Why New Privacy Laws Won't Stop Your Phone Being Tracked

Mobile phone tracking techniques are becoming more commonplace. Waste bins target ads. Shopping centres follow customers. Spooks follow airport passengers. Will the Privacy Act’s new definition of personal information provide enhanced protections against mobile phone tracking? Not really. Here’s why.
Phone picture from Shutterstock

Defining what’s personal

The Privacy Act covers personal information. Any information that is not personal information is not covered by the Act. Under the new definition, personal information is information:

about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable.

Information can therefore be personal information in two ways. The first where information directly identifies an individual — what we normally think of as our “personal information”. In other words, the unique identifiers needed for our lives. Our name. Our email address. Our credit card number.

The second where information does not directly identify an individual, but that information can be combined with other information to identify that individual. A residential address is a good case in point.

An address does not identify an individual directly. 742 Evergreen Terrace is not an unique identifier.

However, 742 Evergreen Terrace can be used as a means to combine different pieces of non-personal information together to reveal the identity of an individual. 742 Evergreen Terrace + Duff Beer drinker + doughnut consumer + balding haed + nuclear power plant worker = Homer Simpson.

Check it out yourself. Next time you log on to Facebook, try the Facebook Graph Search. Enter a range of different “Likes”. You may have to play around but you can generally go from millions of individual Facebook users to one user with a small number of combinations. It’s an example of Arvind Narayanan’s 33 Bits of Entropy. You can identify an individual from any population by combining a maximum of 33 pieces of random non-personal information around a single point. It is this “singling out” type of harm that is central to the definition of personal information.

The reasonable part

Does that mean any piece of information could be personal information? Potentially yes and that’s problematic because the Privacy Act is not designed for application to all information. The definition gets around this problem through its “reasonable” element. Information will only be personal information if an individual is “reasonably identifiable”.

A reasonable identification refers to an organisation’s ability to combine information to identify an individual within “moderate steps” that leads to actual identification. In other words, identification is doable without too much trouble.

What is too much trouble will vary between different organisations. For example, Google’s moderate steps would be vastly different to most other organisations which do not have Google’s resources, skills and capacities.

Waste bins & information about individuals

The new definition, like the old one, refers to information about individuals. However, actions that threaten privacy no longer just concern information “about” us. They now more readily concern information that “relates” to us. Mobile phone tracking is a case in point. Let’s look at those waste bins to find out why.

In 2013, Renew, a UK company found itself embroiled in a privacy scandal. The City of London installed waste bins provided by the company that broadcast video adverts.

Renew then went one step further. It created a network of sensors called Presence Orb paid for by retailers that recorded the details of when a mobile phone’s medium access control (MAC) address came within the range of a sensor.

The MAC address is unique to the phone’s wi-fi network card. A MAC address can be changed with a degree of technical know-how but it is generally viewed as an unique identifier. When the phone passed one of those bins, the bin recognised the MAC address and then broadcast a video advert for the retail company. Targeted ads via mobile phone tracking.

Would this be a privacy infringement in Australia? It is possible the collection of MAC address details would have been an unfair collection. But it first depends whether a MAC address would be classed as personal information.

MAC addresses are device identifiers. They are information about devices rather than individuals. They do not directly identify individuals. The issue therefore is whether an individual is reasonably identifiable from a MAC address. As highlighted above, this issue is inherently contextual. It depends on the circumstances of use so it is difficult to determine an answer without a more rigorous analysis of Presence Orb’s sensor network.

This example highlights the general problem with information about individuals as a basis for defining personal information. It does not automatically include information about our devices that relates to us especially in the lives we live today. The EU’s Article 29 Data Protection Working Party best summarised the issue

Smart mobile devices are inextricably linked to natural persons. There is usually direct and indirect identifiability.

In other words, the link between our mobile phone and ourselves is such that information that relates to us (e.g. a mobile’s MAC address) has to be seen as information about us. The extent to which mobile phone tracking will be covered by the Privacy Act is unclear. It will primarily depend on whether an individual is reasonably identifiable from the collection and use of MAC address information.

A definition of personal information that incorporates information “about” individuals and reasonable identifiability still provides protections. But the Privacy Act’s new definition of personal information provides less flexibility when considering the privacy consequences of smart tracking technologies that will become more prevalent with the onset of the sensor society.

The new definition of personal information is consequently a missed opportunity and more legal guidance will be required to clearly outline how the inextricable link between us and our devices will operate under the auspices of the Privacy Act.

Mark Burdon is a lecturer at the University of Queensland. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

lifehacker.com.au 11 Mar 2014

Any so called privacy laws, can be easily exploited by corporations, as they are literally not worth the paper they are written on.

Telstra can be used as an example:

• Telstra, a multi billion dollar profit per annum company recently was 'fined' $10,200 for privacy breaches of customer data, hardly a deterrent.

• Telstra has offshore registered companies for the purpose of 'tax evasion' with no government intervention or fines.

• Telstra commits fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per annum, against its customers with no government action or inquiry.

User / customer / personal data is a global commodity, and it is open slather on the trading of it.

Any so called government regulations of it are a farce.

Why you should never sleep with your mobile phone

Sleeping with your mobile phone is bad news if you want to get a good night's sleep. Source: HeraldSun

DO YOU sleep with your mobile phone beside you? Or worse, underneath your pillow?

You're not alone.

Eight out of ten people keep their mobile phones on overnight and around half use it as an alarm clock, according to a new survey from UK communications regulator Ofcom.

But health experts warn this bad habit is ruining your sleep and could cause long term health problems such as insomnia.

The bright light from our mobile phone screens is the main thing keeping us from getting a decent night's sleep.

The light emitted from the screens of our phones, tablets and e-readers contains lots of blue, which has a more stimulating effect than regular light.

It stimulates the cells in our eyes that tell the brain what time it is, which then tricks our bodies into believing it's daytime, according Dr Guy Meadows, an insomnia specialist at The Sleep School in London.

