Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Samsung Galaxy S10/Note 10 fingerprint issue might be more serious than it appears



Last week, news broke out that some Samsung Galaxy S10 users were experiencing an issue with the ultrasonic fingerprint which would allow their phones to be unlocked from non-registered fingerprints. Later on it became apparent that the issue was also replicated on the Galaxy S10+ and Note10 series which brought more attention to the problem.

Samsung issued an official statement on the matter claiming that “certain silicone screen protectors” were causing the issue and that users should stop using these protectors and re-register their fingerprints without them. In a new development, a Note 10 user managed to trick the fingerprint scanner by placing a TPU cutout over it. This shows the vulnerability is not just related to fingerprints that were registered over a screen protector.



The video above shows the user’s Note10 is without a screen protector and we even see him re-register both his thumbs and index fingers for the purpose of the test. At the 1:22 mark, the user places the TPU cutout over the lower part of the screen which manages to trick the scanner to unlock the phone with a non-registered fingerprint.

The same process is performed multiple times with different fingers and each time the scanner gets bypassed. It’s also worth mentioning that the test was performed on the Exynos variant of the Note 10 as we are yet to see if the Snapdragon models are also experiencing the same flaw.

Samsung did issue a software update for the Exynos Note 10+ 5G recently which provides improvements to the fingerprint scanner and should also offer one for the rest of the Note10 and S10 lines soon.

Source: gsmarena

Monday, October 21, 2019

Tougher law to come into effect that stops exposing government corruption

Many people do not realise that Australia, the country they live in is a colony, after all it is written so in the constitution.
(See Sect 8 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12/contents/enacted)

With this in mind something else comes into play where the colonialists enforce a term we call 'Penal Colony Policies'.

Also many are of the erroneous belief that 'we' (the people) have freedom of speech or 'free speech' in Australia, which we do not.

Therefore 'police state' of Australia wants to rule in secrecy, and their corrupt and illegal actions to remain hidden from the tax slaves the MPs are supposed to allegedly serve.

The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" saying applies to the serfs and not to those in government.

New law will be put into 'force' which will allow government to get away with more criminal activity without the fear of exposure or even prosecution.

 The new level of corporatocracy/totalitarian rule/fascist state or however else on would like to describe these actions is comming to the people of Australia.

So what are they going to do about it?

NOTHING, as usual. 

As long as there is plenty of beer on tap, sport and reality tv to keep the distrations going.

Australia a nation of real losers.

Maybe they need to lose a lot more in order to wake up?

P.S.: (more) austerity is coming your way to 'straya.

Saturday, October 19, 2019

Water company's bill fraud

Briefly:
It is imperative that people check the invoices that corporations issue to them ESPECIALLY for 'services' that they allegedly provide.

It is also important to know that sending out a false invoice is a criminal offence.

We've obtained information about a customer of a water company, where a challenge to the bill occurred.

The challenge was with regards to the water usage and sewerage disposal fees.



In this instance the company's employee stated that the procedure for reading the water meter was followed, also 'stating' that the person reading the meter did actually go to the property and read that meter.

This sounds all very nice and well, pretty much text book stuff, right?

Well it would be, IF there was an actual house on the property, and water usage really did occur.

Hearing the response or rather lack of, from the company's employee was ... priceless.

The 'company' blatantly lied to the customer that an event occurred when in reality it did not, and produced a false invoice to be payed.

This is not an isolated incident, where  'customers' you know (hard working, heavily taxed) mums and dads are defrauded of their cash.

Note: we do not recommend subscription to automatic deductions by corporations for alleged services they provide, if that is an option.

Thursday, October 17, 2019

A corrupt and biased legal system 'Rorts ruling a disgrace'

MANY people or victims complain that they do not obtain 'justice' from our legal system.

We are told that the (other) 3 tiers of government, the executive, parliament and judicature are supposed to act independently of each other.

That would be great if it were true, where many persons from each tier also subscribe to the 'brotherhood', therefore intertwining the three tiers and therefore subverting the course of 'justice' or rather verdicts and as a result orders.

