Social media ban, chat control, digital id, are all a farce

Another global lie is being forced on the people.

As usual there is never one agenda behind any government's dystopian actions.

Governments and corporations around the world are attacking 'netizens' (users of the internet, 'net citizens) for no other reasons than to stifle free speech, then punish people for their 'free speech' and to enact institutional control over the masses.

Quite simply put the social media ban in Australia which is to be enacted in just under a week, to (allegedly) protect the children (of the cannon fodder) will not work.

In any event the people in charge of the masses (truly) do not care about the children of the masses, as they are disposable resources.

IF the authorities truly cared about child safety, then for example there would have been criminal charges laid against the people involved in the Epstein Files a while ago and not being the clown show for what it is.

IF the authorities truly cared about child safety, then the (migrant) child grooming gangs in the UK would have been sorted out a long time ago.

The dark reality is that governments want/need crime to exist, to keep the general population in fear and under control and distracted from the criminal actions of those in government/control.

From its inception, telecommunications was (deliberately) never designed for the masses to be 'private' and certainly not encrypted.

One cannot deny that governments and corporate authorities can and in a lot of cases are, corrupt, e.g. Wikileaks exposing US government corruption.

It is through necessity that software developers have created secure communications that benefit your privacy (and security), keeping communication away from the corrupt people in government, something that does not sit well with them.

They want the pleb's lives to be transparent, yet these so called 'public servants' rule in secrecy and deception.

Their motto is 'nothing to hide nothing to fear', where it goes both ways doesn't it?

See article: https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-fallacy-of-you-have-nothing-to-fear-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/

The 'chat control' has nothing to do with catching criminals, but rather thwarting the masses 'free speech' as the first perceived enemy of every government is the general population.

In this digital age, 'people' can more easily expose the ('alleged') criminal actions of those in power, which is something they do not want to happen.

INSTEAD of dealing with the accusations by whistleblowers governments 'shoot the messenger', again Wikileaks as an example, how honourable.

ANOTHER farce told by the UK is that they need to implement digital identification to stop illegal immigrant workforce.

Illegal immigration is a border issue and not an administrative card/digital id issue.

Another deliberately misguided action to fool the masses, that will enact fascist institutional control just like in a 1930s style 'Your papers, please' era.

Google is also enacting identification of developers that wish to make software for Android smartphones, saying that this action will prevent apps with malware.

Briefly, as this topic is beyond the scope of this article, this is another farce, as Google already possesses the technology to prevent malware from reaching Android users but chooses not to enable it.

This action is about exposing/doxing developers that create apps that are not conducive to the corporate fascists.

It's ALL about putting 'you' (the masses) into digital slavery.

Remember there WILL be data breaches and it will be YOUR identity that will be exposed, putting you and/or your finances at risk.

MANY content creators have spoken against these actions, where here is just a small collection:

The EU is Destroying Privacy:

What Happens If You Refuse Australia’s Digital ID in 2025?:

The "Digital Omnibus" Is Here: Protect Your Data Now:

EXPOSING Chat Control: The Government's Plan To Kill Free Speech:

Digital ID : Voluntary Now…Mandatory Later?:

Digital ID Australia - Techno Authoritarianism:

We are ALL In Danger!:

Doxing Yourself to (Not) Save Privacy Developers:

End of Encryption: How the EU Wants to Spy on ALL Your Messages:

Dezi Freeman in South Africa? A monumental failure of government.

It has recently been reported that a Melbourne business by the name of “Stuart” who works in AFL circles allegedly saw alleged cop killer Dezi Freeman, in Cape Town South Africa on the 1st of September 2025, as reported by new.com.au

It was also reported that: “Shortly after lunchtime on September 2, the 74-year-old was walking north towards the waterfront at the corner of Dock Rd and S. Arm Rd when a man caught his attention.

“His eyes fixed on me. He was about seven metres away, but his gaze felt almost magnetic,” he said.”

There already is an inconsistency of dates, giving rise to Stuart being an ‘unreliable witness’.

Is it Monday or Tuesday (1st or 2nd of September) that Stuart allegedly saw Mr. Freeman?

