14 October 2016

Victorian government sending 1000's of children to get sexually abused and raped?

How can you trust the 'government' if it sends children to get sexually abused including being raped?

While it is certainly not tolerable, you would expect this from a third world (military?) dictatorship in some 'dodgy' country.

Apparently Australia is a first world country, but when you take a closer look it 'seems' that the current government called the 'Australian Government'  is a hostile military dictatorship, taken control from the de jure government of 1901 as described in the 'Constitution', but that's another matter for the High Court of Australia.

The general populous of this continent are the most surveilled people on the planet, and according to authorities this is done so in order to stop criminal activity (read 'terrorism').

If the administrators of this colony cannot make laws that can deal with criminal activity, irrespective of what it's called, then this is a matter of a failure of governance and the administration should be removed, and not continue to be in power.

Law experts have stated publicly (on the ABC's Q&A programme) that current laws should be able to deal with all sorts of criminal activity.

The general populous' movements can be accessed in real time by the authorities. 

They can turn on the microphones from your (self funded government spy equipment) 'smart' phones and listen in to your 'private' conversations in your home.

They can access any of your records be it either phone, internet or current location without a warrant.
First and foremost, how can you trust a police 'force' who's oath of office to a false queen/parliament is in itself a criminal action?

How can you trust a police force that beats people up and destroys the evidence?

How can you trust police that lie in court every single day?

How can you trust the people of a government to deal with criminals, when they themselves are part of a highly sophisticated criminal organisation?

The 'authorities' (Bronwyn Bishop - speaker of the House of Representatives on national television show "Q&A" from 15 Jun 2015) tell us that apparently that " The first job of a government is to look after the safety of its people" .

Please note that Google has removed the blog post called:

List of paedophile judges in New South Wales

It seems like plenty of people are getting harmed by the current government, and there is a conspiracy to conceal the truth.

Please note: Unreported instances usually outnumber the reported ones.

news.com.au article from 13 October 2016 of the headline:

Vic kids in state care report 138 rapes

Victorian children in state care were involved in more than 1000 sexual incidents in the past year, including more than 100 rapes.
The shocking figures were the worst for children in residential care, who make up five per cent of children in care but account for 62 per cent of category one incidents.

A damning 2015 report into Victoria's residential care system found it "creates opportunities for the sexual abuse of children".

The government accepted the report's recommendations, and the Commissioner for Children and Young People's 2015/16 annual report says some programs are working.

"However, reports relating to incidents of sexual exploitation of children and young people living in residential care continue to rise, indicating the need for urgent action on all of the inquiry's recommendations," the report said.

There were 1019 sexual incidents involving children in state care in 2015/16, making up one third of all category one incidents.

They included 138 rapes, 200 indecent sexual assaults, and 412 "sexual exploitation" incidents, up from 162 the year before.

"The increase is the result of enhanced knowledge and awareness amongst those working with young people at risk," says the report, released on Thursday.

The Department of Health and Human Services annual report also revealed 20.7 per cent of child protection cases were unallocated as of June 2016.

"With youth crime at record rates, these vulnerable children need to be protected from abusive behaviour," opposition children's spokeswoman Georgie Crozier said.

Families and Children Minister Jenny Mikakos said the government was taking steps to improve the safety of children in care through its Roadmap for Reform policy.

"(The) policy is shifting the children and family services system from crisis response to prevention and early intervention," she said.

Victoria's child protection system has strengthened its relationship with police to increase reporting and early intervention in cases of sexual exploitation.

More than 330 new child protection workers have been hired since May 2015 and spot audits of residential care facilities have started.

12 October 2016

Samsung's dodgy business practices

(illustration:Nathan Dornacher claims the Galaxy Note 7 caused the fire)

It's bad enough that Samsung put out a product that is capable of killing its user which sparked (no pun intended) a global recall, then an apparent safe second version was given to customers, where it was found that it too can be a silent killer.

So what's the deal with Samsung?

Can they really be trusted?