The red shirts scandal that is in the public domain is just one example of many.

See article:


Monday, October 14, 2019

Julia Gillard sworn in as Prime Minister incorrectly?

A video by the 10 News corporation was put up on the media sharing platform YouTube of Julia Gillard and then Governor-General of Australia Quentin Bryce swearing an oath of office approximately 9 years ago.

In the not so true spirit of 'democracy' and 'free speech' comments have been turned off by the corporation, as noted in the above screen capture.

At approximately the  2 minute mark the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce invites Ms. Gillard to an "Affirmation of Office" as Prime Minister.

Ms. Gillard then recites a piece of paper handed to her by Ms. Bryce which she then seems to read:

"I Julia Eileen Gillard do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia her land and her people in the office of Prime Minister."

The "PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA" states that the swearing in before the Governor-General as an affirmation must be in the following format:

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law.[59]

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 in its Schedule states that the affimation must be:

" I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. (Note.—The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)"

So, it seems that Julia Gillard sexualised the land of Austalia as female, and is serving 'her' firstly and then 'her' people.

Gillard is registered as an MP in the "PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA", and was the Prime Minister from 26.10.2010 to 27.6.2013.


References:

See video of Gillard's affirmation at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HUyut-wPbg


PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA,  Swearing-in:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter5/Swearing-in


Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, as enacted in the UK (Oath/Affimation):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12/schedule/enacted

Saturday, October 12, 2019

Convicted paedophile and former NSW minister Milton Orkopoulos wins bid for parole


© AAP Image/Dean Lewins Convicted paedophile and former NSW ministeWr Milton Orkopoulos wins bid for parole 

The NSW Parole Authority has formed an intention to grant parole to convicted paedophile and disgraced former state government minister Milton Orkopoulos.

Orkopoulos was sentenced in 2008 to at least nine years and three months in jail for 30 child sex and drugs charges, relating to three boys in the Hunter Valley region and Lake Macquarie.

He became eligible for parole in 2017 but it was repeatedly refused because he did not take part in a sex offenders program.

Now that the intention to grant parole has been determined, all parties will have the opportunity to make submissions at a review hearing in four to six weeks.

The Orkopoulos case was a bombshell for the then-NSW Labor Government.

His trial gave insight into his double life which involved having sex with minors and supplying them with cannabis and heroin.

During sentencing, Newcastle District Court Judge Ralph Coolahan said Orkopoulos' "premeditated, predatory and manipulative" actions had far-reaching effects on his victims and involved a gross breach of trust.

More to come.

Source: msn.com

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Magistrate's orders unlawful, sack the POS

This is the state of the colony's legal system:

If you've been handed out an order by this POS where your 'person' has been harmed, i.e. suffered a financial loss, you should sue him AND the 'State Government of Victoria'.

Dodgy Samsung promotes falsified benchmarks

Samsung is 'promoting' owners of their Galaxy devices to falsify benchmark scores by paying them $10 for their efforts.

Now is that the action of an honest corporation?

See further details at:

https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-10-dollars-galaxy-s4-manipulating-benchmarks/

Friday, October 4, 2019

Thug's wife escapes conviction despite being over 5 times alcohol limit

The colony we call Austalia is rife with money for mates jobs and criminal actions by those in 'power', where it's not what you know it's who you know.

Emma Walters, the wife of John Setka blew .282 or approx 5.6 times over the legal limit.

Magistrate Therese McCarthy did not record a conviction despite the fact that Walters had a relevant prior offence, something the serfs get 'hammered' (pun intended) for.

This so called judgement would go against community expectations, right?

You know how your local police deplore drink driving, yet the prosecution did not protest the lack of conviction?

It seems that they (the magistrate and police) were in it together, sweeping the matter under the carpet wanting it to just fade away.

Maybe if you're a piss head and a danger to the community when behind the wheel, you'd want the 'honourable' Therese McCarthy to help you out?