After returning to Melbourne on September 4, Stuart contacted Crime Stoppers where later, a Victoria Police spokesman dismissed the claim.

Freeman would have had to flee Australia by air, as a seven day window between the alleged shooting of the two officers and alleged Cape Town appearance is too short for sea travel.

IF Freeman fled by air, then it’s a catastrophic failure by the federal government.

Airport facial recognition has been in Australia ‘officially’ since May 2011.

Therefore even if there was a passport with Freeman’s face with a false name, he should have been stopped at the gates.

Freeman should have been assessed as a flight risk from the moment he fled.

If he wasn't, then that's a failure of government.

If caught or he's still alive, will Freeman ever have a ‘fair trial’?

Even if there is photo/video proof of an incident, in every criminal case magic word is ‘alleged’.

In the Rule of Law in Australia there is something called the 'presumption of innocence'.

The presumption of Innocence is a principle that states the prosecution must prove guilt, and the accused is considered innocent until proven otherwise.

The presumption of innocence ensures individuals will be punished by a court, only in accordance with the law. Until a person is found guilty, they are known as the ‘accused’.  An accused can be held on remand (in prison) while awaiting trial, but even if they are denied bail, they are considered innocent until proven otherwise. 

The onus of proof of the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove every element of the offence, rather than the burden shifting to the accused to prove their innocence. The standard of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must satisfy this high standard before a person can be found guilty.  In criminal trials, judges or juries decide whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.   

The mainstream media, e.g. Rupert Murdoch’s Herald Sun stated that Dezi Freeman is a “cop killer” without any court conviction or trial.

See also video of the title: 

Dezi Freeman: The Gunshot Police DON'T Want You to Know About

What is the WhatsApp OTP codes to hijack scam, and how to stay safe?

The new scam involves cybercriminals asking users to send over OTPs (One-Time Passcodes), to hijack their accounts

If you receive any unexpected or unwanted OTPs, ignore them and do not click on any links or download any media included with them [File] | Photo Credit: REUTERS

Social media users are reporting a new WhatsApp scam that logs out a person from the messaging service and makes them lose all access to their accounts, including messages, contacts, media, and files stored. Once the perpetrators gain control of the victim’s WhatsApp account, they repeat the process with the victim’s contacts.

How does the scam work?

Multiple users on X described receiving normal WhatsApp texts from friends, family members, or acquaintances they had already added as contacts.

The WhatsApp message from their seemingly trusted contact asked the user to check their messages for an OTP or verification code that was sent to them by mistake, and then share the details over WhatsApp.

Users would naturally look for the OTP and share the security credentials without thinking about it too much, since the request was coming from a trusted sender.

Later, however, the user would be logged out of all their WhatsApp accounts - across devices - and would struggle to regain access to the hijacked account.

What is actually happening?

Several possibilities could be at play here, but signs point to a phishing scam. Many users do not realise that the OTP sharing request from their so-called trusted contact was actually a malicious user who had seized control of the sender’s WhatsApp account already.

Now, with access to a platter of potential victims and their phone numbers and other sensitive details, the attacker tries to take over the next victim’s WhatsApp account. Using the phone number, they generate an OTP to verify the user’s identity, change their login credentials, or log them out of all devices. This OTP is obviously sent to the victim’s device. The attacker would lie to the victim and pretend the OTP was generated for another purpose, before asking them to share it.

The victim would likely share the OTP without realising that the malicious user is taking control of their own account. By the time the hacked victim is able to contact Meta or report the incident to the police, the hacker might have gone on to scam multiple other people this way.

How can you keep yourself safe?

First and foremost, never share OTP messages or personal verification codes with others, even if you trust them fully. OTPs are for your private use alone. When they are shared with others, you may end up being exploited, hijacked, or hacked, even if the OTP is only being shared between trusted contacts.

When in doubt about the security of an OTP message, it is better to let the time limit run out so that the OTP becomes useless. The OTP can be generated again later, in a more secure environment.If friends, relatives, acquaintances, or other known contacts suddenly ask you to share OTP numbers they claim were sent to you by mistake, do not engage with such messages or get into a conversation with the user, as they may have already been hacked. Report the incident to Meta and reach out to your contact directly, if possible.