And because of the way we sleep, if your phone wakes you up in the night you're more likely to stay awake.

"We sleep in cycles of 1½-2 hours, with brief moments of waking in between that normally go unnoticed," Dr Meadows told the Daily Mail.
 
"A flash of light or vibration of your phone from a text message at the wrong moment could make you fully conscious.

"This stems from our evolutionary past when, if we stayed fast asleep, there was a high chance we'd end up as a lion's midnight snack. So the brain wakes to check for danger."

This guy needs to learn to detach from his phone. Source: Supplied

 

Your body is more vulnerable and reactive to outside stimulants during these brief waking moments. So a midnight text could cause you to fully wake up and make it a lot harder to get back to sleep.

Brightness, duration, time of day and distance from the light are also key factors that can impact upon your sleep.

This is why sleep experts recommend you avoid screen time 2-3 hours before going to bed. Reading a book is a much better alternative.

But the temptation caused by a Facebook notification or a text message is sometimes too much to resist. Four in every ten smartphone users say they check their phone if it goes off in the night.

"There's not always something new or interesting every time you check your messages - but there might be," said Tom Stafford, a lecturer in psychology and cognitive science at Sheffield University.

"So we want to check our phone more often than we rationally know we should - just in case.'

In order to get a good night's sleep, you need to feel safe and free from worry, said sleep expert Dr Neil Stanley.

"By having your phone close by at night, you're subconsciously saying you wish to attend to that phone.

"The brain will monitor the situation and your sleep will be lighter and more likely to be disturbed."

Most sleep experts recommend you leave your phone in a different room or turn it off overnight and avoid looking at your phone right before going to bed.

news.com.au 13 Mar 2014

While this article pertains specifically to mobile phones, it must also be noted that any background light, e.g. a television left on all night has the same effect.

Australia has no valid government

The world of law and politics is kept away from scrutiny by the general populous in order so that the 'minority' can rule without any opposition to the detriment of the masses as a whole.

Many people with the function of 'judge / magistrate / judicial clerk' work against the so called laws that they are allegedly supposed to follow, in a conspiracy to defraud the Australian people for their own financial gain, which is supposed to be a crime, or so we are led to believe.

Many people who have stood up against the 'law' (read corporate agreements) have ended up in jail as a result, by the corrupt judiciary, but this is not analysed by the corporate media.

It is also very difficult for people to expose the level of corruption involved, as generally the are 'taught a lesson' in order not to make the information public knowledge.

There are many significant documents that corpau has obtained, that are going to be published, in due course, including;

• high level police corruption in collaboration with 'magistrates' and high court judges, 

• multimillion dollar thefts involving police, sheriffs, and magistrates,

• police beatings in order to silence any opposition

• the multimillion dollar fraud known as 'fines'.

Some of these documents are well known in the legal / political circles, to the extent that if the content of these articles is brought up before magistrates / judges, the judiciary either dismisses the matter, or makes judgements behind closed doors, not to be on record or accessed at any later date, even by FOI (Freedom Of Information) requests.

The current document is a letter by Wayne Levick B.A. LL.B, that was given to the corporate media in 2007 regarding the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance.

The context of the letter is as follows:

A Major Australian Constitutional  Problem

“42. Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat
make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or
affirmation of allegiance in the form set  forth in the schedule to this Constitution. ”

Schedule

OATH

I, A.B., do swear that  I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria,
Her heirs and successors according to law.
SO HELP ME GOD!

AFFIRMATION

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

(NOTE: The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland  for
the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf

Now read  the actual oath administered:

http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/news.php?action=view&id=190

Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900  (UK) the schedule,
being outside of the constitution, can only be altered by the British Parliament.

Australia therefore has no valid government!

Wayne Levick B.A. LL.B.

Please Note: The above links (in the document also) are no longer valid.

The actual document can be downloaded below:

Coles reveals customers' data is shared with third parties overseas

Information highway: Where your personal details are ending up.

Customers using the Coles Flybuys card or online shopping service are having their personal details sent to up to 30 other companies owned by the same corporation and to third parties in at least 23 other countries.
Last week, Coles unveiled plans to invest $1.1 billion over the next three years building 70 new supermarkets and creating more than 16,000 jobs as well as releasing a more detailed description of its privacy policy.

Customers were told that by using Flybuys or online shopping they consented to the privacy policy, meaning data collected was shared with other companies in the Wesfarmers group, including K-Mart, Bunnings, Officeworks and Bi-Lo.

But the retail giant also revealed that the personal information it collects on its customers may be sent to nations such as China, Pakistan, the Philippines, Mexico, the United Arab Emirates, the US and Britain.

Under the Coles policy, personal information - defined as data which identifies someone or which allows a person's identity to be ascertained - can be used in conducting risk assessments for credit and insurance, products that are also sold by the supermarket giant.

Personal information can include name, contact and household details, transaction history and buying habits.
Coles' more detailed policy description was released just before the new Australian Privacy Principles come into force this week, which make businesses list likely overseas recipients of personal data and conform with stricter rules.

Businesses must also take reasonable steps to ensure foreign recipients do not breach the Australian principles or are operating under similar privacy laws in those countries.

A spokeswoman said Coles' global commercial partners had the highest standards of data security and that Coles followed all regulatory requirements and best practice disclosure.

In line with the new legislation, Coles' policy enables customers to access or correct personal information the retailer has collected about them. It does state requests may be rejected, although reasons must be provided if this happens.

Coles said it takes steps to ensure third parties protect the privacy and security of personal information and use the information only for agreed purposes, and it destroys or de-identifies personal information no longer needed. Whenever Coles' online services are used, the company logs the location at which it was used - in cases where this function has not been disabled by the user - as well as dates, times, file metadata and the links customers click on.