Could Samsung's BP Chemicals be the responsible entity for the exploding phone?

Let's take a closer look at the business practices of this global giant.

Samsung BP Chemicals, based in Ulsan, is a 49:51 joint venture between Samsung and the UK-based BP, which was established in 1989 to produce and supply high-value-added chemical products. Its products are used in rechargeable batteries and liquid crystal display

Samsung was the subject of several complaints about child labour in its supply chain from 2012 to 2015.

One of Samsung's Chinese supplier factories, HEG, was criticized for using underage workers by China Labor Watch (CLW) in July 2014. HEG denied the charges and has sued China Labor Watch.
In July 2014, Samsung cut its contract with Shinyang Electronics after it received a complaint about the company violating child labour laws. Samsung says that its investigation turned up evidence of Shinyang using underage workers and that it severed relations immediately per its "zero tolerance" policy for child labour violations.

CLW issued a statement in August 2014 claiming that HEG employed over ten children under the age of 16 at a factory in Huizhou, Guangdong. The group said the youngest child identified was 14 years old. Samsung said that it conducted an onsite investigation of the production line that included one-on-one interviews but found no evidence of child labour being used. CLW responded that HEG had already dismissed the workers described in its statement before Samsung's investigators arrived.

CLW also claimed that HEG violated overtime rules for adult workers. CLW said a female college student was only paid her standard wage despite working four hours of overtime per day even though Chinese law requires overtime pay at 1.5 to 2.0 times standard wages.

In 2013 New Zealand news media reported a number of Samsung washing machines spontaneously caught fire.

On October 19, 2011, Samsung was fined EUR 145,727,000 for being part of a price cartel of ten companies for DRAMs which lasted from 1 July 1998 to 15 June 2002. The company received, like most of the other members of the cartel, a 10-% reduction for acknowledging the facts to investigators. Samsung had to pay 90% of their share of the settlement, but Micron avoided payment as a result of having initially revealed the case to investigators.

In Canada, during 1999, Some D-RAM micro chip manufacturers conspired to price fix, among the accused included Samsung. The price fix was investigated in 2002. A recession started to occur that year, and the price fix ended, however in 2014, the Canadian government reopened the case and investigated silently. Sufficient evidence was found and presented to Samsung and two other manufacturers during a class action lawsuit hearing. The companies agreed upon a $120 Million agreement, with $40 million as a fine, and $80 Million to be paid back to Canadians who purchased a computer, printer, MP3 player, gaming console or camera from April 1999 to June 2002

"You can even say the Samsung chairman is more powerful than the President of South Korea. 

[South] Korean people have come to think of Samsung as invincible and above the law", said Woo Suk-hoon, host of a popular economics podcast in a Washington Post article headlined "In South Korea, the Republic of Samsung", published on 9 December 2012. Critics claimed that Samsung knocked out smaller businesses, limiting choices for South Korean consumers, and sometimes colluded with fellow giants to fix prices while bullying those who investigate. Lee Jung-hee, a South Korean presidential candidate, said in a debate, "Samsung has the government in its hands. Samsung manages the legal world, the press, the academics and bureaucracy".

In 2007, former Samsung chief lawyer Kim Yong Chul claimed that he was involved in bribing and fabricating evidence on behalf of the group's chairman Lee Kun-hee and the company. Kim said that Samsung lawyers trained executives to serve as scapegoats in a "fabricated scenario" to protect Lee, even though those executives were not involved. Kim also told the media that he was "sidelined" by Samsung after he refused to pay a $3.3 million bribe to the U.S. Federal District Court judge presiding over a case where two of their executives were found guilty on charges related to memory chip price fixing. Kim revealed that the company had raised a large amount of secret funds through bank accounts illegally opened under the names of up to 1,000 Samsung executives—under his own name, four accounts were opened to manage 5 billion won.

The Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan is investigating Samsung and its local Taiwanese advertising agency for false advertising. The case was commenced after the Commission received complaints stating that the agency hired students to attack competitors of Samsung Electronics in online forums. Samsung Taiwan made an announcement on its Facebook page in which it stated that it had not interfered with any evaluation report and had stopped online marketing campaigns that constituted posting or responding to content in online forums

Source Supplied.

11 October 2016

Two more reasons not to by Apple iPhones #friedbraingate and #concertgate

It's bad enough trying for a replacement under warranty for #bendgate from the dodgy 'geniuses' at Apple, and now two more technological 'woes' have emerged from Apple's technological crevasse.


There are reports that suggest that Apple's new iPhone, emits twice as much radiation as Samsung's Galaxy Note 7, that of course before you get the Note to self incinerate, a fanststic feature if you're a secret agent.

Data states that the radiation SAR for the iPhone was 1.166 watts per kilogram (W/kg) compared to Samsung's Note at 0.517 W/kg.


Users who purchase iPhones of the future may not be able to take photos or videos at concerts, theatre stage or movie screens.

This a vastly flawed action by  Apple, assuming that all users are pirates?

What if you need to take a photo or video for legal purposes, e.g. of a criminal action?

You then will be able to sue Apple for damages as a result.

Apple reminding people that they are nothing more than corporate slaves?

Note to self: ALL bad 'Apples' belong in the garbage can.

#friedbraingate: See (text only) article from 29 Sep 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

New iPhone reportedly emits twice as much radiation as Samsung handsets, according to South Korea

APPLE’S iPhone emits twice as much radiation as Samsung handsets, according to a new report. 
Apple’s main competitor in the smartphone market is Samsung and the two companies are constantly trying to get the edge over the other.

The South Korean tech giant recently admitted to rushing the release of its latest Galaxy Note 7 to beat Apple’s iPhone to market, which the company says contributed to an exploding battery issue that forced a global recall.

While Apple has largely got the better of the smart phone wars in the past decade, radiation emissions may be one area where Samsung takes the cake.

Apple’s iPhones and iPads had the highest electromagnetic radiation specific absorption rate, known as SAR, out of electronic devices sold in South Korea, reports tech website ZDNet.

However there is a reason to take the finding with a grain of salt because the figures have come from a state-backed study in South Korea — a government which in the past has shown a tendency to support its business sector under dubious circumstances.

Nonetheless according to the data from the country’s National Radio Research Agency the average radiation SAR for iPhones was 1.166 watts per kilogram (W/kg).

In comparison the handset released by Samsung this year showed an average SAR recording of 0.517W/kg.

In both the United States and South Korea, the SAR limit for devices is 1.6 W/kg, so the iPhone is still well under the regulated limit.

The US Federal Communication Commission says anything under 1.6 W/kg is considered perfectly safe, but notes there is still further research to be done when considering the prevalence of radiofrequency (RF) energy in an increasingly wireless world.

“Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used,” the US government body says.

There is scant evidence to suggest that consumers should be worried about the level of radiation emitted by their electronic devices such as phones, but it hasn’t stopped some companies from trying to capitalise on the largely unfounded fears.

Australian company Lif3 has produced a smartphone chip which it says is proven to reduce mobile phone radio exposure by up to 95 per cent.

Why? Because the company believes that “the mobile phone safety movement is spreading around the world”.

Whether that’s true or not depends on who you ask, but maybe Samsung wishes it were.

#concertgate: See (text only) article from 4 Jul 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

Apple develops ability to kill iPhone cameras at live events

THE iPhones of the future may be a bit less fun to use at rock shows with Apple experimenting with new technology that would see them disappear from crowds at concerts and other events.

The tech giant has won a patent for a new technology that uses an infra-red signal — beamed from a concert, theatre stage or movie screen — to shut down an iPhone’s camera, disabling it from taking photos or videos.

The technology under development may be a response to gripes from artists like Adele and Jack White, miffed that fans have used their phones to broadcast shows live to thousands of other, non-paying viewers.

Start-up companies such as Yondr which turn concerts into “no phone zones” by implementing what is effectively a mandatory coat check, but for your phone, have emerged in recent years.