If you receive any unexpected or unwanted OTPs, ignore them and do not click on any links or download any media included with them.

Source:supplied

Understanding risks of One-Time Passcode (OTP) authentication

Governments and corporations worldwide are now 'forcing' people under a false narrative, to have a newly created digital identification.

The databases where YOUR personal identification (or rather private and confidential) documents are stored, will now be the target of cybercrime, more than ever before in the history of the internet.

Authorities and corporations, will lie to you that 'your' data is safe.

Authentication will now be more imprtant than ever before, but are you being informed of all the risks involved?

Your research can start with this article of the following content:

Since the early 2000s, One-Time Passcodes (OTPs) have been a popular way to verify online transactions. Banks, fintechs, and financial services used OTPs to add extra security beyond traditional passwords. By generating a unique code for each transaction or login, OTPs introduced a second layer of protection - usually through two-factor authentication (2FA).

OTPs were also convenient. Users could quickly verify their identity without complicated steps. However, as cyber threats have become more advanced, OTPs - especially SMS-based OTPs - are no longer as secure as they once seemed.

In fact, SIM-swapping attacks have doubled in just a few years. Complaints to the FCC increased from 275 cases in 2020 to 550 cases in 2023. This rising threat highlights the growing risks of relying on OTPs in sensitive industries like finance and banking.

In this article, we’ll break down the risks of OTPs and explain why more businesses are moving to stronger alternatives like biometric authentication. Let’s start with the basics.

What Is OTP Authentication?

OTP stands for One-Time Passcode. It’s a security method that verifies a user’s identity by sending a temporary code. The user enters this code to complete a login or transaction.

Usually, OTPs are paired with a password for two-factor authentication. Once used, the code expires, making it harder for hackers to reuse it.

How Are OTPs Delivered?

SMS-based OTPs: Sent to the user’s mobile number. Easy to use but vulnerable to SIM swap attacks and mobile network vulnerabilities.

Email-based OTPs: Delivered to a user’s email inbox. Convenient, but risky if the email account is compromised.

App-based OTPs: Generated by apps like Google Authenticator. More secure, but requires users to set up an app in advance.

Why OTPs Are Becoming Risky

Despite their convenience, OTPs are now a major target for cybercriminals. Common attack methods include:

SIM Swap Attacks: Fraudsters trick mobile carriers into transferring a victim’s number to a new SIM card, intercepting OTPs.

SS7 Protocol Flaws: Outdated telecom systems can be exploited to intercept SMS messages, including OTPs.

Phishing and Social Engineering: Users are tricked into entering OTPs on fake websites or sharing them with attackers.

The Problems with SMS-Based OTPs

Weakened Security: SMS OTPs are now easily intercepted or bypassed by modern hackers.

Delivery Issues: Messages can be delayed or lost due to poor signal, roaming, or carrier errors.

High Costs: Sending millions of OTPs per month generates large operational expenses for banks and fintechs.

Better Alternatives to OTP Authentication

To stay ahead of attackers, businesses are moving toward stronger, more reliable authentication methods:

1. Biometric Authentication with Liveness Detection

Biometric authentication uses fingerprints, facial recognition, or iris scans. Advanced systems integrate liveness detection, ensuring that a real, live person is present - not just a photo or video. This makes it extremely difficult for fraudsters to spoof the system.

2. Passwordless Authentication

Passwordless systems remove the need for both passwords and OTPs. Instead, users authenticate with biometrics, security keys, or device-bound links. Benefits include:

Stronger protection against phishing and SIM swapping.

A smoother user experience with fewer login barriers.

Lower operational costs by eliminating SMS fees and password resets.

Why Moving Beyond OTPs Matters for Finance and Banking

Financial institutions face increasing pressure to secure customer accounts and protect sensitive data. Today’s leaders are adopting:

Biometric Authentication: Enhanced with liveness detection to stop spoofing.

Passwordless Solutions: Faster, safer, and more convenient for users.

Adaptive MFA: Dynamic authentication based on user behavior and device security.

Privacy is also critical. That’s why new solutions like Keyless’ Zero-Knowledge Biometrics (ZKB) ensure that no biometric data is ever stored or shared, helping banks stay compliant with regulations like GDPR.

