchester-handful-arrests


Anyway, continuing on, I recently went to a UAF event to film their 2013 'Conference' but my main reason for going was to try and get an opportunity to ask a question about their methods and in particular their handling of the 2012 St Georges day parade where it transpired that parents with their young children were being pelted with missiles from the UAF who lined the streets. Apparently just because there were a few EDL turned up to the event, the innocent people celebrating a national saints day were fair game for their violent disturbance.

Here is a snippet of the way the UAF treats the English celebrating St Georges day in their own poxy country, albeit without footage of the missiles thrown:

So, without further ado, I give you the full videos for you to watch for your displeasure:


UAF CONFERENCE 2013 Videos 

(I apologise in advance for the poor sound and picture quality. The sound quality couldn't be helped and the camera was continuously trying to auto-focus and the indoor strip lighting was giving it grief.)

(Note that there are some gaps between some of the videos. I didn't bother getting the clothes line seller of 'Love Music' because I didn't think he'd be that interesting - except he would have scored an own goal had I bothered to record him because he blurted out that they should not allow 'racist fascists' to speak because where the far right are able to speak in the media, they gain credibility. Which surely means that people agree with them in the wider society, then? Undemocratic shits.

I also managed to get an interview with the turd Weyman Bennett before people began becoming aware that I wasn't a UAF supporter and began demanding my name, address and phone number. 

The reason for the security according to the Conference coordinator was that 'We have to be careful who films for our security'. The fact that they have people in the conference selling copies of 'Searchlight' which lists far-right personal details is neither here nor there apparently...

Law And Disorder In The UK

Its not often that I actually agree with anything written in the Guardian, but with regards to the latest one about law and order, this article really seems to have hit the nail on the head. With the recent announcements made by David Cameron that they were going to start being more tougher on crime one doesn't need to be a genius to realise that this is all just smoke and mirrors to detract attention away from the main troubles going on right now.

In any case, Im not going to simply repeat what was written in the Guardian, so feel free to read the article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/22/politicians-dont-tell-truth-on-crime

The 'tough on crime' stance wheeled out every so often to trick the gullable law-abiding citizens into supporting further decent into a police state is getting a bit old, even so, it still doesn't stop some of the more traditionalist members of society from giving their support. The state of the law and order in this country currently is quite frankly a joke. The politcians may rattle their sabres to gain temporary support from well intentioned citizens who may still remember, or wish to return to the days where there was such a thing as social cohesion, but punishment is essentially like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Politicians are keen to mention crime statistics but not anything to do with social equality or community unity, all things which ultimately reflect upon why people commit crime in the first place.

So what currently do the British public have to contend with when faced with law and order in the land of hope and glory?

The nation which gave birth to liberalism and the modern ideals of legal and constitutional equality is in my opinion at breaking point. There is a plethora of legal and constitutional issues which we face right now which if not tackled appriopriately will end in a particularily nasty national identity akin to a certain dystopian novel by a Mr Orwell.

One of the most worrying trends we see at the moment is with the level of incompetence, lack of common sense and the extremely zealous approach of police, particularily the younger officers who have been brought up in the 'brave new world' environment that Britain has become. Gone is the image of the friendly English bobby who used to represent everything that was right about this country. There used to be a degree of respect and honour both within the legal system and with alot of the organised crime gangs. Just as a for instance the infamous Kray twins in London's East-End used to donate money to various charities and causes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11487670

The sci-fi drama 'Life on Mars' and 'Ashes to Ashes' from the BBC invoked alot of the issues involved with the changing of police styles over the years, from the local police of the 70's to the decent into the modern face-less borg. The underlying message is that in decades past where there was local communities that cared and looked after one another, even most of the criminals had respect for others to some degree, (unless you owed them money of course) but this has all changed. Now the police go after generally law-abiding people who happen to break some minor law, half the time they don't even realise that what they have done was an offence, whilst the real hardened criminals are ignored because they are difficult targets or because the police themselves feel threatened.

As more and more of the 'old school' police are retired, the more and more we see the new face of the 'police', or as we should call it, the 'corporate tax enforcement force', because by and large, real crime is ignored.