See link: Sack Magistrate Therese McCarthy, bring justice for Jalal Yassine and his family

See reference to Therese McCarthy within the Vicbar being unavailable to the 'public':
https://www.vicbar.com.au/news-events/welcome-her-honour-magistrate-therese-mccarthy


See full details within the following article:


Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Upon entering (the police state of) Australia you must provide your passwords or you will be put in prison for 5 years.

What better person to be in charge of the 'gates' in or out of Australia than an ex copper, Peter Dutton.

See article from 27 Sep 2018 by the Daily Mail of the headline:

Now the police want your passwords – and you could be fined $60,000 or put in prison for five years if you refuse


© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said encryption hurt national security and hid crime



People could face up to five years' in jail if they do not give their laptop password or mobile phone PIN to the authorities under proposed changes to the law.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton introduced the new laws to the Parliament, saying they are needed to help police and spies catch criminals who are hiding behind encryption technology.

But civil libertarians say the changes go too far.

'The bill is a draconian measure to grant law enforcement authorities unacceptable surveillance powers that invade Australians' civil rights,' said Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm in an emailed statement to Daily Mail Australia.

'It appears that people who are not even suspected of committing a crime can face a fine of up to $50,000 and up to five years' imprisonment for declining to provide a password to their smartphone, computer or other electronic devices.' 

The penalty unit fine is actually more than $50,000 asthe value of a penalty unit has recently been increased to $210.


Anybody who refuses to help the authorities crack a computer system when ordered will face up to five years jail. 

If the crime being investigated is terrorism, the penalty for non-compliance is increased to 10 years' jail or $126,000.

If Parliament passes the bill, tech companies will have to help authorities crack the encryption on users devices when told to help - or face up to $10 million in fines.

If anybody at the company tells anybody that they have been told to do it, they will face up to five years' in jail.

This will give authorities access to your protected online information in the event of an investigation.

Under the legislation, foreign countries can also ask Australia's Attorney General for police to access data in your computer to help them investigate law-breaking overseas. 


For the bill to become law, it has to pass through three readings in the federal Parliament. It is now on its second reading. 

More than 14,000 submissions of concern about the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 have been received.

Submissions are open until October 19 so there is still time for you to have your say.


As the Australian Government grapples with new technology challenging law enforcement and national security, lawmakers have passed increasingly tough legislation affecting individual rights over the past five years.

Some in the community have become concerned about the risk of the authorities having too much power.

'This is another extension of powers which goes well beyond what is reasonable and necessary in a democracy,' said NSW Council of Civil Liberties vice-president Lesley Lynch.


There is also reportedly a potential conflict between Australia's legislation and tough new data privacy laws passed in Europe.

A 46-year-old British software developer had his password-protected laptop and phone seized by Australian Border Force (ABF) officers earlier this year as he travelled through Sydney Airport.

The ABF would not say whether any files had been copied, but did inspect his devices.

Nathan Hague told The Guardian he believed the ABF had cracked his laptop password and inspected his files.

He said this potentially compromises his business, putting it in breach of Europe's tough new GDPR data privacy laws and he would have to give privacy breach notifications to his clients.

Monday, September 30, 2019

Legislation slips quietly through when the herd population is being distracted

The 'administration' in charge of the colony we call Australia, governs in secret with penal colony policies turning into law, that is for the benefit of corporations.



ANY resistance from the tax slaves is met with force from the men and women in uniform who are subservient to a corporation aggregate.

The herd population (i.e. dumb 'Australians') are 'entertained' with this:





As long as there is an endless supply of beer and electricity to keep the footy going, the administration is laughing at the herd they control.

The 'administration' need not to worry, as the herd in Australia will do what it's only programmed to do, that being exist at the lowest level of need, as described in Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs',


that being: eating, sleeping shitting and rooting.

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Thursday, September 19, 2019

Australia's NBN the joke of the IT world


The Australian Government's national internet project under the NBN (National Broadband Network) label is a (deliberate) failure at the expense of the hard working Australian tax payers.

