Saturday, April 29, 2017
It's NOT enough that Centrelink has fraudulently sent out debt collection letters to welfare recipients,
now the people must put up this sort of abuse:
Friday, April 28, 2017
The good people of Australia MUST know that the government has been collecting and storing their data for quite some time, where only now (Good Friday, 2017) the law has caught up and been officially implemented.
Police commit many criminal actions against the general populous daily, and with regards to privacy breaches the numbers are staggering where they are hidden from the masses and for very good reasons.
ONLY one case has made it out into the public eye regarding a journalist having privacy breached with regards to the new metadata laws.
The people in government write laws where if a member of the public commits a 'criminal' offence the people in government obtain a financial remedy.
Since this journalist is a VICTIM of criminal actions by police, the new metadata laws must contain a remedy for the victim within the act, as they do for government bodies..
UNLESS of course the people in government who have written the laws regard the good people of Australia as slaves or enemies of the state.
Let's see what 'remedy' the journalist obtains being the victim of police criminal actions.
This is what smh.com.au wrote on 28 April 2017 under the headline:
Police illegally obtained journalist's phone records under new metadata retention regime
The Australian Federal Police illegally obtained a journalist's phone records under the Turnbull government's new metadata retention regime, the agency announced on Friday.
The breach took place as part of an investigation into a leak of confidential police material - and the incident will now be investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin said the police officers investigating the leak did not realise they were required to obtain a warrant to access the journalist's metadata.
"This was human error. It should not have occurred. The AFP takes it very seriously and we take full responsibility for breaching the Act," Mr Colvin said.
AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
"There was no ill will or malice or bad intent by the officers involved who breached the Act. But simply it was a mistake."
The journalist in question had not been informed their data had been accessed, Mr Colvin said, due to sensitivities around the ongoing investigation into the leak.
The breach occurred "earlier this year" and was reported to the Ombudsman on Wednesday.
Under the revised data retention regime, police are required to obtain a warrant from a judge to seek metadata from a journalist.
"The vulnerability is the investigator needs to understand that that's their requirement," Mr Colvin said on Friday. "On this occasion, the investigator didn't."
The phone records in question were relevant to the investigation, Mr Colvin said, but "what was improper was that the right steps weren't taken to gain access to it".
The breach is the first such incident that has come to light under the government's new metadata retention regime, which requires service providers to store their customers' data for two years.
Acknowledging the policy was "controversial", Mr Colvin said Australians should nonetheless have "full confidence" in both the police and the policy.
He conceded the AFP's internal procedures had not anticipated and prevented the error and therefore those practices would be subject to "significant changes".
Access to metadata would now be restricted to more senior officers, he said, and the number of officers who can approve access to metadata will be reduced. Training will also be bolstered.
Asked if the unlawfully-obtained phone records would still be relied on to inform the actions of investigators, he acknowledged that once seen it could not be unseen.
"Clearly they can't unsee it. They'll need to consider ... what weight they put on what they saw," Mr Colvin said. "But that material was accessed illegally, so it can have no bearing on the conduct of the investigation."
He stressed the content of the journalist's phone calls were not accessed, just the call records. But Paul Murphy, chief executive of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, said that was not a mitigating factor.
"It's another demonstration that the AFP do not understand the sensitivities here, the vital importance of protecting journalists' confidential sources," he said. "It's an absolute disgrace."
South Australian senator Nick Xenophon, who lobbied for extra safeguards for journalists when the laws were formulated, said he was "furious" about the revelation and would seek further amendments to the law.
"This is outrageous. There's been a flagrant breach of the law here," he said. "The safeguards have been completely trashed. This should chill the spine of every journalist in this country."
Thursday, April 20, 2017
The people in government have apparently passed some sort of legislation that allows them to monitor every mode of communication the mass population has including their location at every point in time an instance of communication has been made.
The government will also keep this information for ever and use it at any point in time (even when you're 90 years old) against you, and maybe at some later point in time bring up your forefather's (alleged) 'criminal' actions (internet browsing history) in your court matter.
When was this done?