The Australian Privacy Foundation vice-chair David Vaile said companies such as Coles should have been revealing where the data was being sent for years and it was unlikely Australian customers would have any comeback if their data was misused overseas.

''You're suddenly at the mercy of someone who's done something wrong who doesn't have to answer to you or your country,'' Mr Vaile said.

''No one running data storage can say, 'your data is safe with us'.''

''At long last we have this new legislation and now we encourage companies to bite the bullet and not just reveal countries they give the data to but companies.''

University of Technology Sydney marketing lecturer Ingo Bentrott said data mining ''sounds very Big Brother but if it's done ethically and you're giving the customer what they want then I think it's OK".

''We already know sales of milk generally go up when customers buy more Milo but data mining is about finding unknown patterns in purchase behaviour. And any information a competitor doesn't have is an advantage,'' Dr Bentrott said.

canberratimes.com.au 9 Mar 2014

In the corporate world of contracts; 

I did not [willingly] authorise my data to be shared with any other party.

Credit card fraud can occur more easily when more 'people' have access to that information.

This 'policy' is also part of the nanny state agenda.

Melbourne public transport: Tram, train, bus users stranded with unusable data

The inability to use Google to plot public transport journeys in Melbourne has long been a source of frustration, made all the more galling by the fact that it can be done in every other Australian capital.

Use Google Maps to find the best way to get from the CBD to St Kilda, say, and you'll see options on how to get there by car, bicycle or on foot, but not by train, tram or bus. This is because the state has never publicly released its timetable data to be used by Google or any other developer.

Public Transport Victoria took a step towards fixing this situation on Thursday when it quietly released an "app programming interface" containing the state's timetable data. But just as PTV's own smartphone app was swamped by hostile reviews upon its release almost two years ago, this latest move by the authority has failed to please either the app developers or public transport advocates, who both say the data release is virtually useless.

The data has been released to conform to a state government policy to make its data available for the public good, in a format that "matches the operational needs of our business", PTV says. But it was evidently not released in a format that matches the needs of most developers who want to make apps for the public.

Rob Amos, who developed the popular TramTracker app for iPhones, said the release was so limited in scope it was effectively "targeted at the hobbyist developer".

Google will not use the data in its current format, so Melbourne will remain a public transport black spot on Google Maps.

"We look forward to receiving transit information from Public Transport Victoria in an accessible format so that we can work with them to include their data feed on Google Maps," a spokesman said.


PTV said the release included timetable data for all train, tram, bus and V/Line services, plus myki outlets.

Tony Morton, president of the Public Transport Users Association, said PTV was "meeting the public halfway".

"It's not the full publication that you have in other places," Dr Morton said.

"In other parts of the world it's virtually a no-brainer that this is public transport and so the information is just published and there is no attempt to impose rules on how people use it [because] it's information that ultimately belongs to the public."

Jill Hennessy, the shadow minister for public transport, said Labor would, if elected in November, see that the data was fully released and in a more user-friendly format for developers.

"The culture of secrecy surrounding transport data has meant commuters have been stuck with PTV’s crappy app, which doesn’t even have a map function," Ms Hennessy said.

"Sadly the Napthine government’s limited release of data won’t bring our public transport technology out of the dinosaur age."

PTV said the release included timetable data for all train, tram, bus, and V/Line services, plus myki outlets.

A Napthine government spokeswoman said the data release was "evidence we are open for business, and committed to facilitating third party providers to develop innovative and customer focused applications".

"The Coalition government will work with industry to ensure data formats meet business needs so that new applications can add value to the products already provided by PTV," she said.

theage.com.au 11 Mar 2014

The results from the actions of a policy of secrecy from the police state of Victoria.

Keeping the corporate slaves (general populous) in the dark is high on the agenda.

Public transport is exactly what it suggests, transport for the public, and not 'secret agents' therefore any information pertaining to the transport system can be published.

Since the Victorian government is a business headed by Dr. Napthine, this policy could be discouraging overseas tourists, therefore effecting the state's economy.

Such action is therefore bad for business and Dr. Napthine's employment should be terminated immediately.

Speed cameras set for three Melbourne intersections

Speed cameras will be switched on at three of Melbourne's busiest intersections in the next fortnight.

Police said the fixed cameras are in 40km/h speed zones at the intersections of Flinders and Williams streets and Exhibition and Victoria streets in the CBD, and Fitzroy Street and Lakeside Drive in St Kilda.

The cameras were switched off in 2012 to give motorists time to adjust to reduced speed limits.

They will be turned on again some time in the next fortnight, police said. Signs will warn drivers of the changes.

Road Policing Superintendent Kevin Sheridan said he hoped the new cameras would discourage drivers from speeding in areas with large numbers of pedestrians and cyclists.

"We encourage everyone to be responsible on the roads and to drive within the required speed limits," said Mr Sheridan.
"The 40km/h speed signs are not advisory – they are the law and if you speed, you will get caught."

news.com.au 21 Feb 2014

Speed  / Red light Cameras are factually unlawful, something the corporate media is unable to divulge.

There are many ways to tackle the 'illegality' of the 'Infringement Notice' one is issued with.

Victoria Police, a business that is not allowed to work for 'companies' is involved in fraud together with CCV (Civic Compliance Victoria) in duping the masses of millions of dollars annually.

Speed / Red light cameras are part of the state's budget, and have very little to do with the safety of the public, as so vigorously  portrayed in government propaganda videos.

Some information to consider before refusing to pay for an 'Infringement Notice':

Traffic Infringements / Speed Camera Fines - Are they really lawful? 

at:

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/traffic-infringements-speed-camera.html

and

Civic Compliance - Victoria Police fraud

at

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/civic-compliance-victoria-police-fraud.html

and

Civic Compliance Victoria (CCV) - Explained

at

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/civic-compliance-victoria-explained.html

Telstra fined $10k for breaching privacy laws when leaking customer data

Professor John McMillan, Australian Information Commissioner announces the release of the Australian Privacy Principles (APP) guidelines.