Conclusion: OTPs Are No Longer Enough

While OTPs once served as a valuable security tool, today’s digital landscape demands stronger protection. The risks of SIM swapping, protocol flaws, and phishing make OTPs an increasingly unreliable method.

Forward-looking organizations are upgrading to privacy-first, biometric-based authentication solutions. By doing so, they’re not just protecting transactions - they’re building trust and delivering safer digital experiences.

Source:keyless.io

Aboriginal Victorians Act: The Practical Reality.

Here is an example of the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal system doing what it wants, above it's designated powers and in opposition to the results of the referendum:

In recent years, Victoria has taken bold steps toward recognising Aboriginal sovereignty within the state through the establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly and the enactment of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. The legislation empowers the Assembly to negotiate both statewide and local treaties with the Victorian government, to advise on policy and legislative initiatives, and, in some cases, approve treaty frameworks before government action can proceed. While hailed as a historic move toward self determination for Aboriginal Victorians, the Act has profound practical and constitutional implications, particularly for the powers of the state Parliament and the rule of law.

It appears that, once again, the voice of division has raised its  ugly head in the State of Victoria, despite the Australian people having clearly said no to a two tier system of government based on race.

 A Shift in Parliamentary and Executive Power;   Traditionally, Victoria’s Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council exercised full discretion over policy, legislation, and the implementation of programs affecting Aboriginal communities. Ministers of the Crown could propose laws, oversee their execution, and make administrative decisions without statutory requirement to consult any representative Aboriginal body. The enactment of the Treaty Act fundamentally alters this dynamic.

Under the new law, ministers and the executive must consult the Assembly on any policies, legislation, or appointments affecting Aboriginal communities. For some local treaties, the Assembly’s sign off is mandatory before the government may proceed. In effect, the Assembly now acts as a statutory gatekeeper: while Parliament retains formal sovereignty and could theoretically amend or repeal the legislation, the day to day operation of government has been materially constrained. Ministers cannot act unilaterally in areas previously within their discretion, and legislative drafting, policy planning, and Cabinet deliberation now proceed in an environment where Aboriginal voices are legally integrated into the decision-making process.

This practical shift has been described as a “de facto diminishment” of executive discretion, and by extension, an indirect impact on the operational power of the Parliament itself. While formal legal supremacy remains, the Assembly’s statutory role effectively reshapes the landscape of governance in Aboriginal affairs.

 Constitutional Considerations ~ Chapter III and the Rule of Law; The Treaty Act raises significant constitutional questions when considered in light of the Australian Constitution, particularly Chapter III, which governs judicial power. The rule of law is a foundational principle: laws should apply equally to all, and judicial determinations must be made by courts, not legislative or executive bodies.

Potential tension arises if the Assembly’s advice or treaty negotiations include recommendations that certain Aboriginal Victorians be exempted from particular laws. While the Assembly can advise, negotiate, and approve treaty frameworks, it cannot itself confer legal exemptions or displace the courts’ role in determining rights and liabilities. Doing so would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial power, violating Chapter III and undermining the rule of law.

The legislation walks a fine line. In practice, the Assembly wields enormous influence, shaping policies, treaties, and program design. Yet, it remains a statutory body, and any attempt to create legally enforceable exemptions outside Parliament’s legislation would be unconstitutional. Its power is thus practical and procedural, not judicial or sovereign.

 Practical v Legal Power;   The Treaty Act exemplifies the distinction between formal legal authority and practical operation. Parliament remains supreme on paper, but ministers and government departments cannot implement treaty related policies without Assembly involvement. Some local treaties cannot advance without Assembly approval. In effect, the executive’s discretion is constrained in a way it never was before, altering the internal operation of Parliament and Cabinet, and reshaping the political and procedural landscape.

This “practical diminishment” represents a profound innovation, it enshrines Aboriginal input in governance, embedding self determination into the machinery of the state. Yet, it does so within the legal boundaries of statutory authority, respecting Parliament’s ultimate supremacy and the federal constitutional framework.