The A19 document is available to all police stations and essentially gives the leaders the authority to retire officers who have served a set amount of service already.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/257/regulation/A19/made

But this of course means even more of those 'old school' coppers will leave leaving more room for youngsters who generally speaking have no idea about community and who have no choice but to follow their orders of revenue collection from drivers or to arrest someone who said something slightly inappropriate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4606022.stm

Yes, in this day and age it seems that you can be arrested (and convicted for) things you said in jest, online or in person and indeed you can be convicted on a 'minority report' whim for something you may have said online. For instance:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls-men-jailed

Men who were alleged to have tried to insight violence and rioting in Cheshire in the 2011 English riots. Of course they probably was, but how can the law convict on the grounds of pre-crime, there is nothing to say these lads were not just joking. They probably wasn't, but I don't understand how you can be convicted on the basis that 'they probably wasn't joking..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19604735

A Muslim who posted the following message onto a Facebook page which was a tribute to fallen soldiers:

"People gassin [venting off] about the deaths of soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.. The women who have been raped.. The children who have been sliced up..! Your enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmless familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE F*****N SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soliders grave & wish him hell because that where he is going."

Do I agree with him? No. Do I agree that a tribute page to the dead is the right place to start political debate? No. Do I think that someone who gets a little hot headed and emotional should be sentenced to prison? Of course not! I don't agree with the wars, they have nothing to do with us - but even if you was gullable enough to believe the propaganda, wouldn't it be ironic to be punishing freedom of speech against dead soldiers who died in a war against the Taliban?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh5kgJQ6-xU

This was a high profile case because of the mass-media getting ahold of it, but this woman although not exactly eloquent, voices concerns that the vast majority of white Europeans harbour. She was more than likely feeling extremely vulnerable since she looks to be one of the only English people on the bus. Also, there seems to be an awful amount of 'racist' videos coming from certain accounts which seems to suggest that many of these people are being goaded into saying things they wouldn't usually say (unless pissed off.)

I often speak to a ex-policeman who comes into where I work and even though he worked for the police for some thirty years, he says himself that most of the 'new-breed' are simply bullies in uniform, or lack any kind of intelligence or integrity to do the job in a proper capacity. This is an increasing trend too, many older people who used to never question the way in which the police operate are suddenly becoming surprised at the sort of behavior we are being subjected to these days.

So why is Cameron hammering on the idea of 'tougher punishments?' Well, its a ridiculous situation. In the past few decades, especally under Labour, we have seen thousands of new offences being created. Most crime (as in stealing, assaulting, murdering etc) is actually down in recent years.

When you look at these statistics you will see something strange:
http://www.ukcrimestats.com/

The vast majority of crime is 'anti social behavior'. Well aside from the fact that anything could be construed as 'anti-social', we have to assume that most of this is from the kind of typical ASBO lout you may expect to see in any run down council estate area, or anyone who is in a drunken state coming out of a pub or club late at night and is making a bit of a nuissance of themselves. In this case we have to ask some questions seeing as all the other areas of 'normal' crime (such as robbery and so on) are actually on a decrease.
Why do kids go out and become anti-social?
Why do people drink excessively every weekend?
If politicians could answer those questions effectively and more importantly seek to rectify the problems, then maybe that is more important than starting a witch hunt against the vulnerable in society. Am I advocating the 'hug a hoodie' mentality that Cameron came up with before he was elected and has since dropped? No. But what I'am calling for is for the real reasons for Britains social woes to be investigated instead of making laws up for no inherrent reason which only serve to restrict freedoms and do not help society in any way.

I'm not qualified to answer these questions, but I would suggest that the vast majority of the reasons comes from the Government itself. That is:
The destruction of family values.
The unbelieveably poor education system which teaches in an out of date fashion without the dicipline which that old system requires to operate.
The destruction of local communties (both through the disintergration of traditional organisations and through mass migration.)
The attack of individual liberty.
The isolation of children in community.
The lack of job or career prospects (because the Government keeps getting cheap foreign workers in and because British companies keep moving their factories abroad) and for most if not all youngsters in this day and age.
The fact that alchohol and drug usage is a coping mechanism for many for the many issues the poorer face today. Not only that but much of the violent and anti social behavior is a learnt charectaristic through the sheer frustration of their situation and it essentially equates to mental illness. Punishing chavs just because they are uneducated and angry at being put on societies landfill sounds somewhat harsh to me. All the while the biggest criminals in the world eating lavish meals at international conventions paid for by the struggling tax payers, I very much doubt the status quo is going to change a great deal.