TELSTRA breached privacy laws and industry codes when it accidentally released the personal information of nearly 16,000 customers, two separate investigations have found. 

The leaked data, which included full names, addresses and phone numbers in various spreadsheet files, was accessible via a Google search between June 23, 2012 and May 15, 2013.

Telstra says it immediately disabled all public access to the data when informed of the breach in May.

In a report released on Tuesday, the Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, found the telco had breached privacy laws by releasing the information and by failing to take reasonable steps to secure it.

However he noted that Telstra “acted appropriately in responding to the data breach”.

In a separate report released on Tuesday, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) found Telstra had also contravened the telco consumer protection code.

At the time the breach was discovered, Telstra was already subject to a direction from the communications watchdog to improve its customer data protection following a 2011 breach involving 734,000 customers.

As a result, the ACMA issued Telstra a $10,200 infringement notice, which Telstra says it paid last week.

The leaked data, which included full names, addresses and phone numbers in various spreadsheet files, was accessible via a Google search between June 23, 2012 and May 15, 2013. Source: AFP

 

The data breach, which included more than 1000 customers who had requested anonymity from phonebooks, occurred when Telstra asked a third party IT provider responsible for the database to extend access to authorised partners.

When the third party did this, it inadvertently turned off access controls. Google later indexed the source files, which became discoverable via an online search.

Telstra said in a statement that the customer records in question “were only visible via a complex Google search and there were no significant complaints from affected customers”.

A spokesperson said Telstra has stopped using the IT platform responsible for the breach and invested in “more stringent” controls.

The telco will engage an independent third party auditor to certify that it has implemented better controls.

The results of the two investigations were released a day before sweeping new privacy laws come into force, strengthening the powers of the Privacy Commissioner.

“This incident is a timely reminder to all organisations that they should prioritise privacy,” Mr Pilgrim said.

news.com.au 11 Mar 2014

Telstra puts Australia workers into the unemployment queue, only to rehire cheap labour from overseas.

This naturally comes at a price, as the details are traded amongst other local 'companies'.

There is literally no quality control nor privacy assurance from the temporary backyard so called 'companies'.

 The $10,200 fine is an absolute joke.

Another win for Telstra and a gross breach of privacy, where the 'fine' is not nearly enough for the company to be discouraged.

Knox Council slashes Boronia house valuation by nearly half just before case goes to tribunal

Estate agent John Garnett and Gerard Rebeiro took on Knox Council – and won. Picture: Susan Windmiller Source: News Limited

 

A KNOX man has successfully challenged Knox Council over the value of his property after his rates doubled in a single year. 

A real estate agent has warned of similar examples of properties being overvalued by Knox Council, ­resulting in higher rates bills.


Gerard Rebeiro was shocked when in 2013, he received a rates bill of more than $2200 for his Hastings Ave, Boronia home after Knox Council valued his property at more than $920,000.

His rates bill for the previous year was only about $1200.

Mr Rebeiro enlisted the help of Boronia Harcourts real estate principal John Garnett, who valued his home at about $450,000.

Mr Rebeiro then ­presented his case to Knox Council, and after a lengthy battle, the authority dropped the value down to $675,000.

Mr Rebeiro challenged them again, and in June last year the council came back with a value of $625,000, which Mr Rebeiro said he was told “was a goodwill gesture”.

But he still believed the house was overvalued, and on advice from Mr Garnett, took the case to VCAT last month.

In the week of the case, Knox Council once again offered to drop the value figure to $540,000 – and again, the duo rejected it.

On Tuesday, February 25 – the night before the case was due to go to VCAT – Knox Council agreed to further drop the value of his Boronia home to $500,000 if the case did not go to the tribunal.

Mr Garnett said he had seen many cases where Knox Council had valued residents’ properties higher than their worth.

“I have had at least three or four cases in the past where I have had to help them by writing appraisal letters to take down to council when they’ve been way overcharged in their rates,” Mr Garnett said.

Knox Council director corporate development Mark Dupe said council could not comment on individual cases, but emphasised ratepayers had the right to object to their home valuations and that council processed about 200 objections a year.

“Many factors can influence changes in valuation, such as the current property market and how it changes over time,” Mr Dupe said.

He said development regulations could also have an influence.

INCREDIBLE SHRINKING HOUSE VALUE
Mr Rebeiro’s house:

n Valued at $921,000
n Knox Council dropped it to $675,000
n Dropped it again to $625,000
n Dropped once again to $540,000
n Settled out of court at $500,000

heraldsun.com.au 11 Mar 2014

No one from the corporate media has mentioned that 'city councils' are corporations, that cannot 'lawfully' charge rates.

This fraud is on a grand scale that effects every single land 'owner' (the Crown actually owns ALL land in the Commonwealth of Australia) to the approximate tune of around $33 Billion per annum.

There is no legitimate '3rd tier' form of local government.

Knox City Council: ABN 24 477 480 661

Swimming in a sea of disinformation over the Great Barrier Reef

Snorkellers swim over a coral outcrop on the Great Barrier Reef. Source: News Limited

 

THE ABC was among the first to fall for it, of course. In 2002, it reported the Great Barrier Reef was as good as dead already. 

Host Kerry O’Brien groaned that our “once-spectacular” reef was “threatened by global warming” and “up to 10 per cent of the reef has been lost to bleaching since 1998”, turning it “bone white”.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Blog with Andrew Bolt
 
Up popped Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a Queensland reef researcher with a natty patter, to warn us to “change our lifestyles” or the reef would go — killed by hotter seas.

My god, but journalists are suckers for warming scares.

It’s like they actually want to be fooled — or to fool you.

Hoegh-Guldberg is now arguably the world’s most influential reef scientist in global-warming circles, having got big government grants, chaired a $20 million World Bank study of warming, and worked as an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author.

