"Terrorism" - Just another excuse to monitor your private and confidential data?

So who's the "enemy of the state" again? Why the people of course, silly!

Are the peasants considered guilty until proven innocent?

So what guarantees do you have that your 'judge' (border security person employed by not a 'government' but rather a company) is fair and impartial?

So how do you know if that thug at the airport is not going to use your social media accounts and passwords for their ulterior motives?

What laws are in place to protect you if a crime has been committed against your person by 'them' (Please post them in comments section)?

'Governments' are renowned for some of the most dodgiest actions known to man.

So how can you trust these people that start wars, operate in tax havens, and do not govern for "peace, order, and good government"?

See what happens when you want to travel to the "land of the free"...

in article from 27 Dec 2016 by theguardian.com of the headline:

US government collecting social media information from foreign travelers

The Customs and Border Protection has previously said it wouldn’t prohibit entry to foreigners who didn’t provide their social media account information. Photograph: Dave Einsel/Getty Images

Edward Helmore in New York

Tuesday 27 December 2016 06.48 AEDT Last modified on Tuesday 27 December 2016 08.15 AEDT

 

The US government has begun asking select foreign travelers to disclose their social media activities as part of an expanded effort to spot potential terrorist threats.

The request functions as a prompt on the online Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or Esta, a visa waiver application that many visitors are required to submit before travelling to the US. The choices include platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube, and additional space for applicants to input their account names on those sites.

The Customs and Border Protection, which began the program last week, has previously said it wouldn’t prohibit entry to foreigners who didn’t provide their social media account information.
The government has faced a barrage of criticism since it first floated the idea last summer. Privacy rights activists say there are few guidelines about how the information, once obtained, is used or shared with other agencies.

The proposal filed with the US Federal Register states that the collection of social media data was intended to “enhance the existing investigative process and provide Department of Homeland Security (DHS) greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case”.

The Internet Association, which represents companies including Facebook, Google and Twitter, has argued that policy threatens free expression.

Michael W Macleod-Ball, chief of staff for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, told Politico last week: “While the government certainly has a right to collect some information ... it would be nice if they would focus on the privacy concerns some advocacy groups have long expressed.”

Over the summer, the ACLU and the Center for Democracy and Technology warned that the new request potentially offered government agencies “gateways into an enormous amount of [users’] online expression and associations, which can reflect highly sensitive information about that person’s opinions, beliefs, identity and community”.

The groups warned that the program would “fall hardest on Arab and Muslim communities, whose usernames, posts, contacts and social networks will be exposed to intense scrutiny”.

A spokesperson for the internet privacy group Access Now told Politico the group feared that the choice to hand over social media information was not really a choice at all, and that the program could act as an opaque entry point for more exacting probes.

“The process to enter the US is confusing, and it’s likely that most visitors will fill out the card completely rather than risk additional questions from intimidating, uniformed officers – the same officers who will decide which of your jokes are funny and which ones make you a security risk,” explained Nathan White of Access Now.

Current programmes believed to be deployed by DHS include the ability to scan a limited amount of social media posts.

The US government approves around 10m visa applications a year and had 77.5 million foreign visitors in 2015. Collecting social media accounts for all visitors could produce one of the largest government-controlled databases of its kind almost overnight.

Pay or face the debt collector - what Centrelink the government or the media will not tell you

Centrelink has been caught out sending out tens of thousands of letters per week falsely claiming debts that their customers have allegedly accrued.

In addition to these false claims, it has now emerged that Centrelink is also unlawfully passing this alleged debt to a debt collector.

What is worse is that the corporation conglomerate called the 'Australian Government' states that the 'problem' does not exist.

Please note that your Centrelink / Social Security payments are inalienable, meaning are unable to be taken away from your 'person'.

They can only [lawfully] deduct funds upon your consent.


See the following law in relation to the above statement:


Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 - Sect 60


 Protection of social security payment

             (1)  A social security payment is absolutely inalienable, whether by way of, or in consequence of, sale, assignment, charge, execution, bankruptcy or otherwise.

             (2)  This section has effect subject to:

                     (a)  sections 61 and 238 of this Act; and

                    (aa)  Parts 3B and 3D of this Act; and

                     (b)  sections 1231 and 1234A of the 1991 Act.

Ref:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ssa1999338/s60.html

Also it is stated in the

Social Security Act 1991 - Sect 66

Age pension to be absolutely inalienable

66. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and section 1359, age pension is absolutely
inalienable, whether by way of, or in consequence of, sale, assignment,
charge, execution, bankruptcy or otherwise. Payments to Commissioner of
Taxation at recipient's request

(2) The Secretary may make deductions from the instalments of age pension
payable to a person where the recipient asks the Secretary:

   (a)  to make the deductions; and

   (b)  to pay the amounts to be deducted to the Commissioner of Taxation.
        Note: the Secretary must make deductions from a person's pension,
        benefit or allowance if requested by the Commissioner of Taxation -
        see section 1359. 