Restructuring the Westminster System in Victoria;   Victoria’s parliamentary system is traditionally rooted in the Westminster model, which relies on a clear hierarchy and separation between the legislature, the executive, and the Crown:

1. Parliament (Legislative Assembly and Council): drafts, debates, and enacts laws.

2. Executive (Cabinet and Ministers): implements laws and sets policy, accountable to Parliament.

3. Rule of law and judicial independence: courts apply the law equally to all people within its jurisdiction.

The Treaty Act introduces a statutory intermediary, the First Peoples Assembly that exercises practical, binding influence over policy, treaty negotiations, and in some cases local law-making frameworks. This has several effects on the Westminster model in Victoria ~

Redefining Ministerial Discretion: Ministers are now legally required to consult and often secure approval from the Assembly before acting on treaties, policies, or appointments affecting Aboriginal communities. This shifts decision making from the executive to a shared statutory process.

Altering Parliamentary Procedure: Bills or policy proposals impacting Aboriginal affairs now cannot be considered in isolation by Parliament, they must account for Assembly input, effectively creating a procedural checkpoint outside traditional Cabinet or committee structures.

Embedding an Independent Advisory Actor: The Assembly operates outside the party political framework but holds binding influence in certain treaty contexts, creating a hybrid structure that is neither purely legislative nor executive, yet materially constrains both.

In effect, the hierarchical flow of decision making in the Victorian Westminster system is ~ Parliament proposes & Cabinet executes, this process has been interrupted and redistributed. While formal sovereignty remains with Parliament, the practical day to day operation of government is now contingent on a statutory Aboriginal institution, reshaping the foundational dynamics of Victoria’s democratic governance.

Victoria’s Treaty Act represents a radical reconfiguration of governance, It diminishes the practical discretion of the executive, requiring consultation, negotiation, and, in some cases, approval from the Assembly. It indirectly alters the operation of Parliament, as legislative proposals in Aboriginal affairs must navigate this new statutory layer.

It restructures the Westminster system in Victoria by embedding a powerful, independent statutory body outside traditional party and executive structures,  a move unprecedented in Australian state politics. Constitutional principles, especially Chapter III separation of judicial power and the rule of law, remain intact legally, but the Act tests the boundaries of delegation and influence in ways that have real world implications for governance.

Victoria has created a hybrid model that is neither purely Westminster nor purely statutory, but a unique fusion   a statutory Aboriginal institution with binding influence over treaties and policy, integrated into the state’s democratic framework. The Assembly cannot yet overturn laws or confer legal exemptions, but it controls the pathways through which policies and treaties become operational, creating a profound and permanent shift in the structure of government in Victoria.

Is this simply another blatant example of a State doing indirectly what the Commonwealth could not do directly after the Australian people had spoken in the Voice referendum of 2023?

Source:supplied

Corrupt NZ cop Mike Bush, Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police must resign

The colony’s police forces are corrupt institutions, where many of their members get away with criminal activity, deliberately under reported by the mainstream media.

For those cases that do get out into the public domain, their ‘brethren’ in the legal system will support them.

Victoria has many eligible (corrupt) cops that could have taken the ‘top job’ as Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, but they had to import one Michael Dennis Bush from over the Tasman Sea.

How can anyone trust the ‘top cop’, if he defrauded the public purse more than once?

What is the acceptable dollar amount or figure Victoria Police can defraud from the public purse?

Maybe ZERO?

What’s worse is that the people in the government of Victoria ‘support’ this kind of action with no reprimand in sight.

What a pathetic message is sent out to the community.

The beginnings of the colony’s police forces consisted of not honourable men, but rather ‘criminals’, where it seems to still hold true today, keeping in mind that Australia is still a colony today, where the colonialist’s descendants are in charge, or even the ‘faceless men’.

Source:supplied

Facebook SCAMS its users, 15 billion scam ads a day!

Internal documents have revealed that Meta has projected it earns billions from ignoring scam ads that its platforms then targeted to users most likely to click on them.

In a lengthy report, Reuters exposed five years of Meta practices and failures that allowed scammers to take advantage of users of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

Documents showed that internally, Meta was hesitant to abruptly remove accounts, even those considered some of the “scammiest scammers,” out of concern that a drop in revenue could diminish resources needed for artificial intelligence growth.