Last week, he bobbed up again, waving a report he’d just done for the WWF green group to help promote this month’s Earth Hour.

Again journalists lapped it up, not bothering to check how all Hoegh-Guldberg’s other warnings had panned out. (Answer: terrible, as you’ll see.)

Here is how the unquestioning Sydney Morning Herald reported Hoegh-Guldberg’s latest scare: “The Great Barrier Reef will be irreversibly damaged by climate change in just 16 years, according to leading reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

Andrew Bolt wrestles with reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. Picture: ABC

 

“By mid-century, the Great Barrier Reef may have shrunk to 10 per cent or less ...”

The Guardian Australia was no better:

“The Great Barrier Reef will suffer ‘irreversible’ damage by 2030 unless radical action is taken to lower carbon emissions, a stark new report has warned,” it reported.

“Co-author Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, (said) that current climate trends signal ‘game over’ for the Great Barrier Reef.”

Like I said, Hoegh-Guldberg has a gift for the snappy line.

But none of last week’s reports bothered to add that he also has a lousy track record in scaremongering.
What does it say about media reporting of global warming that almost no journalist ever mentions it?
In 1998, Hoegh-Guldberg warned the reef was under pressure from global warming, and much had been bleached white.

In fact, he later admitted the reef made a “surprising” recovery.

In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg claimed warming would so heat the oceans that mass bleaching of the reef would occur every second year from 2010.

In fact, the reef’s last mass bleaching occurred in 2006.

In 2000, Hoegh-Guldberg claimed “we now have more evidence that corals cannot fully recover from bleaching episodes such as the major event in 1998” and “the overall damage is irreparable”.

In fact, he admitted in 2009 he was “overjoyed” to see how much the reef had recovered and the Australian Institute of Marine Science says “most reefs recovered fully” from the 1998 bleaching.

Indeed, an AIMS study found the previous 110 years of ocean warming were good for coral growth.

In 2006, Hoegh-Guldberg warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.

In fact, he later admitted this bleaching had “a minimal impact” and his team was “genuinely surprised/relieved about how quickly some of these coral colonies had recovered”. In 2007, he warned temperature changes were again bleaching the reef.

In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network the next year reported no net decline in coral cover over the previous four years.

Professor Peter Ridd, a James Cook University reef researcher, insisted the reef was in “bloody brilliant shape” and said unnamed scientists were “crying wolf” — and getting funding.

In 2011, Hoegh-Guldberg predicted a “large-scale mortality” of reef-building corals on West Australian reefs from Shark Bay to Exmouth within three months.

In fact, he later admitted the famous Ningaloo Reef, the largest there, had actually “had a narrow escape”.
Yes, the Great Barrier Reef can be damaged by seas made suddenly warm, giving coral no time to adapt.

But Hoegh-Guldberg seems to have repeatedly underestimated coral’s ability to adapt — which is one reason the reef has already survived 15,000 years in its present form.

Just last December, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority noted a bloom in coral growths since the devastation caused by Cyclone Yasi three years ago, with “quite good recovery” in fast-growing species particularly. (And, no, global warming hasn’t caused more cyclones but, if anything, fewer.)

Yet, here comes Hoegh-Guldberg again, shouting: “Repent! For the end of the reef is nigh!”

And see the journalists trailing behind their messiah, questioning nothing, repeating everything.

How much of the warming scare is built on such “reporting”?

heraldsun.com.au 10 Mar 2014

'Crack-pot' scientists are bought off by governments to push  'scientific facts' that support the politics of the day.

Ex Victorian Police officer comments on Fines

Hello, I’m an ex copper now out of the force for 2 years and I can tell you I’m prepared to go to jail for the crimes I did to the community by issuing fines, issuing caution notices when I was not a court, serving invalid court orders, warrants etc, pulling over people for a statistical routine check against Section 92 Constitution.

If any illegal and treasonable, fraudulent council by-law officer or parking infringement crims, fraudulent police or protective service officers who give their Oath to the Queen and formerly a contract as well to which Parliament withdrew, any illegal Vic Roads officers, or fraudulent and treasonable transport authorized officers or any corporatized illegal gov’t department thinks that fines are a contract and civil penalty as parliament have stated for the invalid university acts then they will eventually be put on the list to be charged.


Councils state they are a criminal offence and will purport a contract through our Cest Qui Vie trust.  Most police would not know and don’t care as they know fines are for criminal offences. 

 1. This is from a 125 page letter I wrote regarding an illegal speeding fine to the Traffic Camera office police officers who are now on my list to be charged: But you have continually aided the treasonable Victorian Parliament when you have your Oath and contract to the Queen.  You do not have an Oath to the Parliament.  You have NO EXCUSE as Police Officers, Politicians, magistrates, judges, justices, lawyers, Commissioners, Directors and other officers in a position of trust and responsibility for aiding and abetting this treasonable Parliament or any of the treasonable departments who are operating as an illegal business.  Under the NUREMBERG TRIALS verdicts:  One of the results of the Nuremburg trials, that have been adopted world-wide, stated “that even if you are obeying orders when committing a crime, you are personally guilty of that crime.” This is confirmed by any Commonwealth or State laws regarding Aid ‘N’ Abet offences.

 2.  Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates taken from Annotated version of the Constitution by Quick and Garran 1901.

QUOTE   Sir JOHN DOWNER.- I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be  liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE

1. The Victorian Police Force Badge and Oath.

The Police Badge depicted below is shown on the top left hand corner of any illegal infringement notice or fine as well as any legitimate letterhead of the Police Force as the illegal fine must have UK Coat of Arms and a Common Seal and signature of a Judicial Officer, not Officer in Charge.   This is a reminder that you and every Police Officer serve the Queen namely Queen Elizabeth II as per you oath, not the Victorian Parliament.