Ref: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/ssa1991186/s66.html

Also note that you MUST be notified by mail that your debt is being sent to a debt collection agency.

As soon as that happens you MUST write back to Centrelink that you are disputing their claims, where they must provide all paperwork in relation to your matter.

Your dispute may go on for 1,2 or 7 years where in this time the debt collection agency is NOT allowed to take any action against your person e.g bad credit rating etc.

Should any monies be taken from your account where your Centrelink payments are made, then this is theft, where you should follow up with criminal charges against the 'persons' involved or head of the debt collection agency.

Also keep in mind that if your alleged debt is sent to a collection agency, the collection agency 'buys' your debt and you technically do not owe them anything, as you have no valid contract with them.

Your communications method with any of the above entities should be in writing.

Should you choose to speak over the phone you inform the other party that the telephone conversation is being recorded.

Victorians can stop harassing phone calls under 'Brodie's Law'.

People from other states or territories can tell the other 'harassing party' to stop, and take criminal action against the people on the other end of the phone should they continue.

You must take action if you have had an [unlawful] claim of debt against your person.

Throwing the letters in the bin is considered acquiescence by 'silence'.


There is more with regards to 'debt collection' that is not posted here, and it is up to the reader to research this topic thoroughly.

See article from 6 Jan 2017 by news.com.au of the headline:

Aussies panicking over Centrelink demands to pay up to avoid debt collector

Catherine Herir was wrongly told she owed more than $4000, and should start paying it back to avoid debt collectors. Picture: Supplied

DEMANDS for Centrelink payments are putting Aussies under intense pressure, with the Government agency even tweeting the Lifeline suicide helpline number. 

Like many Australians, Catherine Herir, from Brisbane, was sent a letter just last month telling her she owed thousands in overpaid unemployment benefits.

In FY2011 to 12, she claimed benefits after leaving her admin job for full-time study, but Centrelink’s new automated system — introduced in October to claw back money from claimants — had spread her wage across the whole year and calculated she needed to pay back $4500 she claimed while not working.

The 27-year-old told news.com.au she spent a month trying to sort out the issue online, making calls to Centrelink and chasing up old employers from five years ago.

“They suggested that I start a payment plan even before my review was complete to avoid being taken to a debt collector and they would reimburse me later if they found the debt was incorrect, which I refused to do because I knew it was wrong. Maybe that is what they are talking about their ‘recovery success rate’ because people start paying to avoid worse outcomes.

Centrelink has tweeted the Lifeline phone number after several of the vulnerable Australians affected said they were suicidal.Source:News Corp Australia

“I finally had enough and had a lengthy conversation with a Centrelink rep where the phone call went on for over an hour. I wouldn’t take no for an answer, so she did my review manually in minutes and then, sure enough, found I was not guilty at all. Human common sense overriding an incorrect computerised system.

“I was stressed and anxious about the debt and my case was straightforward, I couldn’t imagine any pensioner, person with a disability or illness trying to manoeuvre this system.”

Ms Herir’s ordeal is finally over, after she received a letter today confirming she owed nothing. The young woman is one of the lucky ones. Thousands of Aussies are being forced to pay back welfare payments because of suspected Centrelink computer errors.

News.com.au has been contacted by scores of scared and angry Australians who say they or their loved ones have been falsely accused of owing money to the social security program, and even pursued by private debt collectors. Several said they had begun paying the unexplained debt because of short timeframes given to sort out the mess, but others do not have a cent to spare.

They include people with autism, those in care, a woman undergoing chemotherapy, the elderly and people with other mental and physical disabilities.

Colleen McCormack, 36, said her first thought on receiving the demand for $3000 was of taking her own life.Source:Supplied

‘SUICIDE WAS MY FIRST THOUGHT’

Colleen McCormack, from Melbourne, suffers from chronic pain and has had multiple surgeries that forced her out of her job in the healthcare industry for most of FY2013-14. The 36-year-old told news.com.au that after receiving a Centrelink letter saying she owed more than $3000 she “cried all the way through Christmas”.

Ms McCormack’s documents show she was out of work on sick leave, yet the automated system said her earnings must apply to the whole year, and she was ordered to pay back $3000.

“Having mental health issues, suicide was my first thought,” she said. She wrote back explaining her situation, but two weeks after the initial request, she received a letter from a private debt collection agency demanding payment on behalf of Centrelink. She has now set up a GoFundMe page in a desperate attempt to get financial help.

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie yesterday said he had heard more than 100 complaints from “terrified” people, at least four of whom said they were suicidal.

Centrelink is paying three private debt collection companies to recover money from Australians.

Many have expressed fear and frustration at receiving the letters but being unable to explain their case to a human, with phone lines clogged, branches unable to help and an online system incapable of comprehending nuance and complexities.