Among the artists to use such services include Alicia Keys, Dave Chappelle, the Lumineers and Louis C.K.

Apple’s patent filing this week indicates that video functions would only be disabled by the infra-red sensors if an iPhone is pointed toward their positions on the stage — because after all, the selfie is an inalienable right.

So users would still be able to snap photos and shoot videos of their friends in the crowd, just not of the on stage action.

Apple also suggested that the infra-red signals could be used in other scenarios to enhance what users see on their screens, providing extra information on artworks at museums or products at stores, for example.

Sports fans also have used live-streaming apps such as Periscope to broadcast from games — a practice that got temporarily banned by America’s National Football League until early this year.

The patent’s approval — as is the case with hundreds of other Apple patents — won’t necessarily mean a future rollout of the feature.

Apple 'bendgate' - Trust Apple, sure can't

Many a true blue fair dinkum  Aussie  should be familiar with the iconic advertising catch phrase "Trust British Paints.... Sure can".

Well we put a bit of a twist on this in terms of Apple's more than questionable business practices from many fronts to 
"Trust Apple.... Sure CAN'T!"

How could you trust a company that under Australian law must fix their iPhone digitiser screen, but refuses to acknowledge this is a problem despite many documented instances of this hardware failure.

Apple should be taken to the Australian courts immediately after the first refusal to fix the display.

Conversely Samsung recalled their exploding phone, maybe because of a law suit that could arise as a result of a death caused by the device.

How can you trust a company that used professional stock exchange trader's data to financially benefit the company.

How can you trust a company that played a public farce with regards to the security of its product, i.e not giving the FBI data from an alleged terrorist's iPhone, meanwhile knowing that the encryption key (to access the users data) was already in the hands of the 'authorities'.

Make no mistake about it Apple products are not secure. They have government mandated back doors in the operating system, and the encryption keys are held by the 'authorities', whoever they may be.

There are plenty more dodgy business practices by Apple that we have not mentioned where they may be looked into greater detain in another post.

We do not recommend using or even the purchase of Apple products to store your private, personal or confidential information.

See article from 11 Oct 2016 sans twitter comments by news.com.au of the headline:

Pressure mounts on Apple over ‘touch disease’

PRESSURE is mounting on Apple to acknowledge a technical problem known as touch disease that is plaguing the company’s iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus handsets.

A number of people have complained about the diminishing sensitivity and spotty functionality of the touchscreen on their iPhone 6 device as it gets older. With an unresponsive touchscreen the phone effectively becomes frozen and can’t be used properly.

The problem has been dubbed “touch disease” and according to the blog ifixit.org which coined the term, iPhone repair technicians are getting an increasing number of customers experiencing the annoying issue, which seems to be more common in the larger iPhone 6 Plus version.

Two lawsuits have been filed in Canada against the Californian-based tech giant over the issue while a separate nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the US in late August complaining about the fault and even accusing Apple of covering it up.

Apple has so far declined to officially acknowledge the problem but pressure is mounting on the company to do something about it.

Three more US firms have signed on to the lawsuit against Apple since it was filed, meanwhile another lawsuit has been lodged in Utah over the engineering flaw, reports Motherboard.

Publicly Apple has been silent, however court filings show the company is aware of the legal efforts being made against it.

A recent filing by Apple shows the company asked to combine the two class-action lawsuits filed in the US.

“Given the similarity between the (Utah) and (California) actions, it would unnecessarily tax judicial resources if these actions were to proceed in separate class action lawsuits,” Apple’s lawyers wrote.

Earlier in the month news.com.au wrote about touch disease and was contacted by a number of Australian customers who had experienced the defect. Some had their phones replaced by Apple while others weren’t so lucky.

 Aside from the obvious symptom of a frozen screen, touch disease is easy to diagnose because handsets will display a flickering grey bar at the top of the screen. The reason for this is that the two tiny “Touch IC” connectors, which translate the tapping and swiping of your fingers on the screen into a machine input, become slightly detached from the phone’s logic board. The result is often a progressive, and seemingly erratic, deterioration of touchscreen function.

