Dodgy real estate agents and landlord’s hiking up the rent

Slick Agent

AS everyone should be a ware, the ‘housing crisis’ was installed on the good people of Australia by the federal government, where this information is available in other articles on this site.

As a result of this so called ‘housing crisis’ real estate agents together with landlords or rather rental providers are exploiting the vulnerable and profiteering from this government created crisis with little reaction from the regulating authorities.

We have obtained information from an anonymous source that exposes this blatant profiteering.

A Melbourne suburbs rental property that was rented via a real estate agency was rented for a weekly amount of $380, which was fair for the condition of the premises also given the low quality area it was situated in.

Soon after when the next time the property came up for rent again, the price was raised to $500 per week, an action that should be under the allegedly watchful eye and intervention of by Consumer Affairs Victoria.

An increase of $120 or 31.5% per week falls outside of the acceptable limit.

- Will the authorities step in and ‘regulate’ this?

- Will real estate companies (in conjunction with rental providers) keep ripping off people without any consequences?

At the end of the day it’s BAU (Business AS Usual) at the expense of the serfs/plebs.

After all back in the good ol’ days if one was a renter or woman, one had no (electoral) voice, just as the Commonwealth intended, despite the fact that Sir William Blackstone already put pen to paper on the Absolute Rights of Individuals in 1753, a precursor to what we know as ‘Human Rights’ today.

Australia the human rights breaching fascist state, disguised as a democracy.

Next level surveillance: Everything you say to your Echo will be sent to Amazon starting on March 28

Amazon is killing a privacy feature to bolster Alexa+, the new subscription assistant.

Since Amazon announced plans for a generative AI version of Alexa, we were concerned about user privacy. With Alexa+ rolling out to Amazon Echo devices in the coming weeks, we’re getting a clearer view of the privacy concessions people will have to make to maximize usage of the AI voice assistant and avoid bricking functionality of already-purchased devices.

In an email sent to customers today, Amazon said that Echo users will no longer be able to set their devices to process Alexa requests locally and, therefore, avoid sending voice recordings to Amazon’s cloud. Amazon apparently sent the email to users with “Do Not Send Voice Recordings," which is supported by the Echo (4th Gen), Echo Show 15, and Echo Show 10, enabled. Starting on March 28, recordings of every command spoken to the Alexa living in Echo speakers and smart displays will automatically be sent to Amazon and processed in the cloud.

Attempting to rationalize the change, Amazon’s email said:

As we continue to expand Alexa’s capabilities with generative AI features that rely on the processing power of Amazon’s secure cloud, we have decided to no longer support this feature.

One of the most marketed features of Alexa+ is its more advanced ability to recognize who is speaking to it, a feature known as Alexa Voice ID. To accommodate this feature, Amazon is eliminating a privacy-focused capability for all Echo users, even those who aren’t interested in the subscription-based version of Alexa or want to use Alexa+ but not its ability to recognize different voices.

 However, there are plenty of reasons people wouldn't want Amazon to receive recordings of what they say to their personal device. For one, the idea of a conglomerate being able to listen to personal requests made in your home is, simply, unnerving.

Further, Amazon has previously mismanaged Alexa voice recordings. In 2023, Amazon agreed to pay $25 million in civil penalties over the revelation that it stored recordings of children’s interactions with Alexa forever. Adults also didn’t feel properly informed of Amazon’s inclination to keep Alexa recordings unless prompted not to until 2019—five years after the first Echo came out.

If that's not enough to deter you from sharing voice recordings with Amazon, note that the company allowed employees to listen to Alexa voice recordings. In 2019, Bloomberg reported that Amazon employees listened to as many as 1,000 audio samples during their nine-hour shifts. Amazon says it allows employees to listen to Alexa voice recordings to train its speech recognition and natural language understanding systems.

Other reasons people may be hesitant to trust Amazon with personal voice samples include the previous usage of Alexa voice recordings in criminal trials and Amazon paying a settlement in 2023 in relation to allegations that it allowed "thousands of employees and contractors to watch video recordings of customers' private spaces" taken from Ring cameras, per the Federal Trade Commission.