As each year goes by Australia's internet speed rating pummels, no thatnks to the NBN.

What's even worse (for the 'consumers') is that when it's finally rolled out across the entire country, it's going to be sub par and obselete, where the corporation aggregate call the 'Austalian Government' will sell off the tax payer's asset (or in this case a liability).

Hip Hip hooray for the imbeciles in charge of the colony we call Australia.

Just as long as plenty of people get 'money for mates' jobs in the associated projects while ripping off the Australian 'tax slaves' in the mean time.

Saturday, September 14, 2019

The Australian Government punishes its poor and it's deliberate by design


So, first things first, you should know that Australia was colonised as an 'economic project'  and they got it up and running pretty quickly making it one of the most prosperous places on the planet in its early years.

While China did recently note that the country was once roamed by "rascals and outlaws" what China neglected to mention is that most of them made it into positions of power.

The 'authorities' decided to start off Australia's police force with criminals, which should tell you a lot already.

The people in government were running a mockery, where the imperial government had enough and in 1865 installed the Colonial Laws Validity Act.

The serfs should also know that the Australian capital was designed by a 'brother' for the 'brotherhood'.

Australia was never meant to be a 'peasants paradise' and this is reflected in the law that the brotherhood installs on the people, tax slaves or more recently categorised 'consumers'.

Today,


"... system is aided by a tax system that rewards people the more houses and units they own."

See article from Friday the 13th of September 2019, by news.com.au of the headline:

Wealth in Australia is now determined by how many assets you own

Wealth in Australia was once determined by the type of job you worked and how much money you made. Now experts say there’s a new measure.

An Australian’s wealth was once determined by their employment status, the type of job they had and how much money they made.

But in 2019, there’s a new five-tier measure of wealth based on how many assets you own, according to a team of University of Sydney researchers.

Social scientists Professor Lisa Adkins, Associate Professor Melinda Cooper and Professor Martijn Konings argue that simply having a job and earning a salary are no longer adequate measures of determining class.

“In the present era, where mid-size homes in large Western cities often appreciate by far more in a given year than it is possible for middle-class wage-earners to save from wages, such a continued focus on employment as the main determinant of class is increasingly untenable,” said Prof Adkins.

According to Dr Cooper and Prof Konings, there is now a five-tier asset-based class system in the developed world.

The top ranking is the “investor” group — those who don’t necessarily have an ordinary working wage but “live off the income generated from portfolios of assets through to non-asset owning classes”.

It noted that in Sydney, just under 50 per cent of all apartments were owned by investors — and the statistic is often higher in central areas of the city.

The second highest group are those who own their home outright. The third highest are those who hold a mortgage.

The bottom two categories are called “churners” who have no housing assets. The fourth category are renters who don’t own any properties or have a mortgage. They can be wage renters or welfare renters.

The homeless sit at the bottom rung of the ladder, with no income from assets, wages or the state.

The researchers largely focused on Sydney, the nation’s most expensive capital city for housing, where they found wealth is increasingly denied by those who own property versus those who will forever be priced out of the housing market.

This system is aided by a tax system that rewards people the more houses and units they own.

“While requiring further empirical verification, we believe that our proposed five-point asset-based class scheme will go some way in explaining how the current structural mutation of capital is central to the production of a new social structure of class,” the report stated.

“In short, we see our scheme as providing a long-overdue sociological translation of the implications of growing asset-based wealth inequalities.”

Saturday, September 7, 2019

VISA insults cash users as cavemen


In the colony called Australia, the 'administration' is waging a war on cash, where the end game is to transfer the serf's transactions into being exclusively cashless.

This combined with metadata acquisition, full monitoring and later control of the movements of the serf population will be achieved. 

In order to do this certain steps have already taken place, where one of them being that persons 'owned' by the government, i.e. welfare recipients, are being forced to use the Indue card, where it is irrelevant whatever the official reasons are.

The next step is that the corporation aggregate is banning cash transactions, over a certain amount (the figure is technically irrelevant), allegedly in order to combat crime, which will not stop with the alleged ban.