According to AppleInsider, touch disease now accounts for 11 per cent of all Apple store repairs, eclipsing all other problems.

09 October 2016

Hocking Stuart another corporate fraudster detrimental to people's lives

REAL estate giant Hocking Stuart says it’s doing “everything in (its) power” to prevent underquoting occurring under its brand again, after admitting to the practice in court this morning.
Consumer Affairs Victoria took legal action against the company’s Richmond office in February, claiming it breaching Australian Consumer Law by underquoting properties in and around Richmond.

 Real estate agency Hocking Stuart, Richmond, has admitted underquoting.

Hocking Stuart is expected to cop a large fine after defence barrister Tony Nolan QC told Federal Court Justice John Middleton this morning the firm would not contest the facts alleged and would only address the court on the appropriate penalty.

“We are consenting to other aspects of redress ... we are proposing to file affidavit material in respect to pecuniary penalty,” Mr Nolan said.

Underquoting is rife in Melbourne’s booming property market and gives false hope to homebuyers with budgets well below the real price expected by vendors.

Hocking Stuart’s head office said in a statement today that the company took its responsibility to accurately price its properties “very seriously” and was “disappointed” by the outcome.

“We have a range of measures in place to ensure accurate pricing of our portfolio of properties across the group, including undertaking annual audits at each office and providing regular, rigorous training to new and existing offices,” the statement said.

“Our network of 50 offices successfully helps 20,000 Victorians buy and sell their homes each year, so it is disappointing to see this outcome.

“As master franchisor, we are doing everything in our power to reduce the risk of this happening again.

“We have recently run a number of refresher courses in accurate pricing across the entire group and will continue to work with all offices to audit their sales files, ensuring this training has been embedded at all agent levels.”

In February, the company said it also “actively encourage(d)” vendors to advertise their properties with a price guide “to ensure transparency for buyers and sellers alike”.

“Under the current law, while vendors may seek the advice of agents, they are not required to disclose their reserve to agents until the day of auction and it can be higher than the advertised price if the interest is strong. This continues to be a global issue across the real estate industry.”

Consumer Affairs Victoria said it would not be commenting on the case while the court proceedings were still underway.

The consumer watchdog’s half-year report revealed in April that there were 12 major underquoting investigations underway following CAV inspections, involving franchisees from larger estate agencies as well as smaller private operations.

CAV is yet to take legal action against any other agencies.

The State Government announced proposed reforms to underquoting laws earlier this year that would see guilty agents stripped of commissions and facing fines of up to $30,000.

Underquoting is difficult to prove, as while an agent cannot advertise or quote a price that is below the seller’s reserve price, the agent’s own estimate or a genuine offer, there is no obligation on a seller to tell the agent their reserve price before auction.

In a hot market, it can be higher than the advertised price.

The matter will return to the Federal Court on August 15.

heraldsun.com.au  4 Aug 2016

They are just the 'unlucky' ones that got caught out.

The whole industry is rife with this kind of behaviour, and needs a 'shake-up', but no doubt this will never happen, as there is too much corruption in the industry and in the government.

Facebook Messenger low key encryption to rejoice over?

Catch phrase words from the I.T. world like privacy, anonymity, encryption, VPN have filtered their way through to the common person, the Neanderthal smacking the delete key 15 times when realistically the computer comprehended the aggravated assault on the delete key the first time around.

Ever since governments have made it publicly clear that they will launch an assault on people's online privacy, anonymity, I.T. specialists have tried to create new ways of securing communications via this vast expanse called the World Wide Web.

Incidentally 'governments' had access to that information all along, just it wasn't all that 'legal'.

The new excuse for governments to justify monitoring your every move on the internet, your every electronic purchase and your every telephone interaction is an apparently new evil called 'terrorism'.