Instead of promptly removing bad actors, Meta allowed “high value accounts” to “accrue more than 500 strikes without Meta shutting them down,” Reuters reported. The more strikes a bad actor accrued, the more Meta could charge to run ads, as Meta’s documents showed the company “penalized” scammers by charging higher ad rates. Meanwhile, Meta acknowledged in documents that its systems helped scammers target users most likely to click on their ads.

“Users who click on scam ads are likely to see more of them because of Meta’s ad-personalization system, which tries to deliver ads based on a user’s interests,” Reuters reported.

Internally, Meta estimates that users across its apps in total encounter 15 billion “high risk” scam ads a day. That’s on top of 22 billion organic scam attempts that Meta users are exposed to daily, a 2024 document showed. Last year, the company projected that about $16 billion, which represents about 10 percent of its revenue, would come from scam ads.

“High risk” scam ads strive to sell users on fake products or investment schemes, Reuters noted. Some common scams in this category that mislead users include selling banned medical products, or promoting sketchy entities, like linking to illegal online casinos. However, Meta is most concerned about “imposter” ads, which impersonate celebrities or big brands that Meta fears may halt advertising or engagement on its apps if such scams aren’t quickly stopped.

“Hey it’s me,” one scam advertisement using Elon Musk’s photo read. “I have a gift for you text me.” Another using Donald Trump’s photo claimed the US president was offering $710 to every American as “tariff relief.” Perhaps most depressingly, a third posed as a real law firm, offering advice on how to avoid falling victim to online scams.

Meta removed these particular ads after Reuters flagged them, but in 2024, Meta earned about $7 billion from “high risk” ads like these alone, Reuters reported.

Sandeep Abraham, a former Meta safety investigator who now runs consultancy firm Risky Business Solutions as a fraud examiner, told Reuters that regulators should intervene.

“If regulators wouldn’t tolerate banks profiting from fraud, they shouldn’t tolerate it in tech,” Abraham said.

Meta won’t disclose how much it made off scam ads

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone told Reuters that its collection of documents—which were created between 2021 and 2025 by Meta’s finance, lobbying, engineering, and safety divisions—“present a selective view that distorts Meta’s approach to fraud and scams.”

Stone claimed that Meta’s estimate that it would earn 10 percent of its 2024 revenue from scam ads was “rough and overly-inclusive.” He suggested the actual amount Meta earned was much lower but declined to specify the true amount. He also said that Meta’s most recent investor disclosures note that scam ads “adversely affect” Meta’s revenue.

“We aggressively fight fraud and scams because people on our platforms don’t want this content, legitimate advertisers don’t want it, and we don’t want it either,” Stone said.

Despite those efforts, this spring, Meta’s safety team “estimated that the company’s platforms were involved in a third of all successful scams in the US,” Reuters reported. In other internal documents around the same time, Meta staff concluded that “it is easier to advertise scams on Meta platforms than Google,” acknowledging that Meta’s rivals were better at “weeding out fraud.”

As Meta tells it, though seemingly dismal, these documents came amid vast improvements in its fraud protections. Stone told Reuters that “over the past 18 months, we have reduced user reports of scam ads globally by 58 percent and, so far in 2025, we’ve removed more than 134 million pieces of scam ad content,” Stone said.

According to Reuters, the problem may be the pace Meta sets in combating scammers. In 2023, Meta laid off “everyone who worked on the team handling advertiser concerns about brand-rights issues,” then ordered safety staffers to limit use of computing resources to devote more resources to virtual reality and AI. A 2024 document showed Meta recommended a “moderate” approach to enforcement, plotting to reduce revenue “attributable to scams, illegal gambling and prohibited goods” by 1–3 percentage points each year since 2024, supposedly slashing it in half by 2027. More recently, a 2025 document showed Meta continues to weigh how “abrupt reductions of scam advertising revenue could affect its business projections.”

Eventually, Meta “substantially expanded” its teams that track scam ads, Stone told Reuters. But Meta also took steps to ensure they didn’t take too hard a hit while needing vast resources—$72 billion—to invest in AI, Reuters reported.

