Mass Surveillance under false pretexts - All men are F*CKED. It's OVER...

Since Australia is part of the Five Eyes global 'Anglo-sphere' surveillance network, whatever policies apply abroad are brought into this colony too.

See approx 16min video by The Hated One:

Australian Video - Forensic Data Extraction Tools v GrapheneOS

GrapheneOS has been the gold standard for privacy and security on the Android ecosystem for quite some time, where in reality there are no 'peers'.

Any other so called (Android) 'privacy' operating system does not compare. 

Source: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

For an up to date report see infograph in the above link.

Apparently the gold standard for data extraction from smartphones is Israel's forensic data extraction tool from Cellebrite.

It cannot gain access to data, running an up to date version GrapheneOS on a 7th generation Pixel phone.

See leaked screenshot from a memo on Cellebrite:

Google deliberately sabotaging Pixel/Android security. GrapheneOS the answer?

Currently GrapheneOS is only available on Google's Pixel smartphones, except for the Pixel 11 series.

As of 2027 GrapheneOS will be available on Motorola's flagship phone, that being the Signature 27 series.

When a phone is first turned on, it is in a state called BFU (Before First Unlock), where data on the device is encrypted and the encryption key only decrypts the data once an unlock code is entered, where the decryption key then resides in the phones memory.

A test has been performed on a GrapheneOS Pixel in its 3 various states:

• After being turned on, with no PIN code entered, known as BFU,

• After a PIN code has been entered, known as AFU (After First Unlock),

• In an unlocked state. 

Spoiler Alert: It should come as no surprise, that data can be extracted from an unlocked phone.

This is shown in the video by Aussie Cyber-security creator Ahmed Khanji:

Source: https://www.instagram.com/khanjicyber/reel/DdwNL4EsslG/

The tools used in the video are not from Cellebrite, but rather seem to be free tools on github: ALEX and ALEAPP.

Even though Mr. Khanji mentions that the phone reboots every 18hrs, therefore clearing its memory and returning the phone to a BFU state, that setting is only by default.

Depending one one's threat model, the 'Auto reboot' function can be set to as little as 10 minutes:

The function can be found by searching for "Auto reboot" in Settings

or it can be navigated to by the following screen taps:

Settings -> Security and Privacy -> Exploit protection -> Auto reboot. 

See a more comprehensive post within the link:

GrapheneOS protections against data extraction from locked devices 

It is VERY important for Aussies NOT to be ignorant or complacent about their online footprint, data privacy & security, and most importantly to be aware of GrapheneOS, as Australia has become a Socialist Surveillance State.

It's basically a totalitarian state falsely advertised as a democracy.

It's a fascist state, a corporatocracy, a 'money for mates' colony or whatever else one would like to describe Australia as.

The Corruption of the Supreme Court of Victoria

Australia is inherently a corrupt to the core nation, period.

It's been corrupt from the very beginning, but more importantly after 40 years of Martial Law when some sort of legal framework was established in under the Australian Courts Act of 1828.

It was so corrupt that the Imperial authorities had to step in and enact the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.

In reality that did not stop the corruption, but rather only established some sort of 'Kangaroo Court' paperwork.

With that legal history out of the way, until today corruption is rife and quite simply put, the people that run this colony do so with impunity, where there is no end in sight.

They are literally above the law, where it is difficult for a member of the serf pool to get them physically into the court room.

The 'gatekeepers' called the registrars are also part of this corruption.

MANY refer to Australia's court system as a 'Kangaroo Court', basically meaning its actions are either hastily improvised, irregularly conducted but most importantly characterised by dishonesty or incompetence, something to keep in mind on further articles on Australia's judiciary.

The focus of this article is on the Supreme Court of Victoria.