Save recordings or lose functionality

Likely looking to get ahead of these concerns, Amazon said in its email today that by default, it will delete recordings of users’ Alexa requests after processing. However, anyone with their Echo device set to “Don’t save recordings” will see their already-purchased devices’ Voice ID feature bricked. Voice ID enables Alexa to do things like share user-specified calendar events, reminders, music, and more. Previously, Amazon has said that "if you choose not to save any voice recordings, Voice ID may not work." As of March 28, broken Voice ID is a guarantee for people who don't let Amazon store their voice recordings.

Amazon's email says:

Alexa voice requests are always encrypted in transit to Amazon’s secure cloud, which was designed with layers of security protections to keep customer information safe. Customers can continue to choose from a robust set of controls by visiting the Alexa Privacy dashboard online or navigating to More > Alexa Privacy in the Alexa app.

Amazon is forcing Echo users to make a couple of tough decisions: Grant Amazon access to recordings of everything you say to Alexa or stop using an Echo; let Amazon save voice recordings and have employees listen to them or lose a feature set to become more advanced and central to the next generation of Alexa.

However, Amazon is betting big that Alexa+ can dig the voice assistant out of a financial pit. Amazon has publicly committed to keeping the free version of Alexa around, but Alexa+ is viewed as Amazon's last hope for keeping Alexa alive and making it profitable. Anything Amazon can do to get people to pay for Alexa takes precedence over other Alexa user demands, including, it seems, privacy.

This article was updated to list the Echo devices that support local processing of Alexa requests. 

arstechnica

ALL part of the global 'Nanny State' agenda.

Cash bribes, ‘racism’ rife in Melbourne’s rental market

MANY people in the rental market will be familiar with the amount of personal data they MUST provide to rental agencies, where this fact alone opens up their data to privacy breaches and fraud in their name, but that is another can of worms deliberately omitted by the authorities, a separate article for another day.

First and foremost, the Australian governments, both federal and state, have installed austerity on the tax slaves of the colony.

The ‘housing crisis’ was deliberately installed on the good people of Australia, where their basic right to adequate housing was taken away by the federal government, which is an abuse of human rights.

The corporatisation of the 'Commonwealth' as of 1971.

There was a time where those in governance of the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ were more honourable people than the ones in charge of this corporatised government today, where they provided enough or adequate housing for all of Australia’s citizens or more accurately ‘subjects’ of Queen Elizabeth the Second.

Australians as 'subjects' of Queen Elizabeth the 'Second' (as opposed to II)

The government deliberately overpopulated cities like Melbourne by importing more corporate fodder than the infrastructures (public transport, roads, utilities and most importantly - housing) could handle, deliberately creating dis-ease for the community.

Australia the bankrupt.

Australia, as in the Australian Government, is bankrupt morally and financially, where in order to alleviate the financial bankrupcy, they need to import more debt slaves or 'resources' which will allow them to print more fiat currency.

In this deliberate over immigration policy, the government also imported a lot of criminals and people with criminal intent, people who have zero intentions to live a ‘normal’ law abiding life from places like Africa, the Middle East, Lebanon, India and Pakistan.

These low quality humans or people with criminal intent have diversified (as it’s all about ‘diversity’ in Australia) into the building and real estate industries, as well as the bottomless cash cows called city councils and other positions in government, where in reality Australia is truly a crime scene.

Are many or all of these criminals going to be deported back to where they came from?

Of course not, as they are released back into the community to terrorise the citizens, and keep the courts and legal businesses alive.

People of different nationalities from the geographical locations mentioned above that have occupied key roles in the real estate industry, first and foremost help their own ‘kind’, where if this was done by ‘white’ people they’d be accused of ‘racism’ even though technically this is not a factual term, as people of all ‘colour’ form the human ‘race’* (see document below).

Immigrants with a shady past, and dubious earnings are ‘given’ rentals. by their ‘brothers’ in the real estate industry, while many ‘Australians’ that have earned an ‘honourable’ living are deliberately left without a place to live in.

People with normally unacceptable paperwork that will not give them a lease, also supplement their so called application with a standard $1,000 cash to the agent, where the paperwork will be bypassed in order to get the rental property. Sure the 'rental provider' may have the last say, but that person can be persuaded by the realtor.