When the peasants were flocking to celebrate the death of a man called Jesus Christ otherwise known as Easter.
Now why would the Australian Government turn on a mass surveillance machine against its own people, unless it sees the people as an enemy of the state?
Let's take a closer look at what is this 'Australian Government' and what is this 'the people'.
The people should be aware that in Australia, the founding legal document for 'authorities' to follow is a document called 'The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act' from the year 1901, or commonly referred to as 'The Constitution' for short.
Every single law that has been passed must be in line with this document called 'The Constitution'.
Every single court in this country must be a Chapter III (of the Constitution) court.
Putting aside any legal arguments into the validity of the 'Constitution', the highest court in this land is a business called the High Court of Australia, which has been only recently setup (NOT in 1902) by an Act called the High Court of Australia Act 1979, by people from somewhere called the 'Australian Government', a place not as described in the 'Constitution'
According to the Constitution ALL laws must be made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
Currently ALL laws are made by the Parliament of Australia.
EVERY politician MUST recite the oath contained within the 'Constitution'.
Only recently it has been exposed that the people sitting in the High Court of Australia have committed criminal offences by removing the U.K. monarch from legal proceedings.
The High Court of Australia has been deceiving the people of Australia since 1973, and therefore as a result is not a court of competent jurisdiction.
There is plenty more to write about in detail into the corruption of Australia's executive with regards to their powers and the judiciary but this is beyond the scope of this post.
Let's now move across to who 'the people' are.
Since Australia is (still) a monarchy where the people are technically 'subjects' of Her Majesty, unless of course one has emigrated to Australia and signed 'Citizenship' paperwork (therefore succumbing to a republic), which brings them into a different jurisdiction.
So for the best part of it, the Australian people who live in a monarchy are 'subjects' of Her Majesty.
So where do these people stand with regards to law / the law making process something technically called the Rule of Law?
1). The U.K. Monarch - Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
2). The people of the state, 'subjects' of Her Majesty
3). Parliament - 'The Parliament of the Commonwealth' - The 'lawful' governing body the 'de jure' government.
The people in the corporation conglomerate called the 'Australian Government' are not in office lawfully, governing over the Australian people, the people of the state, 'subjects' of Her Majesty through fear, extortion, intimidation, threats of violence or incarceration for not heeding to corporate agreements.
The people are literally the enemy of this machine called the 'Australian Government'.
See what Sydney Criminal Lawyers wrote on this topic (text only version):
Although the legislation enabling the scheme was passed in October 2015 – and data has been stored and accessed since then – last week marked the end of the ‘implementation period’.
This means everyone’s online activities are now being stored by Internet Service Providers – and must be released to a whole host of government agencies upon request, without those agencies having to obtain a warrant.
Journalist Quentin Dempster described the laws as turning “this country’s entire communications industry… into a surveillance and monitoring arm of at least 21 agencies of executive government.”
Why these laws are concerning
While the content of your communications is not meant to be looked at, the legally accessible data can still paint a detailed picture of your online activities – potentially enabling government agents to use selected data to bolster allegations against intended targets, or to track, hunt down and prosecute whistle blowers.
Indeed, government agencies including the Australian Federal Police have already admitted investigating many journalists and even doctors who have been critical of government policies and actions, by accessing their metadata.
The new legislation will make it a lot easier for these agencies to hunt down whistleblowers who expose government misconduct.
Data that can be legally accessed without a warrant includes:
- Telephone records
- The time and length of phone calls
- The internet protocol addresses (IP addresses) of computers from which messages are received or sent
- Location of parties making phone calls
- To and from email addresses on emails
- Logs of visitors to chat rooms online
- Status of chat sites – whether they are active and how many people are participating
- Chat aliases or identifiers (the name a person uses in a chat room online)
- Start and finish times of internet sessions
- The location of an individual involved in communications
- The name of the application someone uses online and when, where and for how long used
However, the new laws have indeed been used to target people for a range of purposes which were not previously disclosed.
Use of metadata to date
Last year, it was revealed that over 60 Government agencies had applied to the Attorney-General for metadata access. The list includes the Australian Taxation Office, Department of Human Services, and even local councils.