MANY people rely on cash transactions for various reasons, where the pros and cons of cash and cashless are not discussed in this post.

VISA has taken it to the next level, insulting people who use cash labelling them as a "caveman".

It seems that the corporate dictatorship has taken over and there is literally no turning back.

MANY still say "Cash is King", where primarily your privacy is protected in your daily transactions.

Buy all your crap on their card, and when the data gets 'breached' others will know if your home is worth robbing.

See video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypPsEjSi5U
Notice how comments have been disabled? Not giving you the right to 'free speech'?

Friday, September 6, 2019

Police falsify crime statistics supported by government denial of any wrongdoing

The Auditor-General released a report into Victorian crime statistics on Wednesday. Photo: Getty

Victoria’s crime statistics have not been manipulated and can be trusted, an audit says, as a perception of lawlessness takes hold of the state.

The Crime Statistics Agency (CSA) has found crime is on the decline, with offences dropping 7.4 per cent in the year to March.

The opposition has rejected optimistic readings of the data to wedge the Labor government on law and order before the November election.

But the Auditor-General on Wednesday said the data was reliable, after reviewing Victoria Police and CSA methods.

“We did not detect any manipulation of crime data or cases falsely recorded as resolved,” the report said of Victoria Police records.

It comes after the former police chief commissioner fudged the assault rate before the 2010 election, the state Ombudsman previously found.

Some risks still remain, the audit said.

There is a risk that police could artificially clear cases to improve rates with high-volume crimes like theft. The audit found no evidence of it in the cases reviewed.

“Another risk is that a serious offence, such as aggravated burglary, is not recorded accurately and downgraded to the less serious offence of theft,” the report said.

“Such inaccuracies could mislead the community about crimes and provide a false picture of police success in addressing crime.”

The audit “found no patterns in the data that would indicate intentional downgrading” by police.

CSA’s methodology for using that police data was found to be transparent and reliable. It does not audit police data and does not have the power to improve its quality.

The agency’s chief statistician, Fiona Dowsley, welcomed the findings.

Monash University criminologist Rebecca Wickes told The New Daily that CSA data was reliable in her experience, and that more complex data breakdown required more resources.

The report also found Victoria Police has done little to help its officers understand prima facie since 2013.

Because of its non-compliance with that reporting, the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not report the number of assaults in Victoria.

The report said officers sometimes investigate before deciding whether to record the incident as a crime.

Victoria Police accepted the nine recommendations, including training officers to report incidents prima facie, if an incident appears to be a crime on first look rather than waiting until further investigation.

CSA is often cited for listing people born in Sudan as accounting for 1 per cent of offenders in Victoria. They make up 0.1 per cent of the population, according to the latest Census data.

Prof Wickes said the Sudanese-born population was much younger than the general population.

She said it was a “brute fact” that people aged 15-24 were those most likely to commit crimes in any demographic.

The context

The Auditor-General report comes days after police botched its response to a brawl in Collingwood, where a record label launch at the Gasometer Hotel went sour.

Police wrongly said an 18-year-old man had his leg amputated after being crushed by a car in the affray. His leg was not amputated.

The suspected driver was arrested and released without charge.

There were claims authorities were warned it could turn violent, but failed to properly prepare and manage it.

A resident, who did not want to be named, told The New Daily on Sunday she went onto the street to ask police “why they weren’t doing anything”.





Legal observers from Melbourne Activist Legal said reporting was overblown.


Investigations are continuing.

Victoria Police on Wednesday announced new crowd control weapons to be used from later this week, but rejected suggestions the timing was linked to the Collingwood brawl.

Weapons include pepper-ball firearms, 40mm firearms, hand and sound/flash devices.

Dye could be used in the non-lethal weapons to “hit certain offenders that we need to identify or arrest”, Assistant Commissioner Chris O’Neill told reporters.

“This is not specific to the Collingwood event, but in events where we want to disperse crowds, where we want to mark people, where we want to go and make arrests, all this sort of equipment are options that we could use.”