1.   The crown is the symbol of royal authority and the allegiance of members of the Victoria Police to our Sovereign.  It shows that the organisation of Her Majesty, the Queen is controlled by the state of Victoria.  (NOT THE PARLIAMENT)

The circular title band has the words VICTORIA and POLICE. Both these words are highlighted in navy blue enamel in the band.  This tells people which police service the badge belongs to.

The five-point star symbolises that Victoria Police Members will go in any direction to perform their duties.

The motto in navy blue, is ‘Uphold the right’ a fitting motto for any police service.

The centre piece of the badge represents the constellation of the Southern Cross. The red enamel background of the navy-blue cross indicates the link/connection between Victoria Police members and the Queen/royalty.

The laurel wreath symbolises bravery. Members of Victoria Police stand out as courageous people.

1.   I acknowledge, just like many police officers have admitted to forgetting about their Oath and contract to the Queen Elizabeth II and there is no excuse for any police officer including some Transit Police officers have stated: “I’ve got better things to do with my time” or other officers state “I’m just serving the people of Victoria.”  There has been conversation about you Superintendent McWhirter that you have stated “It is my role as head of the Traffic Camera Office and if you offend against any law you will be fined.”  I sincerely hope this was not true as people are waking up and when the time comes you and many other police officers risk spending the rest of your life in jail, just like many politicians and the magistrates, judges and justices who refuse to honour the Commonwealth Constitution and constantly breach you Oaths to the Crown namely the Queen.  

Please find your Oath and contract as per Imperial Acts under Police Regulation Statute Act 1873 First Schedule, the Police Regulation Act 1890 Second Schedule and Confirmed by Police Regulation Act 1958 – Second Schedule 3

“ I swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of the Police Force of Victoria in such capacity as I may be hereafter appointed, promoted, or reduced to without favour or affection malice or ill-will for the period of from this date, and until I am legally discharged; that I will see and cause Her Majesty's peace to be kept and preserved; and that I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against the same, and that while I shall continue to be a member of the Police Force of Victoria I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties legally imposed upon me faithfully and according to law.”

1. From the Police Statute Act 1873 and the Police Regulation Act 1890, a Police officer’s contract with the Queen to which I cannot locate under the Police Regulations Act 1958: 

Section 12.  “Every person who has taken and subscribed such oath shall be taken to have, from the day on which such oath shall have been oath equivalent taken and subscribed, thereby entered into a written agreement with, and shall be thereby bound to serve Her Majesty as a member of the force, and in whatsoever capacity he may be hereinafter required to serve, and at the current rate of pay of any rank to which he may be appointed or reduced until legally discharged.

1.    Question: Where is a Police Officer’s Oath and Contract to any Parliament?

By issuing fines or failing to obey any Act from England or the Commonwealth Constitution, you have breached your Oath and therefore you are not a Police Officer, you are fraudulently representing a Police Officer that serves the Queen and the people. Charges are inevitable especially if you continue to act like a court and you think you are above the law of the Commonwealth Constitution.

Comment: Under certain acts, public administration or service acts as well as the created State Constitution 1975 on page 163 states Part VI – Relation of public officers to political affairs that no public officer may comment on the State of Victoria or The Parliament.

Section 316 within the Crimes Act 1958 Victoria (Breach of Oath to the Queen).

(1) Every person who—

          (a) administers or is present at and consents to the administering of any oath or engagement in the nature of an oath purporting to bind the person who takes it to commit treason or murder; or

          (b) takes any such oath or engagement not being compelled to do so; or

          (c) induces or attempts to induce any person to take any such oath or engagement-
          shall be guilty of an indictable offence, and shall be liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

     
(2) Every person who—

(a) administers or is present at and consents to the administering of any oath or engagement in the nature of an oath purporting to bind the person who takes it to act in any of the ways following (that is to say):—
          (i) to engage in any mutinous or seditious enterprise;
          (ii) to commit any indictable offence other than treason or murder;
          (iii) to disturb the public peace;
          (iv) to be of any association society or confederacy formed for the purpose of doing any such act as aforesaid;
          (v) to obey the order or commands of any committee or body of men not lawfully constituted or of any leader or commander or other person not having authority by law for that purpose;
          (vi) not to inform or give evidence against any associate confederate or other person;
          (vii) not to reveal or discover any unlawful association society or confederacy or any   illegal act done or to be done or any illegal oath or engagement that may have been administered or tendered to or taken by himself or any other person or the import of any such oath or engagement; or

(b) takes any such oath or engagement not being compelled to do so; or

(c) induces or attempts to induce any person to take any such oath or engagement—
shall be guilty of an indictable offence, and shall be liable to level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum)

You have now or you have been informed that the Parliament and all Departments are committing Treason against the People, so you must act or you face this additional charge:  Section 322E. Treason and misprision of treason not affected

          Nothing in this Part shall be taken to affect directly or indirectly any matter of law or practice.

1. Applicable to treason or misprision of treason.

2. As per Wikipedia Definition: Misprision of treason is an offence found in many common law jurisdictions around the world, having been inherited from English law. It is committed by someone who knows a treason is being or is about to be committed but does not report it to a proper authority. It is therefore unusual in that it is a criminal offence which may be committed through inaction.

    Blacks Law Dictionary 9^th Edition Page 1091

Misprison of Treason.  (16c) Concealment or nondisclosure of someone else’s treason.

This is typical the way Parliament has created private companies and employ people just like all Transport Authorized officers displaying the crown on a badge as part of their uniform, but I cannot find any Oath under the Transport Act 1983 or any other Transport Acts and these officers do not understand they must swear an Oath.

1.   The Sheriff Officers display the UK Coat of Arms on their letters & enforce invalid or illegal court orders or notices without displaying the UK Coat of Arms or a Common Seal or even a signature.  As a former Police Officer, I saw this every time we applied for a warrant, an intervention order or any other court order to which I now comprehend is totally invalid.  Also Sheriffs illegally seize property without a legitimate court warrant from the invalid Infringements court or any other court that does not display the correct coat of arms, common seal containing the Crown with the name of the court and a signature of the judicial officer.