Information obtained from an industry professional only under the condition of anonimity stated that many people involved in criminal activity pay much more to secure a lease in order to carry out their criminal activity in the rented premises.

The government deliberately turns a blind eye to this type of activity, as it feeds the government purse more than ever before, meaning the government benefits from the proceeds of criminal activity.

* Race & Genetics versus 'race' in genettics:

Source:supplied

Samsung’s lies on battery capacity

Corporations, or rather people in multinational corporations lie to their ‘consumers’, public or general population every single day, and they’re allowed to get away with it.

From automotive manufacturers on fuel economy to smartphone manufacturers they put out ‘optimistic’ or rather ‘deliberately inaccurate figures in relation to the performance of their devices, and the regulatory ‘industry’ is silent on this, as it’s all about consumerism.

So in this example, Samsung’s new Galaxy S25 Edge has a battery rated capacity of 3,786mAh, which apparently ‘translates’ into a marketed value of 3,900mAh.

Why not a ‘marketed’ value of 3,800mAh?

Because 3,900 sounds closer to 4,000 than 3,800?

Many may say that it’s trivial, but that is not the point, as the ‘marketing’ is quite simply put false information, irrespective of the production percentage error from battery to battery.

VicPol ‘just doin’ my job’ – NO YOU’RE NOT, re: lawful summonses

MANY police will claim ignorance or “that’s what it says here” with regards to some paperwork they possess, or even show you a spreadsheet claiming it’s a warrant, as many have done so to their unsuspecting victims.

The Victoria Police Act of 2013, is a law regarding how officers must act.

There is no if/but/I didn’t know, excuse.

Part 4 of the above mentioned Act, pertains to Police duties, powers, entitlements, protection and liability

Paying attention to:

Section 56 Execution of process and warrants

(1) A police officer has a duty to execute—

        (b) all lawful summonses, warrants, orders and directions directed to him or         her by a court or tribunal.

The key word here is “lawful”.

From the 2020’s onwards the state’s police forces have been acting unlawfully, causing bodily harm, trespass to the person, unlawful incarceration, installing horrific violence on ‘persons’ with total impunity.

NO officer has been charged with a criminal offence or had to pay out of his/her own pocket from criminal actions, and there is no 'remedy' for the victims of violence by default, where persuing a remedy is a deliberately time and energy consuming process not to mention its cost.

Australia's legal system/business is deliberately stacked against the victims of government's criminal actions.

A judge from the County Court of Victoria ruled that Victoria Police have acted in an unlawful way, against the good people of Melbourne that have gathered in order to have their say about a particular health matter in play.

Victoria Police also acted under dictation and had zero regards to their ‘unlawful’ actions, further cementing the fact that Victorians live in police state.

Now here comes another aspect that many in government want to keep a secret, and perpetuate the legal lie that tribunals, like VCAT, have some sort of judical powers when issuing orders that require the actions of Victoria Police.

To make this very clear, when VCAT issues an order that requires the actions of Victoria Police, VCAT has no judicial power to do so, meaning the actions of Victoria Police on a person are then unlawful.

See post:

VCAT acts beyond its power – unenforceable judicial decisions!

VCAT acts beyond its power – unenforceable judicial decisions!

MANY Australian authorities act beyond the scope of what they are lawfully allowed.

What is worse is they also gaslight you during this process.

Recently, approximately one year ago, Queensland’s Supreme Court ruled that the so called COVID-19 vaccine mandate for frontline workers was unlawful.

See article:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-28/covid19-vaccine-frontline-worker-mandate-supreme-court-ruling/103517798

SO during this mandate, the authorities did not check whether they had the lawfully enacted instrument for the ‘mandate’ to occur, they just forced the trial drug on frontline workers because that's what they wanted to do.

If you did not comply, your employment would be terminated.

Therefore those that did not comply were unlawfully terminated, where the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal business did not offer a remedy for the victims of government abuse.

VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) as its name suggests is a tribunal.

 VCAT is enacting one the largest legal cons on the unsuspecting Victorian public.

The current, as of 23 June 2023, president of VCAT judge Edward (Ted) Winslow Woodward, pictured left, together with every single member issuing orders are complicit in this fraud causing harm to many respondents.

Will this ever come out like in the above mentioned Supreme Court case from Queensland?