The assistant commissioner cited the December clash between protesters and controversial British commentator Milo Yiannopoulos as an example.

Source: thenewdaily.com.au

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Criticising your 'local council' online and you could end up in court

CEO's of city councils paying themselves high salaries from your rates while skimping out on services.

People should realise that in this colony we call Australia according to the law, you know the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 'municipal offices' or what we call today 'local government' or 'city councils' MUST  be a department of the state, but they are not, they have been corporatised.

See pages 935-936 from the book called the 'Quick and Garran'* or it's long name The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth:


While their existence is facutally legal, it may not be entirely lawful.

For example in Victoria the Local Government Act of 1874 put together rural and metropolitan councils, where after federation the law still stood.

Today, in Victoria the legal infrastucture states that city councils obtain their power from the Local Govenrment Act of 1989.

The CEO's of 'city councils' are committing fraud against their 'rate payers' but as usual this type of fraud may never be addressed properly (i.e. all the way to the High Court) in the interest of the public. 

* More about Quick and Garran.

Sir John Quick was a very prominent man in the formation of The Constitution having a substantial input into the Constitutional Conventional Debates held during the 1890s and was also very active, along with Sir Robert Garran in the creation of the book called Quick and Garran. The book, Quick and Garran is very heavily based on the Constitutional Conventional Debates and as such has become what could be considered as a 2nd reading speech in the Parliament as it sets out the purpose and reasons that The Constitution was framed in the way it was. Quick and Garran is called a book of authority and can be used in any Court in the world when relating to Australian constitutional matters. The High Court and the Privy Council has quoted from and used Quick and Garran as a book of reference on many occasions. In the case of the High Court, far too many to list, but more than 150 occasions and in the case of the Privy Council, on a few occasions.
(Source: clra.info/local_government/)


For Victorians who wish to sue their local city council see:
https://localgovernmentclassaction.com.au/

See article from 28 Aug 2019 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation of the headline:

Kalgoorlie-Boulder council votes to give staff access to ratepayer funds for defamation cases



Photo: Mayor John Bowler says the level of damaging and threatening comments has escalated. (ABC Goldfields: Jasmine Bamford)

A council in regional Western Australia is the latest to join a growing list of local governments around the country to allow ratepayer money to fund defamation action against members of the public.

Key points:

    Mayor defends decision to allow access to ratepayer funds to launch defamation action and obtain restraining orders
    The council says the volume of abusive comments is escalating and becoming more personal
    Social media lawyer says many people wrongly believe they have an enshrined right to freedom of speech

The Kalgoorlie-Boulder council has voted to allow elected members and staff to access funds for legal action when a constituent's comment was defamatory and targeted the person.

Funds can also be used to help employees obtain restraining orders.

The council said the volume of abusive and defamatory comments was escalating and becoming more personal, particularly on social media.

    "I can put up with a lot, and I have ... I think I'm defamed almost daily in this town and it upsets me that it is so vitriolic," chief executive John Walker said.

"But there are some things that have happened that go beyond that ... some of the threats, some of the comments, need to be stopped."

Mayor John Bowler said while he welcomed criticism as a democratic right, the policy change was needed.

"When there are out-and-out lies, threats of violence and hate speech that might precipitate violence, something has got to be done to stop it," he said.

While they did not detail specific remarks, one councillor said a recent Facebook comment referred to staff as "just a bunch of greedy thieves, lining their own pockets".
'Average' person not exempt from defamation

High-profile defamation cases, like actress Rebel Wilson's defamation payout from Bauer Media last year, make the headlines.

But in an academic article this year, NSW District Court Judge Judith Gibson said "ordinary members of the public form the majority of the parties in defamation".

Judge Gibson also noted that defamation court cases arising from social media comments were on the rise, while claims against media organisations were falling.

Paul Gordon, a social media lawyer at Wallmans Lawyers, said the "average person" did not understand what defamation was and "people think they can post anything online and get away with it".