• The corporatising of the Victorian Courts

Upon retirement 16 long years ago Justice John D. Phillips provided the following concerning words on the corporatising out the Victorian Court system, consistent with our previous posts on the subject of the concept of courts as trading corporations. There is much evidence for those to see with the eyes to see it of the spiralling level of corruption the State of Victoria now hides. When the Supreme, County and Magistrates Court are now trading corporations with the same Australian Business number as the Prostitution Committee one can only assume corruption is at play.

 

March 24, 2005 — 11.00am

In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the court's independence.

For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to bite my tongue.

I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody will listen.

As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.

One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.

Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.

That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.

This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.

Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as "Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.

This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.

And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.

Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.

Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not to be subverted.

The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be, impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government. Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is fixed independently of the executive.

You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when, in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.

There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial and so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of bias.

In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded of the appointee.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL QUESTIONS ONE CAN ASK ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA IS:

- HAS IT BEEN VALIDLY ESTABLISHED?

The Victorian Supreme Court was established in 1852 after the Colony of Victoria was officially created in 1851. Section 28 of "An Act for the better Government of Her Majesty's Australian Colonies" (the Australian' Constitutions Act)" initially provided for the establishment of the Supreme Court of Victoria:

 XXVIII. And whereas under an Act of the Governor and Council of New South Wales passed in the Fourth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty, intituled An Act to provide for the more effectual Administration of Justice in New South Wales and its Dependencies, the Number of the Judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales constituted under the said Act of the Ninth Year of King George the Fourth has been increased to Five, and One of such Judges is resident, and has such Power, Jurisdiction, and Authority within the District of Port Phillip, subject to such Appeal to the said Supreme Court as by the said Act of the Governor and Council of New South Wales is provided : Be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to erect and appoint a Court of Judicature in the said Colony of Victoria, which shall be styled “The Supreme Court of the Colony of Victoria ;” and such Court shall be holden by One or more Judge or Judges, and shall have such ministerial and other Officers as shall be necessary for the Administration of Justice in the said Court, and for the Execution of the Judgments, Decrees, Orders and Process thereof ; and all the Provisions of the said Act of the Ninth Year of the Reign of King George the Fourth, concerning the Appointment and Removal of Judges and Officers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and for the appointing Persons to act in the Place and Stead of Judges being absent, resigning, dying, or becoming incapable to act, and concerning Appeals to Her Majesty in Council from Judgments, Decrees, Orders, or Sentences of such Court, shall apply to the said Supreme Court to be erected in the said Colony of Victoria, but so that the Powers of the Governor of New South Wales in relation to the Matters aforesaid shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony of Victoria ; and from such Time as shall be mentioned in such Letters Patent all the Authorities, Powers, and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and of any Judge thereof, over or to be exercised within or in relation to the said Colony of Victoria, including all Admiralty Jurisdiction exercisable within the Limits thereof, shall cease to be had and exercised by such last-mentioned Supreme Court and Judge respectively, and shall thenceforth be vested in and exercisable by the Supreme Court erected by such Letters Patent ; provided that in the meantime the said Authorities, Powers, and Jurisdiction of the said Supreme Court of New South Wales and of the Judges thereof, within and in respect of the said Colony of Victoria shall remain as if this Act had not been passed, unless or until the same shall be varied by Act of the Governor and Council of the said Colony of Victoria.

However, no such letters patent has ever been received in Victoria... THE 1855 Constitution for Victoria was also silent on the nature and scope of Judicial Power within the newly established Colony. It was not until the 1975 Victorian Constitution the power of the Supreme Court was consolidated into statute, but under what power?

See the Act:

Sources:supplied

Google deliberately sabotaging Pixel/Android security. GrapheneOS the answer?

Is there a reason Google dropped its motto 'Don't be evil' from its Code of Conduct? 

So that it could be 'evil'?

Google is quite simply deliberately leaving Pixel and even Android users (from other manufacturers) vulnerable to security attacks.