In fact, Bankstown Council applied for metadata access in order to catch illegal rubbish dumpers and those who breach by-laws. That access was granted. And the Queensland Police Service used the scheme to access the metadata of cadets in an attempt to determine whether they were sleeping with one another, or faking sick days.
To many, dumping rubbish, monitoring the sexual activities of cadets or even evading tax is not enough to justify sacrificing the privacy of the entire Australian population – especially when the reason put forth for the implementation of the laws was to fight against terrorism and organised crime.
Protecting your privacy
There are many perfectly legal ways to circumvent the government’s metadata scheme. Here are just a few of them.
Hide your browsing data using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) service:
VPN’s work by creating a secure connection between your computer and another network. While you can still browse the internet freely, VPNs allow you to do this through the other network – disguising your tracks.
The only metadata that will be recorded is your connection to the other network. Electronic Frontiers Australia and Digital Rights Watch both have good introductions to choosing a VPN.
Protecting your emails by using online services:
If you use an email address supplied by your ISP (ie. @optus, @bigpond etc) they will be forced to record the address you emailed, attachment names, file sizes and location from which you send.
However, if you use an overseas browser-based email services, like Gmail or Hotmail, all your ISP can record is that your location, and how long you were connected to that service – and if you’re using a VPN they won’t even be able to see that.
Using Facebook Messenger to protect your SMS:
If you send a SMS from your phone, your ISP will record the number you SMSd, the time of the sms, its size and your location. However, this can be easily protected by using an App, such as Facebook Messenger or iMessage, that comes preloaded onto your phone.
Much like using a browser based email service, this will mean that they can only record the time you accessed the service, size of data exchanged, and your location – again, even this will be protected if your using a VPN.
Usings Skype to protect your phone calls:
If you make a call from your mobile phone, your ISP will record the number you called, the time of call, its duration, and your location.
However if you call using a smartphone app, such as Skype, Signal or Facebook Messenger, then they will only be able to record the time of your connection, and the amount of data used, and your location – again, you can protect against this by using a VPN.
The corporate agenda of full control over the monitoring and movement of the masses is in full swing in Australia.
One method that thwarts monitoring the movements of the masses is something called cash and where it goes.
As a response the corporation conglomerate has a 'solution' for this, where it is mandated (like in a dictatorship / fascist state) by whichever unlawful law they choose to call an Act or even put in place without something called 'due process', which seems more likely by the people in government today.
The government has implemented a cashless (part of) society who are literally 'owned' by a corporation called Centrelink which is unlawfully responsible for handing out government payments to welfare recipients.
In this instance, the 'excuse' given is because the Indigenous population is using cash to purchase illegal drugs, legal alcohol and maybe even legal or illegal (untaxed) cigarettes, use the legal services of gambling venues or even the services of (unregistered therefore untaxed therefore illegal) whores, the caring people in government came up with the idea to limit one's choices in what one can purchase for cash apparently for their benefit.
Another excuse the government is 'marketing' is lost alleged tax revenue from the 'little people' whereas the government is fully supporting tax avoidance from corporate giants the likes of Apple, Google and Microsoft (just to name a few in the I.T. sector) conducting business in Australia.
As a result of the forced policy from the wise people in government, they now claim that it has been a success.
Now the largest problem the commoner / the 'ordinary' person / the tax slave has, is that the word of the government cannot be independently verified as true.
The people in government deliberately provide false information (read lie) regarding results of policies and /or law or statistics in order to push through their corporate agenda which in direct conflict to their 'job' of serving the people.
The so called 'honourable' administration of the High Court has been deceiving the good people of Australia since 1973, where only this corruption was exposed in 2017, where Australia's Attorney-General George Brandis has been in on it.
With every new implementation / addition to current laws the people in government are taking away the rights and choices the masses have without the general population even flinching.
Since the people did not act when the government took cash away from the Indigenous population, when the government will come for the rest of the population will the people wake up?
See what news.com.au wrote on this topic on the 14th March 2017 with the headline:
Cashless welfare card ‘a success’: report
Human Services Minister Alan Tudge says the cashless welfare card has led to obvious improvements in two trial communities. Picture: Aaron Francis/The Australian.