"If I communicate something to you directly and there's no-one else to hear it, I can say what I like and it's not defamatory," he said.

"But the moment one other person can hear or read or see what I've said, then it is defamatory if it meets all the other tests."
What is defamation?

To prove defamation, there are a few factors that must be present: the victim must be identified, the matter must be published (this includes social media), and the matter must be defamatory.

A defamatory comment is something that will lower a person's reputation.

If a person is sued for defamation, they may be able to defend themselves by proving what they said was true or an honest opinion.

    "If I've claimed that you have embezzled funds and I have no evidence of that whatsoever, then I'm going to have a hard time in proving what I said is true," Mr Gordon said.

"If I said, 'I don't think you're doing a good job', I don't need to prove whether or not you're doing a good job, that's simply my opinion and that's not defamatory."

Under defamation law, organisations and councils as a body cannot sue over general damaging comments.

However, individual employees can sue if they have been identified through name or description.

But a New South Wales case in 1994 found a local government entity may sue for "injurious falsehood", which is considered an alternative and less common legal path.


What about free speech?

The constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression.

In June, former High Court judge Michael Kirby told the ABC that "Australia has less protection for free speech than any other Western country", while Judge Gibson said "the term 'defamation capital of the world' has been used repeatedly to describe the high number of defamation cases in Australia".

Mr Gordon said the influence of American culture often led Australians to wrongly believe they had a similar level of protection of free speech.

He said he did not believe the practice of using council funds to launch defamation cases was "unusual".

    "In the current climate, it's not surprising that there are councils adopting these policies.

"I've personally been aware of cases in South Australia and I have heard reports of this in other states."
Ratepayers funding defamation cases

The newly formed WA Ratepayers and Residents Association said there had been a "discouraging trend" of local governments allowing the use of council money to launch defamation actions.

"I don't think it's fair for someone to make false allegations against anyone," chairman Clive Ross said.

    "But for them to be able to launch an action against a resident, using effectively the resident's own money against them, is simply open to abuse and not something I believe is justified."

The Kalgoorlie-Boulder council is two months away from an election and Mr Ross said this change was being used "as a weapon".

Cr Bowler, however, denied it was an attempt to stifle debate, saying that he hoped the legal funds never had to be used and "the mere threat will stop people committing the worst of these atrocities on social media".

The WA Local Government Association said it did not collect data on these types of policies but was aware of various councils issuing cease-and-desist letters to residents.

Mr Gordon said if defamation proceedings went to trial it could be costly, running into the tens of thousands of dollars.

Friday, August 30, 2019

The loss of Google is the best thing that happened to Huawei

Quite simply put, Google is against your (the user's) security (i.e. privacy and anonymity).

An example is that 'surveillance settings' in Android, the likes of Google Location Accuracy get turned on at a later time, even though you turned the setting off.

There is also a plethora of settings that you may turn off, if you've found them deep with wthe settings structure and Google turns them back on, against your will and unknown to you.

Google even enables a setting for itself called Telephone, meaning it can place calls from your device.

Google's business model is based on something called surveillance capitalism, where if Google was truly for your security there would be no data obtained about you from your device which is later passed on to other entities.

With the invention of 'apps' comes another way where government 'players' can obtain your data from the smartphone, as apps have a closed architecture and there is no way a (standard) consumer can check where their data is going to.

Many apps are 'free' because you pay for it by giving your data from your smartphone to the app developer which later gets passed on to apparent 'advertisers'.

Do you really need to download a 'free' news website's app when you can view the same content through an anonymising web browser?

Apps are pushed onto consumers by governments and corporations alike in order to obtain more data from your device, like who you call and who is in your contacts list, something they could not do from your personal conputer as this data is not there.

With the demise of other mobile operating systems, the authorities can better control and monitor the data 'hoovering' actions of just two corporations Apple and Google.

Another smartphone ecosystem away from Apple and Google, especially with an emphasis on (real) security would be of benefit to the consumer.

This is a chance for Huawei to make the best of their so called 'nightmare'.