Just another day of bullshit.

(On a lighter note, Rowan Atkinson is backing a campaign for free speech, let us hope his fame will bring some real debate on the subject. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9616750/Rowan-Atkinson-we-must-be-allowed-to-insult-each-other.html)

Drone Warfare: Watching You Watching Me

I've been meaning to highlight the possible applications of next generation R/C planes for a while as we see an increasing drive with police and military (particularly in the US) towards the use of drone technology. It seems that CCTV and constant GPRS tracking via your phone among other tracking capabilities aren't enough these days so small drone vehicles are under development to track and follow us with particular use in large events and protests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6676809.stm#graphic

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/01/british-police-more-drones



All seems lost until you discover that low-budget 'FPV' (first person view) aircraft are relatively easy to make at home and could help with many civil rights issues in the future.
Using over the counter bits and pieces you can create a 'First Person' R/C aircraft that not only is incredibly cool and fun to fly about, but could help defend political activists in the future and perhaps more importantly help provide evidence against heavy-handed




Baring in mind that in the past, Police who use undue force during protests etc often get away with it (the case with Ian Tomlinson in the G20 protests in London is one example of where evidence provided with witnesses camera footage at least helped gain a court case - but unfortunately failed to be enough to secure a conviction) especially in highly populated areas like protests where its difficult to get a decent view, helicopter FPV recording all which the police do could provide exceptional evidence against police brutality and also those dodgy cases where you see agent provocateurs mysteriously disappear through police lines. Having personally been at large, high profile protests it is incredibly frustrating when you see such misuse of power (aka, girls of fifteen, sixteen being hit with batons) and you haven't the time or ability to record events on the ground as it happens. This could really help in those situations.

Learn more about this awesomeness:

General Info:

http://www.fpvuk.org/

http://www.fpvpilot.com/Pages/default.aspx

http://rcexplorer.se/Educational/FPV/FPV.html

Pre-Made Kits:
These kits are of course not the best, and you would do better with a much greater radio equipment and airframe but would be good for practice:

http://www.hubsan.com/products/FPV/H301F.htm

http://www.readymaderc.com/store/

I imagine that not only would these planes be good in protest or foreseeable domestic conflicts but might also be useful in a SHTF scenario. If you live in the countryside it might be an ideal way of patrolling the perimeter of your land and immediate area without the danger of coming into contact with any dangerous groups or people. Or to simply check on livestock or check where that herd of deer is grazing so you know where to walk to with the gun later on.

I've been meaning to get one of these for a long while, but money is tight! I definitely will get one of these eventually though, even if its just for the lol's!

Or for perv'n! lol.

Name And Shame

Yesh.

The novel 'Nineteen-Eighty-Four' is being used more and more frequently to describe which way society in general is heading towards, but unfortunately I believe it is a correct assessment.

If you have read the book or watched the film you'll remember the scenes where completely indoctrinated idiots stand up in a cinema environment whilst screaming hysterically to voice their discontent at individuals who have performed a 'thought' or 'sex' crime. Such a thing has unfortunately already begun to come to fruition as our politicians continue their regime of brainwashing on the young and impressionable.

This news story is a few weeks old now, but this news story just drew up memories of 'Nineteen-Eighty-Four'. When I first heard it on the radio I was sure that this sort of thing would infringe upon someone's human-rights, but apparently not:

http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/Known-criminals-named-shamed-Chelmsford-V/story-16719756-detail/story.html

This news story was from the 'V Festival' held at Hylands Park in Chelmsford, the fact that the news reports on these things so by-the-by is somewhat unnerving.

But alas, this is not the most worrying of recent attempts to stop crime. In Germany they've recently given permission for legal firms to name and shame pornography file-sharers. Its a nice way of getting pirates to hand over money I suppose if you just straight-up blackmail them with information which could destroy marriages or employment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19354993

The BBC article does go on to mention that: “The legal system in Germany is very different to ours, being a civil law system. However, publishing details of alleged infringer’s could be dangerous and under English law would raise potential issues of defamation and breach of privacy depending on the exact wording used."

Oh. Well that's all right then. Lets just ignore the fact that the EU has been busy chipping away at our law-making powers since 1957. If the EU allows this to go on in Germany, what sort of hope do we have in the future when our political overlords finally sign us over to Brussels completely?