Google’s Pixel smartphones are specifically taken care of, in terms of security updates via

Pixel Update Bulletins, e.g. for September 2026, in the following listing:

https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/pixel/2026/2026-09-01

Other Android users, e.g. Samsung, Sony, Motorola, etc obtain their security patches according to the listings within a link called Android Security Bulletins, in this case for September 2026 under the address:

https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2026/2026-09-01

Currently THE privacy and security gold standard smartphone operating system is GrapheneOS, which is only available for Pixel smartphones at this moment, where it will be also available initially on the 2027 Signature Series flagship Motorola phone at some point in time in the future.

Information has been leaked, that Cellebrite’s (smartphone hacking) hardware cannot obtain data from an up to date GrapheneOS supported Pixel phone in a BFU (Before First Unlock) state, that is encrypted and with a strong passcode.

Cellebrite leak posted on GrapheneOS Discussion Forum

A key component of the security of the smartphone is something called MTE (Memory Tagging Extension), where it was concluded that Google did not incorporate or disabled this hardware function in the new Pixel 11 series smartphone. 

Therefore it can be deduced that Google is ‘deliberately’ weakening the security of their smartphones, in order for the 5 Eyes authorities (and Israel) to gain access to the phones (?), where after all, it is subservient within the domain of the 5 Eyes ‘Anglo Sphere’ global surveillance network.

In order to further weaken the security of Android, Google does not release security patches in a timely manner as it did once before.

‘Luckily’ for GrapheneOS users, the small developer team can produce better security patches than a multi-billion dollar corporation.

People running corporations in this manner know full well that the law takes a while to catch up to their ‘shenanigans’ and exploit this fact.

See GrapheneOS' post in relation to this problem

within the link:

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/42511-grapheneos-has-fixed-the-massive-android-17-qpr1-kernel-performance-regression

How a US law can reach Australia's shore: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702

FISA Section 702

A One Page Overview

In 2008, Congress enacted Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a critical intelligence collection authority that enables the Intelligence Community (IC) to collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats. Section 702 authorizes targeted intelligence collection of specific types of foreign intelligence information—such as information concerning international terrorism or the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction—identified by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Section 702 only permits the targeting of non-United States persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. United States persons and anyone in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702. Section 702 also prohibits “reverse targeting”—the IC may not target a non-U.S. person located outside the U.S. if the purpose of the collection is to collect information about a United States person or anyone located in the United States.

Section 702 is not a bulk collection program; it is a substantial and important targeted intelligence collection program. Every Section 702 targeting decision is individualized and documented, approved pursuant to a multi-step process embodied in specific targeting procedures, and reviewed by an independent oversight team.

Although all Section 702 targets must be non-United States persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, Congress has always recognized that such targets may send an email or have a phone call with a United States person. For this reason, Section 702 requires specific procedures to minimize the acquisition, retention, and sharing of any information concerning United States persons. “Minimize,” however, does not always mean “eliminate” – if, for example, a foreign terrorist indicated that a United States person was a key member of an ongoing terrorist plot, this information would be appropriately shared to allow the FBI to take further investigative steps. Congress also amended Section 702 to require specific procedures to ensure the querying of any Section 702-acquired information is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The Section 702 program is subject to extensive oversight. The Attorney General must approve the targeting, minimization, and querying procedures, each of which are annually reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for consistency with the FISA statute and the Fourth Amendment. Each of the IC elements involved in the Section 702 program has developed internal oversight processes and programs to ensure compliance with these procedures. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct extensive, regular, and independent reviews of Section 702 activities. Any identified compliance errors are remedied and reported to the FISC and Congress.

Further Reading FISA Resource Library

Download the PDF from: https://www.intel.gov/assets/documents/fisa/FISA_Section_702_FISA_Resource_Library.pdf

Australians don’t have the legal right to ‘their’ data held by corporations?

In today’s online world, it’s all about a fascist state, or as it’s colloquially known, ‘big data'.

It’s all about subservience to online corporations, where the ‘product’ has little to zero so called ‘rights’.

In order to appease the online slaves, so that there is no ‘revolt’ like in England in 1381, the corporate whores called ‘lawmakers’ in the US and EU have allegedly given the products some rights to access ‘their’ data, or rather data regarding their ‘person’.

Even when a person does obtain a file on themselves from the corporation in question, 

- what guarantee does that person have that the information obtained is in it’s entirety and not modified in any manner?

None, there is no guarantee, where it’s concerning as (people) in corporations lie to the general population every single day.

In any event, want to see what low quality food products manufacturer ‘McChuck’s’ has on your person in Australia?

“FAT’ CHANCE"! (pun intended)

See YouTube video by The Hate One of the title:

I was WARNING you about this...

IF you obtain all your tech/information technology, advice from the Australian mainstream media, you are truly doing yourself a disservice!

 

Android sends data to Google over 8,300 times per day

SO quite simply put, citizens of this planet live in a 'Surveillance Capitalism' Orwellian society, period.

Authorities have literally ZERO care factor about your online privacy and/or security, where at the end of the business day, the agenda is mass surveillance, and not for "child safety"either, as they pretend it to be.

IF child safety was truly within the agenda of the authorities, then the Epstein Files would be released in full, and prosecutions would begin, but we all should know that will never occur.

'Interwebs' users should be aware that Google is not a 'social media' conglomerate, nor is it a 'search engine', but rather the world's largest advertising company.

It is also important to note that it operates under the Five Eyes umbrella, meaning it is subservient to the governments of the members of FiveEyes.

What most users would not be aware of, is that with any encryption technology emanating from the United States, the key must be given to the authorities.

A charade is played out in the public domain that for example some 'fruit' corporations will not disclose their customer's (so called) private messages, if a lawfully enacted warrant is presented, which is realistically not needed as they employ something called "OSInt" (Open Source Intelligence) information  gathering, meaning the things you post (anywhere) online. 

It should be common knowledge in the I.T. security industry that a couple of corporations have hardware that exploit (deliberately undocumented) vulnerabilities in smartphone operating systems to extract data from the target device.

Google has (malicious) code in their 'stock' operating system, e.g. in Pixel phones that initiates approx. 348 connections per hour, or over 8,300 instances per day!

A 'stock' (meaning factory installed software) Google Pixel 8 smartphone, with - All Privacy Toggles Off, sends out approx 194 connections per hour, or just over 4650 connections per day.

The most secure and privacy respecting smartphone operating system on the market at the time of this writing, is one that is only available for Pixel users which is called GrapheneOS, where there is action taken place to support a 2027 flagship model initially from Motorola, specifically starting off with the Signature 27 series phone.

It is to the benefit of the user to comprehend the privacy and security features of their phone in order to leak as little data as possible.

Apple products are not recommended for privacy nor security purposes, despite what the corporation publicly advertises.

 For further information see the following:

https://www.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/1wkv1jj/we_captured_72_hours_of_idle_android_network/

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/42146-stock-android-sends-data-to-google-over-8300-times-per-day

 https://www.praveentechworld.com/data/degoogle-telemetry-2026.csv

https://www.praveentechworld.com/research/degoogle-telemetry-2026

Victorian Government Involved In Driver Licencing Fraud

MANY people from the general population pool may be of the assumption that ‘persons’ in government are ‘honourable’, as they advertise on their ‘government’ [read: tax payer sponsored] websites referring to that person as ‘The Honourable’ wherever the person’s name is, in whatever particular position, where the reality is far from the advertised propaganda.

People may also be of the erroneous belief that the colony’s police forces are unequivocally ‘against’ crime without discrimination, but again that is not true.

They act under dictation from persons unknown to the general population.

A reality is that Australia’s governments (federal and state), need crime, for various reasons, which is a topic that is way beyond the scope of this article.