Well, it’s already out since 2018, and it’s a one up better as it’s from the High Court of Australia.

Will the media pick up on this? Did they inform the general population of this from 2018?

Let’s do a quick recap on the unlawful actions of VCAT with regards to MANY orders issued by them.

First and foremost:

• The High Court's decision Burns v Corbett significantly narrowed the jurisdiction of commissions and tribunals.

• The High Court held that the Australian Constitution precludes a State tribunal from exercising federal and state jurisdiction, as tribunals are not Courts and cannot exercise judicial powers and jurisdiction.

A tribunal or Commission not being a 'court of a State' cannot adjudicate disputes involving any of the matters set out in ss 75 and 76 of the Australian Constitution, (see the sections below) even when the dispute involves the application of State legislation. The decision affects all areas of law including:

- anti-discrimination disputes,

- residential tenancy disputes,

- building and construction disputes.

A State law cannot impair or detract from the operation of a Commonwealth law by impairing the Commonwealth law’s ‘conditional and universal’ application, except to the extent that it has a ‘legal operation or practical effect within the universe of the conditional legal operation of the Commonwealth law’. Impairing or detracting from s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act is to say that the Parliament has made a complete, exhaustive and exclusive statement on federal jurisdiction: ‘It is necessarily to say that the Commonwealth Parliament has not only provided positively for the conditional investiture of federal jurisdiction in State courts but has also stipulated negatively for the non-investiture of any jurisdiction with respect to any of those matters other than in State courts.’ Gageler J noted the difficulty of finding any such ‘negative penumbra’ in the text of s 39(2), and stated that the more fundamental problem lies in finding a source of Commonwealth legislative power: namely that s 77(iii) does not allow Parliament to confer judicial power on a tribunal that is not a State court.

The Industrial Relations Tribunals and tribunals of the State such as VCAT and the Fair Work Commission all fall into the same category, 

- they fail to be courts and cannot provide you with an enforceable judicial decision.

Let's see the case file:

THEREFORE, ANY Order that is enforced by law enforcement, e.g. Victoria Police is done so unlawfully.

Tortfeasor is a term worth exploring.

Have you been harmed by VCAT?

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75

Original jurisdiction of High Court.

    In all matters--

  (i.)   Arising under any treaty:

  (ii.)   Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries:

  (iii.)   In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

  (iv.)   Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State:

  (v.)   In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. 

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 76

Additional original jurisdiction.

    The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High court in any matter--

  (i.)   Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation:

  (ii.)   Arising under any laws made by the Parliament:

  (iii.)   Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:

  (iv.)   Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States. 

Merri-bek corrupt city council governed by looney left. Discounts for First Nations: Wokest Oz Council.

Australians are deliberately over-administered by so called ‘authorities’ where in many instances these authorities act beyond their limited powers.

Today’s city councils are not the lawfully enacted departments of the state as ‘municipal offices’ of the past, as required the Commonwealth Constitution.

In Victoria city councils will tell you that they have their ‘authority’ from the Local Government Act 1979.

But is this so called authority lawfully enacted?

The short answer is no.

City Councils in general are a cesspit of ‘money for mates’ jobs where many unqualified persons are in place, rorting the rate payers.

Is there a so called ‘Royal Commission’ into this?

Of course not, as this should also expose the illegitimacy of those in office in the councils, which would then be detrimental to the Victorian government as this would expose the monumental fraud perpetuated by the government on the good people of Victoria.

Corruption in City Councils is rife, where in one instance only, the whole ‘City Council’ of Brimbank was sacked.

The same action should also occur at the City Council of ‘Merri-bek’ formerly known as the City of Moreland, whose name change was not necessary not warranted, but rather imposed on the people, to keep the positions of those in office justified, as if they care about the Indigenous people.

See the pathetic lunacy by those within Merri-Bek in this short 7 minute video:

Mozilla has a "license" to all of your data from Firefox now.

This is big news in the 'browser' world.

As a result of the above notice by Mozilla, there was a bit of backlash, 

so then there was an update notice:

Mozilla then went on to explain in their notice:

Did Mozilla disclose to you that they own an advertising company called Anonym, no?