A CASHLESS welfare card trial is being hailed as a success despite reports of some card holders turning to prostitution or “humbugging” to hack the system.The Turnbull Government has welcomed an independent audit which found the year-long trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley have greatly reduced rates of substance abuse and gambling in the communities.
Cashless welfare cards will now be implemented permanently in the two regions, subject to six-monthly reviews.
The government will also look to expand the program to other areas.
But the report by ORIMA Research, to be released today, also shows some recipients have been hacking the system to get cash.
Under the scheme, first flagged by businessman and philanthropist Andrew Forrest in 2014, welfare recipients receive 80 per cent of their payment on a cashless debit card, which can’t be used to buy alcohol or gamble.
The other 20 per cent goes into their bank account.
The report found there had been “a couple of examples of suspected prostitution” to obtain cash and instances of merchants “overcharging for a product or services and then refunding the difference in cash,” ABC reports.
There had also been reports of more “humbugging” or pestering family or friends for money.
But the report concluded the trial had been effective in decreasing alcohol consumption, drug use and gambling and met the medium-term goals for related harms.
Human Services Minister Alan Tudge said the card was not a panacea but it had led to obvious improvements in the trial communities.
“Inevitably, people would prefer to have fewer restrictions than more restrictions, particularly if you are an alcoholic, but the evaluation and the data shows that it is having a positive net impact on reducing alcoholism, gambling and illicit substance abuse,” Mr Tudge said.
“The rights of the community, of the children and of elderly citizens to live in a safe community are equally important as the rights of welfare recipients.”
Nearly a quarter of people using the card reported less alcohol and drug use in their communities, and 27 per cent reported a drop in gambling.
Card users who said they were drinkers before the trial began also reported a 25 per cent drop in binge drinking.
Almost a third of users reported being able to better care for their children and save more money.
About 41 per cent of community members not on welfare reported less drinking in their area since the trial began and 46 per cent said it had made life in the area better.
However, about half of the card users reported the card made their lives worse.
Many users also experienced problems with the card, although the report suggested a lot of errors were down to merchants not understanding the system.
About 86 per cent of declined transactions between April and September were due to user errors or because there was not enough money left in the card user’s account.
The report found reductions in alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling have been “largely driven by the impact of the debit card quarantining mechanism and not by the additional services provided.”
Minister Tudge said there has been no decisions on whether to expand the trials to new sites.
Labor leader Bill Shorten said the opposition had been open to trialling the cards in Ceduna and the East Kimberley but needed to examine the results.
“We were certainly very concerned, in particular to see what we could do to reduce the scourge of alcohol abuse, but we are reserving judgment until we fully study the results (of the review),” he told reporters in Melbourne.
Greens senator Rachel Siewert said the extension would come as a shock to many who were told they would only be on the card for a year.
“The report released today shows that half of the participants felt the card made their life worse,” she said.
The evaluation was largely based on perceptions for the first three months. “It is not the full year and should not be used to justify extending the trial,” Senator Siewert said.
Monday, April 17, 2017
It seems that if you work for a government you have this magical power / piece of paper that allows you to hack literally into all corners of the world without any legal consequences.
Does this also include obtaining information for financial gain, something which at law is called fraud, an indictable offence?
It seems like the world's largest hacking organisation is the warring nation called the U.S.
Here's what the Fairfax publication had to say about the situation on 16 April 2017 of the headline:
'Wrecking the internet': hackers may have just revealed huge flaw in global commodity marketHackers have released documents and files that cybersecurity experts say indicate the US National Security Agency had accessed the SWIFT interbank messaging system, allowing it to monitor money flows among some Middle Eastern and Latin American banks.
The release on Friday included computer code that could be adapted by criminals to break into SWIFT servers and monitor messaging activity, said Shane Shook, a cyber security consultant who has helped banks investigate breaches of their SWIFT systems.
The hack, if verified, could be the biggest ever exposed after exposure of NSA files by Edward Snowden in 2013. Photo: AP/The Guardian
The documents and files were released by the Shadow Brokers, a hacking group that has previously leaked malware. Some of the records bear NSA seals, but Fairfax could not confirm their authenticity.
If genuine, such a hack could have enabled the US to covertly monitor financial transactions, researchers said.
The new leak suggested that the NSA may have hacked into EastNets, a Dubai-based firm that facilitates payments in the global SWIFT transaction system for a collective of major banks based in the Middle East.
The leak included detailed evidence that a string of major financial firms in Qatar, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Syria, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories, may have been hacked - or potentially targeted - by the US government.
However, the BBC reported on Friday that EastNets denied claims its service had been compromised.
"The reports of an alleged hacker-compromised EastNets Service Bureau network is totally false and unfounded," a spokesperson said.
"The EastNets Network Internal Security Unit has run a complete check of its servers and found no hacker compromise or any vulnerabilities".
But the contents of the leak appeared to suggest otherwise.
One spreedsheet contained in the release listed a slew of banks based in the Middle East that were successfully infected by NSA spyware.
Qatar First Investment Bank, Arab Petroleum Investments Corporation Bahrain, Dubai Gold and Commodities Exchange, Tadhamon International Islamic Bank, Noor Islamic Bank, Kuwait Petroleum Company and Qatar Telecom, are just a few of the financial institutions that were targeted by the NSA, according to the leaked files.
Fairfax was not able to verify the authenticity of the files - and the NSA has not commented on the leak.
Also published were many programs for attacking various versions of the Windows operating system, at least some of which still work, researchers said.
In a statement to Reuters, Microsoft, maker of Windows, said it had not been warned by any part of the US government that such files existed or had been stolen.
Following the leak, Microsoft released a statement outlining the risks that may have been created by the disclosure.
"Today, Microsoft triaged a large release of exploits made publicly available by Shadow Brokers. Understandingly, customers have expressed concerns around the risk this disclosure potentially creates".
"Our engineers have investigated the disclosed exploits, and most of the exploits are already patched".
Criminal hackers could use the information released on Friday to hack into banks and steal money in operations mimicking a heist last year of $US81 million from the Bangladesh central bank.
That cyberattack was likely the work of the North Korean government, according to the Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab ZAO.
The SWIFT messaging system is used by banks to transfer trillions of dollars each day.
Belgium-based SWIFT downplayed the risk of attacks employing the code released by hackers on Friday.
SWIFT said it regularly releases security updates and instructs client banks on how to handle known threats.
SWIFT said it had no evidence that the main SWIFT network had ever been accessed without authorisation.
It was possible that the local messaging systems of some SWIFT client banks had been breached, SWIFT said in a statement, which did not specifically mention the NSA.
The documents released by the Shadow Brokers on Friday indicate that the NSA may have accessed the SWIFT network through service bureaus. SWIFT service bureaus are companies that provide an access point to the SWIFT system for the network's smaller clients and may send or receive messages regarding money transfers on their behalf.
"If you hack the service bureau, it means that you also have access to all of their clients, all of the banks," said Matt Suiche, founder of the United Arab Emirates-based cybersecurity firm Comae Technologies, who has studied the Shadow Broker releases and believes the group has access to NSA files.
The documents posted by the Shadow Brokers include Excel files listing computers on a service bureau network, user names, passwords and other data, Suiche said.
"That's information you can only get if you compromise the system," he said.
Cris Thomas, a prominent security researcher with the cybersecurity firm Tenable, said the documents and files released by the Shadow Brokers show "the NSA has been able to compromise SWIFT banking systems, presumably as a way to monitor, if not disrupt, financial transactions to terrorists groups".
If legitimate, the files released by Shadow Brokers would be the most significant exposure of NSA files since the leaks in 2013 by former US intelligence contractor, Edward Snowden.
The infamous whistleblower described the exposure of the files as the "Mother Of All Exploits" on Twitter, writing that the release of the files was "wrecking the internet".
The documents released by the hackers did not clearly indicate whether the NSA had actually used all the techniques cited for monitoring SWIFT messages.