Maybe along the same line of thinking all roads and motor vehicles should be banned/controlled/limited from use by the general populous as 'terrorists' use those items as well.

Hang on a minute... Terrorists eat food! It might be a good idea to lace food with poison in order to kill terrorists. Oops it's already being done, with products from McDonald's, KFC, Burger King/Hungry Jacks Donut King, Krispy Kreme etc... Phew. Now we can sleep better.

From face value many data storage warehouse giants the likes of Microsoft, Google and Apple officially oppose government control/censorship/monitoring but behind the scenes operations are quite different.

Operating systems given to the masses from the US global I.T giants have deliberate backdoors so that government agencies can gain full access to the device of the user they are targeting.

Facebook a relative newcomer in the I.T. industry has become a global giant via its social media platform.

Since communication via the medium we call the internet is not secure, private nor anonymous Facebook has assured users that communication via its medium will be secure via low key roll-out of a new encryption layer.

"Viva la Facebook!!!" shout the (alleged) 'terrorists' followed by happy angry gunfire.

Should the wannabe terrorists now safely post their half baked 'terror' plots that look even worse than a Wile E Coyote stunt gone wrong against the infidels on Facebook?

One alleged 'terrorist' in Australia was going to stuff a kangaroo full of explosives. Seriously?

What the masses are not told is that any encryption technology emanating from uncle Sam, the 'keys' MUST be handed over to 'authorities'.

If you have put together a great encryption package, and live in the land of the free, if you are putting your product out into the market place, you MUST have over the 'key'.

If dragging you through the courts does not make you surrender the key, the destruction of you and your family is next on the government's agenda.

It might still be more private for il terrorista the use the good ol' fashioned  method of carrier pigeon.

See article from 4 October 2016 by wired.com of the headline:

You Can All Finally Encrypt Facebook Messenger, So Do It

Last spring WhatsApp pushed out code adding a new layer of security to a billion users’ apps, creating the largest end-to-end encrypted messaging network in history. Now WhatsApp’s parent company Facebook has finally given people who use its other massively popular chat app the chance to catch up.

A Facebook spokesperson tells WIRED the company just finished rolling out “Secret Conversations” to all 900 million Facebook Messenger users in the past few weeks. The opt-in feature allows users to encrypt their messages so that no one can read them except the two people on either end of a conversation—not even Facebook or law enforcement or intelligence agencies. “Your messages are already secure, but Secret Conversations are encrypted from one device to another,” states a description in the app when users initiate their first encrypted conversation.

While the company’s software updates for iOS and Android haven’t explicitly mentioned the encryption feature, anyone who updates their Messenger app will now find the “secret” option on the top right of the “new message” screen. The feature also allows senders to choose a Snapchat-style expiration time for messages, ranging from five seconds to one day. Only users who have updated the app can send or receive encrypted, time-sensitive messages, so be sure to update now.

Secret Conversations uses the Signal encryption system, which has a glowing reputation in the security community. It was developed by the nonprofit Open Whisper Systems, which first implemented the encryption layer in its own Signal app before partnering with other companies to include the protocol. Facebook first announced the new security mechanism and tested it with beta users in July. Google’s recently launched Allo messenger also includes the encryption option.

Facebook Messenger’s new layer of encryption has to be enabled manually for every conversation, rather than being switched on by default, as it is in the Signal app or in WhatsApp. That decision may be in part a compromise designed to help Facebook avoid legal and political difficulties; WhatsApp’s default encryption, for instance, has already put its parent company in an uncomfortable spot at least once, when Brazilian authorities arrested a Facebook executive in the country for failing to help police decrypt WhatsApp messages sent by criminal suspects in a drug trafficking case. But the opt-in move has also drawn the scorn of privacy advocates, like this tweet from ACLU technologist Chris Soghoian when Facebook announced Secret Conversations:

Opt-in or not, Facebook’s new feature brings strong, dead-simple encryption to hundreds of millions more users. In combination with end-to-end encryption’s spread to other ultra-popular messaging services, foiling surveillance has never been easier.