The Sheriffs have their own Act aptly named Sheriff Act 2009 “Parliament of Victoria enacts”.  Total use of the illegal Australia Act and all Sheriff’s breach their Oath only under a valid Supreme court Act before 1975 and therefore commit Treason by acting as a Corporation, commit Fraud by impersonating a Sheriff Officer by acting for a Corporation that is not registered with ASIC.

                          

Victoria Sheriff Act 2009^{† No. 9 of 2009}

                              

[Assented to 24 March 2009]

                  

1.   The Parliament of Victoria enacts:

                     
                             Part 1—Preliminary  Section 1: Purpose

          The main purpose of this Act is to provide a legislative framework for the appointment of the sheriff, the deputy sheriff and sheriff's officers and their functions, powers and duties.

Lawyers and the Prosecutions department do not give an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen as it was removed from their Acts. “All these Acts have the Parliament of Victoria Enacts as follows” as the commencement to the Acts.  That is an alleged form of Treason. Parliament cannot act as sovereign impossible since 1900 and cannot remove the Queen without a Referendum.


Courts and Tribunals Legislation (Further Amendment) Act 2000

PART 2—LEGAL PRACTICE ACT 1996

3. Oath of allegiance no longer required

In section 6(1) of the Legal Practice Act 1996,
for paragraph (c) substitute—

"(c) takes an oath of office, or makes an affirmation of office, in the form required by the Court.”

          Public Prosecutions Act 1994 - SECT 51 Transitional provisions

          (3) On the commencement of this subsection the office of Prosecutor for the

          Queen is abolished and any holder of that office goes out of office.  The Parliament states the Prosecutors still refer to the Crown, but they repealed Section 352 Crimes Act 1958 concerning the office of the Queen and to be appointed under this invalid Act.

1. As stated, our courts do not give their Oath to the Queen as they give it to the State Parliament under the Corporation of Victoria and operate under Business Unit 19 that was confirmed by two former Victorian Supreme Court Justices Ormiston and Phillips.  Only Police Officers, PSO’s and Parliament have oaths to the Queen, but breach their Oaths by ignoring any English Act and the Commonwealth Constitution including Commonwealth Referendums.

2. All State, Territory and Commonwealth parliamentarians breach Section 44 Commonwealth Constitution that disqualifies them     as Politicians and under Section 46 Commonwealth Constitution the penalty is one hundred pounds for every day a fraudulent Politician sits as a fraudulent representative of the people by giving their allegiance to a foreign entity.

I’m happy for you to make this available to your members.

Regards,

David – Ex Victoria Police Officer

The TRUTH behind the co called 'speeding' (and other) fines.

Something worthy of the Herald Sun publishing?

This document has been published a couple of years ago, and is accurate to the very last detail.

This post has been forwarded to Mark Butler from news.com.au to publish on the news / heraldsun website.

EDIT:- 1 May 2014

This information has been passed to the reporter mentioned above, from the Herald Sun publication, on the 10th of March 2014, but no response has been received to this date yet.

Veteran police officer fears backlash over speed crackdown

Sergeant Phil Wild has spoken out against a tough new speed policy. Source: News Limited

 

A VETERAN police officer has broken ranks to say a tough new speed policy will turn people against the force. 

Sergeant Phil Wild, who has been with Victoria Police for 42 years, said the push to book people for low-level speeding offences was a bad move.

“The consequences of this flawed and unfair policy will be felt by the mostly law-abiding members of the motoring public, the mums and dads who are struggling to make ends meet,” he said.

“My junior members, the constables and senior constables at the front line of policing will also suffer when the respect and confidence of the public dries up.”

He said there was near-unanimous community opposition to the policy and he could not argue with widespread opinion that it was about revenue raising.

Sgt Wild said vehicle speedometers were not calibrated to be 100 per cent accurate and a driver drifting over the limit by a few kilometres an hour did not represent a significant safety threat.

“Policing in this way would have the effect of turning the public away from the police and the ramifications of that would be horrendous for all,” he said.

“I took an oath to serve the people of Victoria. Nowhere in that oath did it say that I had the right to persecute the public or to encourage my junior members to do so.”

(Edit: - Another lie.

Every police officer is required to swear an oath or make an affirmation to serve the Crown (Queen), uphold the Constitution and the rights of the people. - Corpau)

Sgt Wild said he accepted that he ran the risk of “consequences” for going public.

Victoria Police recently announced officers had been instructed to start fining more motorists for low-level speeding offences.

Assistant Commissioner Robert Hill said at the time that 15 deaths and 300 injuries could be prevented each year if drivers cut their average speed by 1km/h.

Mr Hill wanted to make low-level speeding as socially unacceptable as drink-driving.

“Research indicates that 20 per cent of our fatalities ­involve low level speeding,” he said.

He said police officers had discretion about when to apply the law but denied they had been instructed to fine drivers going 1 or 2km/h over the limit.

“A commonsense approach has always been encouraged,” he said.

“While we are disappointed at the comments made by the serving police officer, Victoria Police is committed to improving the safety of our roads for all members of the community.”

mark.buttler@news.com.au

READ PHIL WILD'S LETTER

There is an examination that all Victorian Police members must pass.

It is not an exam to gain entry to the Force or to obtain a promotion.

We do not simply sit the examination, pass it and move on.

We must pass this examination on most days of our careers and often several times a day.

The examination is known as the S.E.L.F. test, and it works like this …

Before taking action or making a decision to take an action, we must ask ourselves the following (in brief):

S — Scrutiny Will my decision withstand public scrutiny by the community?
E — Ethical Is my decision ethical?
L — Lawful Is my decision lawful?
F — Fair Is my decision fair on the community, my colleagues and others?