For example, in February, Meta told “the team responsible for vetting questionable advertisers” that they weren’t “allowed to take actions that could cost Meta more than 0.15 percent of the company’s total revenue,” Reuters reported. That’s any scam account worth about $135 million, Reuters noted. Stone pushed back, saying that the team was never given “a hard limit” on what the manager described as “specific revenue guardrails.”

“Let’s be cautious,” the team’s manager wrote, warning that Meta didn’t want to lose revenue by blocking “benign” ads mistakenly swept up in enforcement.

Meta should donate scam ad profits, ex-exec says

Documents showed that Meta prioritized taking action when it risked regulatory fines, although revenue from scam ads was worth roughly three times the highest fines it could face. Possibly, Meta most feared that officials would require disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, rather than fines.

Meta appeared to be less likely to ramp up enforcement from police requests. Documents showed that police in Singapore flagged “146 examples of scams targeting that country’s users last fall,” Reuters reported. Only 23 percent violated Meta’s policies, while the rest only “violate the spirit of the policy, but not the letter,” a Meta presentation said.

Scams that Meta failed to flag offered promotions like crypto scams, fake concert tickets, or deals “too good to be true,” like 80 percent off a desirable item from a high-fashion brand. Meta also looked past fake job ads that claimed to be hiring for Big Tech companies.

Rob Leathern previously led Meta’s business integrity unit that worked to prevent scam ads but left in 2020. He told Wired that it’s hard to “know how bad it’s gotten or what the current state is” since Meta and other social media platforms don’t provide outside researchers access to large random samples of ads.

With such access, researchers like Leathern and Rob Goldman, Meta’s former vice president of ads, could provide “scorecards” showing how well different platforms work to combat scams. Together, Leathern and Goldman launched a nonprofit called CollectiveMetrics.org in hopes of “bringing more transparency to digital advertising in order to fight deceptive ads,” Wired reported.

“I want there to be more transparency. I want third parties, researchers, academics, nonprofits, whoever, to be able to actually assess how good of a job these platforms are doing at stopping scams and fraud,” Leathern told Wired. “We’d like to move to actual measurement of the problem and help foster an understanding.”

Another meaningful step that Leathern thinks companies like Meta should take to protect users would be to notify users when Meta discovers that they clicked on a scam ad—rather than targeting them with more scam ads, as Reuters suggested was Meta’s practice.

“These scammers aren’t getting people’s money on day one, typically. So there’s a window to take action,” he said, recommending that platforms donate ill-gotten gains from running scam ads to “fund nonprofits to educate people about how to recognize these kinds of scams or problems.”

“There’s lots that could be done with funds that come from these bad guys,” Leathern said.

Source:arstechnica

‘Oppression’: ATO investigator found to have lied in fraud case

NEVER TRUST THE AUSTRALIAN TAX OFFICE!

Corruption in government departments is rife, where this is only one example that has made it out into the public news media.

There is much more corruption that is (deliberately) not reported.

An investigator with the Australian Taxation Office has been found to have lied and tampered with evidence during a lengthy legal battle against a Queensland medical researcher who was accused of fraud.

The researcher was interviewed by the ATO, and was advised to answer questions and was told if she did not, she would be committing an offence. She therefore did not have a right to silence.

The ATO’s conduct was lambasted as “oppression” by Justice Paul Smith, who ordered for her fraud case to be stayed on Friday.

Smith handed down his judgment in the years-long case, involving the medical researcher, referred to as Julie Clarke in documents, after she requested a pseudonym.

Clarke had wished to develop a therapeutic using the chemical (R)-3-hydroxybutyric acid (also known as D-3-hydroxybutyric acid). It was intended to treat conditions such as cancer and obesity.

The case involved investor group The Brisbane Angels, who decided to invest $185,000 in 2016. Clarke had approached the group for funding relating to cancer trials. Brisbane Angels said they were not interested, but would consider it if it was a weight-loss drug. Two promising pilot studies were done and the $185,000 was invested.

The group later withdrew from the project after being informed it would be a “protracted and expensive process”.

There was a civil dispute between Clarke and the group, with the former wanting the return of the intellectual property, and the investors wanting their money.