To make matters worse if someone stated that Mozilla was apolitical, they'd be lying.

See:

source: https://schedule.mozillafestival.org/session/TKUXAQ-1

Do you STILL want you use Firefox?

Apple no longer secure in the UK, Australia next?

The ‘motherland’ has ordered corporations like Apple to put backdoors into its encryption service, to obviously catch all the terrorists and also criminals on Epstein’s list, right?

Don't be silly of course not! It's to surveil the crap out of the serfs/plebs/commoners.

NOTHING to do with the global elite criminals, they stay untouched.

According to Apple, rather complying with this order and compromising it’s ADP (Advanced Data Protection), it states that it will removed it altogether.

BUT there this one fundamental problem.

Corporations and governments lie, or rather people in governments and corpoations lie to the people their 'consumers' every single day where NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreements) rule between the corporations and governments, which technically are a corporations aggregate.

Another problem is that Apple’s operating system and programs (or apps) and are closed source, therefore no one can factually check if there isn’t or wasn’t a backdoor in the operating system, or the likes of SS7 Protocol.

If you truly value your privacy and security, then Apple products are not recommended to be used, where open source programs and operating systems on personal computers and smartphones are a batter alternative.

In any event it's all about the global nanny state agenda and an attack on people's so called right to 'free speech', together with the surveillance of the masses in order to monitor then modify their behaviour.

As we all should know, Australia is part of the FiveEyes ‘Anglosphere’ global surveillance network.

Whatever the ‘bosses’ say, the subservient follows, is how it goes here in this colony.

Who are these bosses?

The likes of, but not limited to; the UN, WEF, WHO, IMF, BlackRock, Vanguard and many other 'faceless men' that the serfs are not allowed to know about.

Australians live under a police state, a regime where ‘free speech’ now lives in a museum, as of the passing of a new law in both houses.

Kim Jong-Un, we're knocking on your door, no thanks to people's silence equalling acquiescence.

How banks have deliberately compromised your account security

In certain circles, banks and financial services institutions are regarded as the world’s largest criminal organisations.

After all, they not only obtain money printed out of thin air, but also transfer this to tangible assets, where if you (the serf) were to do the same you’d be charged for fraud.

The above is what fiat currency is a described by the Australian Oxford Dictionary in 2010.

One of the worst parts about financial fraud is that governemnts worldwide 'support' this action.

In Australia, there was this farcical action called the Royal Commission into Misconduct in Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry in 2017-2019, where not one of the over 10,000 applicants received a remedy.

That is how corrupt and supportive the 'brotherhood' in the Australian government is of the criminal actions of the 'banksters'. 

The push for governments and corporations to leave behind the paper world, including physical cash, is for the cheaper administration of the plebs/serfs/commoners/corporate (nee cannon) fodder, where data aggregation is the ultimate goal.

People are sold a deliberate lie for going cashless.

Using ‘plastic’ or cards, is marketed as being secure and easier and quicker to use than cash, i.e. more convenient for the shopper/consumer.

In an earlier iteration of the card, a swipe was the method at the terminal where a magnetic strip was read by the terminal.

Sure there were problems with this as we all should comprehend that technology is not infalable.

As technology progressed, the next phase using an RFID was marketed as more secure and even quicker method as it was a 'tap and go' action, where the ‘more secure’ is a deliberate lie.

ANY so called Information Technology security expert should know that RFID is easily hackable, where those institutions that have implemented this and put it out into the consumer world would have known about this.

Sure more tech savvy people will say that this threat can be mitigated by purchasing a 'RFID wallet', but that is not the point as by default the card is less secure, when given to the customer in its original format.

See article from 2015:

RFID Credit Cards: What you don’t know WILL hurt you!

A card skimmer may not be that easy to spot at an ATM.

So why did they compromise your security?

For the sake of convenience, so that it would be even easier than before for you to go cashless.

Soon there may be no cash, no cards just access to numbers in a so called 'account' via, the next most 'secure' thing that being biometrics.

All part of the Order of the New World.

You'll own nothing and be happy (if you're brainwashed), thanks Klaus!

P.S. on the topic of 'consumers', the (Victorian) government considers 'native' Australians that are recipients of the government's health care businesses as 'consumers' as seen in the following screencapture: