19 September 2009

Telstra Fraud Above the Law

Telstra is an Australian (ex Government) telecommunications MONOPOLY despite the fact that there are other telcos (Optus, Hutchison,Vodafone) being present.

In the mobile circus, unless technology is used for comms to 'hop' from tower to tower, it passes on Telstra owned copper cable, the customer will NEVER benefit.

A monopoly generally is at the expense of the customer, and none can be more true than that of the telcoms industry in Australia. Telstra has withheld technology, and Australia has one of this highest price paid for telecoms/ internet in the developed world.

In another fraudulent action, Telstra has decided to make a law unto itself by charging the customer for paying its bill.

The form in which this is done is that Telstra is charging $2 for every bill payed at the post office.

  • The Australian public has been given the option to pay most (utility) bills at the post office.
  • No other company, penalises for paying bills at the post office.
  • Telstra's action will provide the vehicle for others to follow.

Naturally Telstra's marketing department AND its legal team will tell the public that it is for THEIR benefit, BUT the underlying motives are FAR greater.

In accordance with the policies of the new world, governments cannot 'force' people quickly enough to adhere to the 'cashless society'. In order to speed things up a little, incentives (frequent flyer points) are given by credit card companies for people to go 'cashless'.

This form of payment is naturally sold to the public in a palatable form, giving them 'benefits'.

At the end of the day, it's about TOTAL government control into YOUR life.

Telstra has committed a fraudulent act against it's customers, BUT since this is in line with global policies the ACCC (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission) a government organisation, cannot and WILL NOT go against it's own policies.

Tax Office aims for 'easy targets'

A recent conversation with a reliable source has netted information in this post regarding the 'business' practices of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).

As with any businesses there is a 'quota' (dollar value) that has to be adhered to and brought in by the employee.
This IS also true of
  • Parking Inspectors
  • Metropolitan Transit Inspectors
  • Police

Naturally 'unwritten' instructions given to staff at the ATO is to target 'easy customers' in order to recoup financial losses the Tax Department misses out from businesses.

These easy customers are the 'general public', and are targeted for their probable path of being less likely to offer resistance.

The government goes on these 'blitzes' and singles out groups or individuals, that have NOT conformed to the Taxation Laws, DELIBERATELY omitting corporations.

In business, companies that committed Taxation Fraud in which the Tax Department cannot recoup the loss HAS to be supplemented by the 'general public'.

The general media, which is under strict fabrication of knowledge seldom report company fraud, to which the laws support the criminals 'getting' away with it.

There is generally a blanket media ban on the politics 'behind' closed doors or the effects and policies arising.

Examples of corporate fraud where they 'get away' with it are:

Richard Pratt :- fined 5% of the Total figure of the alleged fraud.
Rene Rivkin :- $0 fined for fraud
Eugene Kukuy :- (alias Henry Kaye) :- case dismissed.

The difference is that these people evade tax (criminal offense) WITH the help of lawyers, politicians and other high business people, where the SAME crime committed by a member of the general public nets a criminal conviction.

16 September 2009

Children left with sex offenders: report

Some of Victoria's most vulnerable children have been left in the care of convicted sex offenders by the state's child protection agency.

In one case, a child monitored by the Department of Human Services (DHS) was living with a convicted sex offender, despite the child's disclosures of abuse by the offender in the past.

In another case, it took the DHS 17 days to act on a complaint that two boys, aged five and six, were living with their grandfather, who is a convicted child sex offender.

By the time the department went to intervene, the boys had gone but they were eventually found and relocated.

In his 2008-09 annual report, Ombudsman George Brouwer raises serious questions over the department's capacity to protect children.

None of the DHS staff interviewed by Mr Brouwer's office knew how to conduct a police check on prospective carers.

Community Services Minister Lisa Neville said her department had failed in its duty of care to the children involved in the cases singled out by the Ombudsman.

"No child should be placed in a situation where they may be at risk and that did happen in these cases," she told reporters on Wednesday.

Ms Neville has been summoned to a meeting with Premier John Brumby on Wednesday night to finalise a package of measures designed to improve the protection of children.

The premier said he was deeply concerned about the failures highlighted in the report.

"If you look back at every government in our states or around Australia there would be governments ... that would say in hindsight, they should have done more in relation to protecting children," he told reporters.

"We will be announcing further initiatives and further policies to make sure that we don't have children that slip between the gaps and that children are given the importance within the system and within government that they rightfully deserve."

Ms Neville told parliament it was unacceptable that mandatory police checks were not conducted by DHS.

"It is unacceptable, in even one case, for the department not to follow these procedures," she said.

Ms Neville has asked DHS secretary Fran Thorn to conduct a review of every placement to ensure criminal checks have been carried out.

Mr Brouwer found DHS staff had excessive workloads and received inadequate supervision.

One child protection supervisor had 64 children waiting to be allocated a child protection worker.

Mr Brouwer found there were several unsupervised children on Children's Court orders.

"This means that courts have determined these children are in need of protection, yet the Department of Human Services has been unable to provide an adequate level of monitoring," he said.

The threshold for intervention increases as resources were stretched to meet demand, Mr Brouwer said.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said the system was stressed and the government was to blame.

"The responsibility of this government is to protect children. They're not protecting children, they're actually exposing children and it's an absolute outrage," he told reporters.

16 Sep 2009

The failure of the legal system to protect 'our' (read children of the masses) children is DELIBERATE, and designed FOR the criminal element.

IF the lawmakers were serious the laws would be amended accordingly, promptly.

The so-called family resolution centres DO -NOT protect the very children they are supposedly designed to do,

INSTEAD they are mass information collection points into the detailed lives of the individuals concerned, to be on government records.... FOREVER !


'Secrecy culture' rules in Victoria

A culture of secrecy rules in Victoria's public service when it comes to releasing documents under Freedom of Information (FoI) laws, the state's Ombudsman says.

In his 2008-09 annual report, Ombudsman George Brouwer said that during a number of investigations into FoI complaints he found an emphasis on protecting documents rather than releasing them.

"I remain concerned about the culture surrounding FoI practices in some areas of the public sector," he said in his report tabled in state parliament on Wednesday.

"Often, agencies act against the intention of the FoI Act by restricting rather than facilitating the release of information."

Mr Brouwer said there were some examples in the public sector of an open culture in handling FoI requests.

"However, the predominant culture in many agencies is to use FoI to prevent the release of documents, rather than to use it according to its intended purpose: as a means to allow scrutiny of an open and transparent government."

There was a 40 per cent increase in FoI complaints last financial year. There were 178 FoI complaints in 2008-09, compared with 125 in 2007-08.

Some of the exemptions that can prevent documents being released under the FoI Act include cabinet documents and those deemed to be provided to an organisation in confidence.

Mr Brouwer highlighted one occasion when the Department of Transport used the cabinet-in-confidence provision as a reason to refuse access to requested documents.

After the FoI applicant appealed the decision, the department sought legal advice and was told it had less than a 50 per cent chance of winning.

The department did not advise the secretary of its unlikely success before taking its case to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and the Court of Appeal.

"Both VCAT and the Court of Appeal clearly and unambiguously rejected the department's argument," Mr Brouwer said.

"Further, it was impossible to determine who, if anyone, approved the instruction to lodge an appeal."

Deputy Premier and Attorney-General Rob Hulls earlier this week told parliament that all departments would be required to publish commonly-sought documents twice yearly on their websites.

The documents include details of consultancies worth less than $100,000 and cabcharge expenditure. The salaries of executive officers will be published every 12 months.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said the government treated FoI with contempt.

"These are the seeds of corruption. When the public sector and the government conceal information, not reveal information, then this is the very culture which leads to the sort of breakdown of community trust and the abuse of office which has taken place in Brimbank."

Mr Hulls defended the government's record.

"The current system is delivering 97 per cent partial or full access to FoI documents, with complaints to the Ombudsman running at 0.6 per cent of 28,000 requests," he said in a statement on Wednesday.

"I have recently advised the Ombudsman of a proposed revision of FoI guidelines for departments and agencies and am waiting for his response.

"These guidelines will further promote accountability and transparency in relation to FoI."

ninemsn 16 Sep 2009

15 September 2009

Great Firewall of Australia: What’s not mentioned makes it even more scary

Many in Australia, and those overseas interested in censorship would have now read a post from the Australian Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy responding to concern over the implementation of the Great firewall

of Australia.

I won’t rehash what’s already been reported, but having read it several times since publication, it’s what’s left out that makes the proposal even more scary.

Free Speech

The Minister has stated that political speech will not be filtered under the proposal, but fails to define acceptable free speech and does nothing more to articulate his previous comments that “unwanted” material will be filtered under the scheme.

The problem here is the extraordinary mish-mash of Australian laws relating to open speech. In Victoria for example inciting religious hatred is an offense, so theoretically arguing against a particular religion would constitute hate speech instead of fair political speech.

Australia has a long track record of banning books, but for all the hatred are we now not better today having access to something like Mein Kampf so we can understand how wrong it is. There is a blurred line between political and hate speech, and blocking such speech on the internet will not stop people accessing it.

Conroy is disingenuous in suggesting that the Government is pro-free speech, yet pro-censorship: the price of free speech is that we must put up with the stuff we don’t like. The alternative system is not free speech, it’s totalitarianism.

Adult Games

Australia still has the bizarre situation of refusing to categorize video games for adults. The Minister says nothing of such games online, so we can still only presume that adult games online that would be refused categorization in Australia will be blocked under the filter.

Such games include online virtual world Second Life among many.

It should be remembered that Australia is a country that refused classification to Duke Nukem 3D, let alone far more seriously violent games.


Whether you like pornography or not, the hypocrisy of the Governments proposal remains the same. Senator Conroy continues to point to existing guidelines being extended to International content, but ignores the absurdity in the current guidelines.

R rated pornography is legal in Australia and can be purchased at newsagents or service stations. Under the guidelines proposed, R rated pornography online would be illegal unless those pages included a thorough adult verification scheme. That doesn’t mean enter your date here to proceed: as has previously been the case for age requirements for mobile content and R rated content hosted in Australia (of which there is little to none) that would include handing over credit card details, or in some cases being forced to register with the provider first, including the provision of adequate identifying measures to prove ones age.

The net affect is that 99.99% of R rated pornography, or any R rated material under this proposal will be blocked by the filter, as overseas providers will not bend over backwards to cater for a small market like Australia. Secondly: Australian’s will be none to keen to hand over details to these sites should they meet the criteria.

X Rated pornography is treated more strictly in Australia currently, but is quite legal, and available for purchase from the ACT and Northern Territory. X rated material under this proposal will be completely banned: so while it is legal to possess, look at or own in print or video, it will now be completely blocked online. Again: whether you agree with porn or not, the hypocrisy is rich. In terms of freedom of speech it also raises other issues: who is the Government to play moral guardian online over a picture of two consenting adults having sex? Presuming they are doing nothing illegal, why in the 21st century does the Government seek to prevent others seeing it? Government finally got out of the bedroom in the 80s when homosexuality became legal, some would argue that X Rated porn is no different again.

Secret Blacklist/ Due Process

The Minister points out that the blacklist to be maintained by ACMA will remain a secret, and cites legislation supporting this. His reasoning, as it seems to be for everything, is that it’s all about kiddie porn

Publishing the title or internet address of child abuse material would constitute distribution of illegal material and is therefore protected from release. To do otherwise would allow a person to view and download the material in jurisdictions where ISP-level filtering was not implemented.

That may well be the case, but the Minister fails to address concerns about due process should a site be added to the list. If there is no access to the list, there is no way to appeal a site being blocked incorrectly. Imagine a commenter leaving a lurid comment or pic on this blog, or a forum, and the site being added to the list based on this one instance. No transparency can only equal unfair and arbitrary justice that remains the hallmark of totalitarian Government.

Selection Criteria

The Minister refers to the National Classification Scheme, a system where by content providers must seek classification of content prior to publication. He then refers to content complaints being made to ACMA, and ACMA making the call on classification. One again the Minister fails to address properly the selection criteria under the scheme: will website owners need to seek classification on content prior to publication? If so, this would be an onerous burden on new media owners and businesses in Australia, costing time, money and putting those businesses at a strict competitive disadvantage compared to overseas operators.

If ACMA will decide on content classification, will they only act on complaints as is currently the process (again the Minister swaps and changes between the current and proposed system). If so, how exactly will the filter know what is acceptable and not acceptable content given the millions of porn sites alone that may fall under the censorship regime.

Likewise, will the filter then decide to block content based on keywords? Could we not see the case, as has happened before that a site about breast cancer is blocked because the filter considers breasts to be pornographic?


The Minister notes that in the last round of tests, overblocking, that is filters blocking legal content came in at 3-6%. He only notes that this is an advance on previous tests, but fails to address the very serious implications.

Under the scheme, three to six percent of perfectly legal content gets blocked. Anything other than a 0% rate is unacceptable.

Imagine the Australian Government waking up one morning and deciding that 6% of Australian businesses could no longer open their doors to their customers, and the outcry this would cause. This is EXACTLY what this proposal will do to online businesses, and companies with a primarily Australian focus online could find themselves out of business for no other reason that the Government’s filter has decided to block them, even though they were doing no wrong.


The Minister now states that P2P filtering technology is in the mix, despite its relative infancy. The question then becomes one of “unwanted.” Will the Government now extend the censorship regime to content presumed to be in breach of copyright as well? We can bet with absolute certainty that the Record and Movie Industries already have a letter on the Ministers desk.

Like general filtering, the question then becomes one of identification and process. How does the Government identify “unwanted material” and given that the blacklist or decision process is secret, what happens when content is incorrectly tagged. As we know the music and record industries don’t have a great track record of respecting existing copyright laws when it comes to accusations (for example, the defense of Fair Use, or Fair Trading in Australia).

Further will P2P network speeds be adversely affected for legal traffic?

Internet Speeds

The Minister notes falsely once again that in other countries running ISP filtering using blacklists that there was no discernable decrease in speed, despite noting the tests here proving otherwise.

What the Minister continues to fail to mention is that the countries running blacklists he mentions were running child porn blacklists in some cases on non-compulsory feeds. What the Minister is proposing is far more reaching than anything any of these countries are running, and every time he quotes those figures it’s a lie of context.


While it’s a positive that the Minister has finally spoken on some of the points raised by the Great Firewall of Australia proposal, it’s what he doesn’t answer that makes the proposal even more scary.

The implementation of this scheme can and will take Australia into an elite club of totalitarian societies that value state control over free speech. The Rudd Government seems hell bent on implementing a scheme with no recourse, that may kill legitimate businesses, and slow internet speeds so that Australia can truly take its place as an online backwater in the digital age.

Today I am ashamed to be Australian, ashamed that my Government should seek to implement draconian 19th century style censorship laws over the marvel of the modern age: The Internet. Free Speech may not be totally dead in Australia yet, but it’s about to be placed on life support. Conroy can say all he wants that this isn’t about free speech, but speech censored by Government isn’t free, no matter which way you want to spin it.

ref: The Inquisitr : The Great firewall of Australia

14 September 2009

Kaz Computer Services hires druggie

Kaz Computer Services or sometimes otherwise known in the industry as Spaz ( an Australian slang term for spastic (old term) / disabled (politically correct new age term)) is well known for providing dodgy computer services or hiring (cheap) Indian migrant labour via New Zealand as a back door.

Their less than successful business practices are supported by the lack of interest to offload by Telstra, and the loss of major accounts.

Whilst in today's (officially) 'politically correct' environment, we cannot say that a drug user is NOT allowed to integrate into society, and that we MUST given them a second - fifteenth chance, what we CAN say is that person would have NOT got the job if it weren't for their Anglo-Masonic father.

A well known statistic is that 70% of jobs get filled internally, and that the remainder (30%) are all that's advertised.

The individual hired, presented NO skills to fulfill the job description, but was hired on the basis of who they know, and NOT what they know.

Another example of cronyism.