If the answer to any one of these questions is “no”, then I am required to reconsider my decision and take a different course.

My superiors tell me I must, the organisational values of the force tell me I must, my own conscience tells me I must.

On the 20th of January this year, Road Policing Command forwarded an instruction to members to the effect that we (Victoria Police) are to commence writing penalty notices for low-level speeding offences.

The instruction goes on to say that all speed limits should be strictly enforced (my emphasis).

This means that the motoring public can now expect to receive a penalty notice for travelling at perhaps 1, 2, or 3km/h above the limit (The ‘wipe off five’ ads having conditioned us accordingly).

In delivering this instruction, I am of the view that certain of our leaders have failed the S.E.L.F test themselves — not just on one or two of the points, but on all four!

(a) The instruction does not withstand public scrutiny:
I refer to pg40 of the Herald Sun of the 24th January where 18 of the 20 letters to the editor on that date provide totally negative feedback (the remaining two were unrelated). Radio talkback callers have been almost unanimous in their condemnation of the policy.

(b) The instruction is not ethical:
The reasons given for the implementation of this program are in my view, demonstrably wrong. Some of the conclusions reached as a result of “research” are questionable and cannot be properly measured.

For example, it is claimed that if every driver on our roads were to lower their average speed by 1km/h, 15 lives would be saved every year.

If the reasons given are wrong, then there must be another reason. The greater portion of the community appear to believe that the reason is revenue raising and I cannot disagree with that.For a government department such as Victoria Police to be used in such a way is unethical.

(c) The instruction is of questionable legality:
Much of our legislation, particularly the less serious summary offences were never intended to be policed to an absolute degree or at all times. There are many instances where police “turn a blind eye” to offences occurring in our immediate presence because of their trivial nature or because the circumstances in which they occur make rigid policing inappropriate.

If this were not the case we would create a huge backlog in the courts as the majority of people “booked” would opt to take the matter before a magistrate who would, in most if not all cases, dismiss the charges as “trifling”.

Policing in this way would have the effect of turning the public away from the police and the ramifications of that would be horrendous for all.

(d) The instruction is unfair:
Vehicle speedometers, even in brand-new vehicles, are not calibrated to be 100 per cent accurate. There have also been instances where speed measuring devices used by enforcement agencies have been shown to be inaccurate. Any driver, even the most prudent, can find his vehicle speed to have increased without his being aware of it simply by virtue of him coming to a slight dip in the road.

He will correct his speed immediately upon becoming aware of the fact but may well have been photographed or clocked in that brief moment. That small increase in speed on a straight stretch of road over such a short period does not represent any significant threat to road safety. That, in my view is an irrefutable fact.

When I joined Victoria Police in 1972 I took an oath to serve the people of Victoria. Nowhere in that oath did it say that I had the right to persecute the public or to encourage my junior members to do so.

I have written to Road Policing Command and expressed my concerns to them. In a series of emails and a face-to-face meeting with the Assistant Commissioner, I have outlined my views on the likely consequences of their policy and urged them to reconsider their position.

I have also asked for their advice on what I can do about this matter. They have offered no advice other than to try to convince me that their actions are appropriate.

On January 29th I wrote, and hand delivered, to the Office of the Chief Commissioner (Ken Lay) a detailed letter in regard to this issue.

I asked that he advise me as to what avenues are open to me, as I do not wish to retire at some time in the future knowing that I could have done something further to ward off a lessening of the community’s respect and confidence in its police.

The Chief Commissioner did not reply.

The consequences of this flawed and unfair policy will be felt by the mostly law-abiding members of the motoring public, the mums and dads who are struggling to make ends meet whilst feeding and educating their children and wondering whether they will still have a job when their employment contract expires in the next few months.

They are not, however, the only ones who will suffer. My junior members, the constables and senior constables at the frontline of policing will also suffer when the respect and confidence of the public dries up.
As Chief Commissioner Lay has stated often enough, we (the police) need to have the public “on side”.
Otherwise, a very difficult job will perhaps become nigh on impossible.

There is no doubt that compliance with this instruction will have the affect of swelling the government coffers and that in turn may enhance the promotional prospects of the programs authors and/or those who champion it.

The long-term effects however will be sorely felt by the general public and our members alike.
The Victoria Police manual, under the section covering professional standards and conduct, lists the organisational values of the Force. Under the subheading ‘Integrity’ the manual advises us that we are, among other things:

(i) required to act with honesty, respecting the right of fair process for all;
(ii) demonstrate moral strength and courage; and,
(iii) behave with honour and impartiality.
In the absence of any meaningful instruction or advice from the hierarchy of my department, I see no other avenue open to me but to voice my concerns via this public forum.

Phil Wild, Sergeant 17312

Comments from the article:

allan 8 minutes ago

"to persecute the public" - got that one right.

Everybody should take these fines through the courts, apart from them being thrown out as having no grounds to be enforceable it will clog up the courts and send a message. 

news.com.au 9 Mar 2014

Victoria Police is factually a corrupt business (ABN: 63 446 481 493) that functions purely for profit.

This is not an opinion of corpau by rather a fact.

VicPol regularly falsifies facts and in the court system of Victoria producing false 'facts' in so called police statements, in order to have a high 'conviction' rate.

The so called 'judges' are part of this criminal procedure to 'convict' the masses of road 'crimes'.

'Speeding' is NOT an offence, as claimed.

ALL 'speeding' tickets MUST be fought in the courts, as the police factually no not have ANY authority to 'book' people for speeding.

It is up to you to exercise your rights.

This is a fact that the corporate media does not want to release.

Police have been already caught out falsifying crime statistics for Melbourne.

The police are also involved in a massive statistics fraud over 'speeding' data relating to accidents.

See article:

HOW TO DEAL WITH POLICE

or

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/how-to-deal-with-police.html