The federal government’s agenda is an over-immigration policy, on the good people of Australia, where the cause and effect is passed on to the states and territories, in particular to those on the east coast, at great distress to the public, e.g. 'housing crisis'.

The Victorian Government also advertised for a ZERO road deaths policy, knowing full well that it is no achievable.

With the above information in mind, many immigrants that have landed on our shores do not have the skill set to be in charge of a motor vehicle, either driving or parking it.

So what is the Victorian Government doing about it?

Well, information has been obtained from a source within the industry that requires to be anonymous, that Vicroads has been given direction to pass as many future drivers as possible, in the name of ‘the economy’.

“The people in government do not care about road safety, but rather the revenue drivers raise for the governments”, said the source.    

The Victorian Government’s driver licencing corporation ‘Vicroads’, which incidentally is not operating ‘lawfully’ (as opposed to ‘legally’, which it is), is the business responsible for issuing persons permission to drive on the roads not just in Victoria, but the whole of Australia.

There is a reason why Victoria or rather Melbourne has the nation’s lowest quality drivers, that being the immigrant’s countrymen have occupied positions that test prospective drivers for competency, and give them that piece of paper (also under bribes), when they should not have it, where Vicroads is seen as that nation’s most corrupt driver testing so called ‘authority’.

Sydney is not far behind in the ‘per capita’ stakes.

The word is to come to Victori, to get your driver licence easily, especially if you may not have the required co-ordination or skill set.

This information is not new and has been going on for decades, and it’s rarely exposed by government or mainstream media, in any decade.

Therefore is this kind of fraud, going to stop?

MOST DEFINITELY NOT!

The ‘economy’ depends on it! 

You know the automotive, insurance industries, auto repair centres, et al, are all depending on low quality drivers that are on the road, where realistically they should not be.

But hey, that’s life in a (penal) colony.

Revolut confirms sensitive customer data breach

Recently, Revolut has come to the attention as being a 'dodgy' so called banking company with regards to its deliberately lax security where this has been explained in the the article:

Warning! Revolut wins Australian banking licence. Don't use it as it's not safe nor secure!

On the 13th of September 2026, Reuters has reported that Revolut has experienced a data breach.

This comes as no surprise, as a result of Revolut's appalling attitude towards customer security, where at the end of the business day, it's not the owners that will suffer but rather the customers.

Revolut's data breach is as a result of their negligence towards their customers data security, where the business should be shut down, but in reality this will not occur, as it's all about 'the economy'.

If ANY Australians are involved in this corporation, it could be for their benefit to withdraw any and all monies from this clown show.

See Reuters article:

Revolut confirms sensitive customer data breach after fake government requests

Sept 12 (Reuters) - British fintech Revolut confirmed on ​Saturday that sensitive customer information was disclosed ‌to an unauthorized third party after it received fraudulent requests from a legitimate government agency email domain.

Here ​are a few details:

• Revolut said in ​a statement that the breach affected a "very ⁠limited" number of customers, who had been ​notified by the company. It did not give ​further details.
• "Revolut systems and customer funds are unaffected," a spokesperson for the company said, without disclosing the ​exact number of individuals affected by the ​breach.
• "Upon detection, we immediately blocked the address and alerted the ‌relevant ⁠government agency as well as enforcement agencies, data protection, and financial regulators," the spokesperson said.
• The compromised data included customers' birth date, postal ​and email ​addresses, and ⁠phone numbers, as well as copies of their identity documents including ​passports and driver’s licenses, according to ​a ⁠TechCrunch report.
• Revolut is planning for a potential public listing and aiming for a valuation of up to $200 ⁠billion.
• It ​is one of the most ​successful European fintech companies, with no physical bank branches.

Apple's US Patent to read your brain activity/thoughts?

NEXT LEVEL BIO-METRIC SURVEILLANCE?

  

See also the PDF within the link:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230225659A1/en

If you can think of a way this technology can be used nefariously, someone will implement that.