An application was lodged with the ATO the following year, with Clarke claiming she had spent $11,380,900, on product development. The ATO considered the claim to be false, and believed she only spent $11,380.90. The ATO then proceeded to audit the case, and Clarke was interviewed.

Smith said the researcher was directed by the ATO to answer questions; otherwise she would be committing an offence, and as such she did not have a right to silence.

The court found that the substantial purpose of the interview was to question Clarke about the alleged fraud, which is a criminal offence.

Smith concluded that Clarke was unlawfully subjected to a hybrid audit and criminal interview, and she had been deprived of her forensic choices in the way in which she could defend herself at trial.

Court documents said both the ATO and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had improperly brought two prosecutions against Clarke, and as such the proceedings had become oppressive, and both included the use of an unlawful compulsory interview.

Court documents state ATO investigator Anthony Rains obtained documents from Brisbane Angels in 2018, and formed the view Clarke had defrauded them of the $185,000, believing it was spent on a personal loan and holidays.

The court found Rains referred the state fraud matter to the Queensland Police Service without any complaint by Brisbane Angels and failed to provide exculpatory material to police, including that Clarke was entitled to a consulting fee and other information that showed the money had been spent on legitimate expenses.

In his judgment, Smith said Rains engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, including that he deliberately altered the expenses sheet Clarke sent to Brisbane Angels, and provided misleading information to obtain search warrants, which subsequently misled several judicial officers.

The court found he also lied in a briefing note to the Queensland Bar, and failed to disclose emails between himself and Brisbane Angels before the state fraud trial in 2020.

Smith said: “I consider Mr Rains exceeded his authority by being heavily involved in the investigation of the state charge and it is doubtful there was ever a case to answer as alleged. I have found an abuse of process occurred here.”

Smith said Clarke was subjected to considerable stress and expense in having to defend the state charge whilst also defending the Commonwealth case.

He said Clarke must have been “absolutely fearful of being unjustly convicted on the state fraud charge which would carry a sentence of several years in jail and she must have felt no one was listening to her”.

He also said: “The court should not tolerate this type of conduct by this ATO investigator or the ATO more broadly, or any government authority for that matter.”

Smith said the justice system would be put at significant risk if courts could not rely on the integrity of government investigators and institutions.

Smith ordered for the prosecution against Clarke to be stayed.

Source: Brisbane Times

Taxpayers ripped off with the Bureau of Meteorology’s $4m face lift

MANY of Australia’s tenders (state and federal) for works are awarded fraudulently to people in ‘money for mates’ scams.

Australian taxpayers have paid $4 million for an ‘updated’ bom.gov.au front page.

The backlash to this new front page was overwhelming, where it was also claimed that lives can be lost as result of the deliberately flawed representation of weather maps.

How could such a change be approved prior to going live on the web?

Show us the proof that the changes were consulted with the community?

NO INQUIRY?

What really needs to happen now is an inquiry into the machinations of the federal government's documentation that led to the creation of the new front page.

Basically in other words, full transparency as to how the public was ripped off of $4million dollars and in reality a person or persons who made this call to be removed from office.

This is a gross misuse of public funds.

We understand that a price of one twelfth of what was paid is still too much for that type of work.

In any event since the colonial government does not operate with transparency but rather with corruption and secrecy, it is very doubtful that anyone will lose their job over this fiasco. 

The lie of anonymous communications with authorities

What many people may not comprehend is that Australians live under a totalitarian regime.

'Normal' modes of communication, by default are far from anonymous.

Even if you hide your (mobile) number via the appropriate menu setting it is not hidden from the authorities.

Australia is a signatory to the Five Eyes data hoovering surveillance network, where all our digital traffic is logged and stored to be later used against the people.

To advertise or inform the general public that you can "Tell us anonymously" is a deliberately blatant lie, where the 'Shopping Centre Council of Australia' and 'Crime Stoppers' should be sued in a competent court of law for false advertising.

Will this ever happen? 

Most definitely not, and if that action was to occur the Anglo-Masonic legal system would not let anyone from the pleb pool sue successfully.

That's life in a (penal) colony.

You'll have better luck suing in a place touted as 'the land of the free'.