- involved in criminal activity,
- remain 'at large' and
- are above the law immune from any prosecution.
This is the reality the masses face as they reside on this continent which is still a colony.
The attitude of the authorities is that the general populous are criminals (either past, current or future) but sssshhhhh don't tell the
Make no mistake about it, the police 'force' are a bunch of (alleged) criminals, whether it be at state or federal level.
In this case the people in the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have committed criminal offences against the general public which under the Commonwealth Crimes Act (1914), are indictable offences.
In reality there should be Royal Commission, but it is very doubtful that this will happen with regards to this matter.
From an I.T perspective there is a HUGE advantage that the authorities have when their 'slaves' are using 'smart' phones.
The advantage is that programs (modern term - apps) can be uploaded (pushed) to the target's phone without their knowledge, basically gaining unauthorised access to equipment, also a breach of various other 'laws' (or Acts), where the validity of those Acts is put aside.
Do you REALLY need a 'smart' phone to call or text someone??? !!! ???
Despite what the police will officially state that - "the conversations police recorded were not obtained by illegality" - You can bet your 'Constitution' that they were factually obtained ILLEGALLY.
The 'victims' 'should' take action against the people involved.
See article from 23 Dec 2015 by the Herald Sun publication of the title:
Australian Federal Police remotely turning phones of criminals into listening devices
The hi-tech spying tactic involves officers remotely uploading a hidden program to a phone, which turns it into a microphone and records its unwitting user’s offline conversations.
Two alleged drug traffickers launched an appeal against the investigative technique after one of their phones was bugged by the Australian Federal Police.
The pair are facing a County Court trial charged with conspiracy to traffic a large commercial quantity of ecstasy or MDMA in 2013.
But the Court of Appeal last week rejected their bid to stop the AFP using evidence it obtained from conversations recorded through the phone.
Instead, a panel of three judges determined that the sneaky crime-fighting tactic was legal under the Surveillance Devices Act.
AFP officers had obtained a warrant to use “listening, optical, data and tracking surveillance devices” as part of the investigation.
The court heard the AFP secretly uploaded software to the accused’s mobile phone “remotely via the mobile telephone network”.
“The telephone with the microphone thus activated by the software permitted the transmission of face-to-face conversations via the mobile telephone network to police at a remote location where they were recorded,” Justice Phillip Priest said.
“At least several conversations involving the accused, sought to be relied upon by the Crown, had been recorded as a result of software having been remotely uploaded to (the accused’s) mobile phone.”
The alleged traffickers argued the conversations could not be used against them because the recordings were illegally obtained, claiming the phone was not an approved surveillance device.
But lawyers for the AFP argued that the phone was a surveillance device because it was “clearly capable of being used to record, monitor or listen to a conversation”.
Justice Priest said it was “tolerably clear” that the phone was a legal listening device and the conversations police recorded were not obtained by “illegality”.
No comments:
Post a Comment