Michael Griffin, from Brisbane, told news.com.au on Tuesday that after he was on the dole for three months in 2013, the automated system had gone back and averaged out his earnings for the year, assuming he was employed in those months and therefore owed just over $3000. The 34-year-old filmmaker labelled it “extortion” and calling it “the biggest issue in Australia” right now.

Linda Steven, 64 with a heart condition and high blood pressure, says the stress of being wrongly told she owes $8500 has been overwhelming.Source:Supplied

“I’m wondering if everyone’s going to get these letters,” he said. “It’s preposterous.”

Linda Steven, from rural NSW, was also asked to pay back her welfare payments of $8500 in FY14-15 because the system decided she was in work for months when she was not.

She printed out two years’ worth of her payslips and visited a Centrelink office where staff tried to help her change her employment dates online.

“It was soon discovered they cannot be changed because a debt has already been raised,” she told news.com.au. “The issue now has to go through a full administrative review process. Even though staff can look at my payslips and know I do not owe the money, nothing can be done.

“At almost 64 years old and suffering from high blood pressure and a heart condition I can assure you the stress was overwhelming at first. Not to mention the lengthy phone wait times and expenses.

“In the meantime, payment of the debt must still be made but they reduced the payment
that I must make to the minimum of $15 per fortnight for three months. Three months is the longest time they can reduce it for, and the staff member expressed the hope that my review would take place before then.

“So all the money the Government is hoping to claw back is in fact non-existent in a lot of cases, and is actually costing Centrelink more in trying to sort out the mess.”

Michael Griffin said what was happening was “extortion”.Source: Supplied

‘THESE ARE REAL DEBTS’

The system was brought in three months ago, with the government claiming it would recover $400 million in overpaid benefits owed to taxpayers by retirees, the unemployed, families, carers, parents, people with disabilities and indigenous Australians.

Social Services Minister Christian Porter on Tuesday maintained the automated system was working “incredibly well”. He told ABC radio less than one per cent of review letters had resulted in complaints and said they were not “debt letters” but “polite letters”.

The government has sent out 169,000 of the review letters regarding potential overpayment since July, and Mr Porter said one in five people who received one would not owe a debt.
“In 80 per cent of instances the debt is repayable to the Commonwealth, in the final 20 per cent of instances the matter is resolved, generally speaking, by people simply providing information online,” he said.


Department of Human Services general manager Hank Jongen, who has released his email for people to complain to him directly, told the ABC last night the letters sent out by Centrelink were “not debt letters”, and said there had only been just over 200 complaints.

“I really am surprised that people are seriously suggesting that when we are obliged under the law to recover outstanding debt when it is identified, that we are being asked to stop doing this,” Mr Jongen said. “I think you need to keep all of this in context.”

But Centrelink workers who told news.com.au they wanted to remain anonymous said the program was in chaos.

“The government is just cutting corners, calculating debts fast is their goal, and it’s just wrong,” said one. “Staff morale is so bad everywhere.”

HOW THE DEBT RECOVERY SYSTEM WORKS

The initial “polite letter” asking people to update their details online, in which they are warned of the 10 per cent recovery fee. Source: Supplied

• Centrelink sends people a letter warning of a potential overpayment and asking them to clarify their details online. It will also send an SMS.

ISSUE: Some people have moved or changed phone number and don’t receive the messages.

• You have 21 days from the date of the letter to update online.

ISSUE: Some have complex situations they can’t explain in the online system. Others were told their salary did not match that recorded by the ATO. Upon confirming the ATO salary, the system averaged it out for the year without realising they weren’t earning anything for many of those months. Others found the system recorded them as having two jobs because their employer was recorded under slightly different names by the ATO and Centrelink (e.g. Uni Melbourne and University of Melbourne).

• If there is a concern, you can call Centrelink or visit a branch to speak to someone.

ISSUE: Huge queues at branches, staff telling people to go back online, hours wait on telephone. Some also told news.com.au their jobs prevented them from contacting Centrelink during normal working hours.

• Once you update the information, Centrelink may ask you to provide supporting documentation, including bank statements, letters from an employer or payslips.

ISSUE: Some people no longer have the payslips from in some cases six years ago and/or their former employer no longer exists.

 Centrelink then sends people a notice if it thinks they have a debt. Source: Supplied

The notice comes with this explanation. Source: Supplied

You will also receive an online update — note this $1849 debt comes with a ten per cent recovery fee of $184.Source:Supplied

• You will then receive a letter stating the amount you owe, plus a “recovery fee” of 10 per cent. 

If you do not begin payments within two weeks, you may receive a letter from the debt recovery agency.

ISSUE: You may still believe the decision is wrong but once the debt is raised, you have to begin paying it.

Just two weeks after their payment due, people receive a letter from a private debt collection agency — in this case, Dun & Bradstreet. Source: Supplied

• If you think the decision is wrong you can ask for a review.

ISSUE: The reviews take months, and in the meantime, you may still be pursued for the debt. Some were told to start paying it back and be reimbursed later — but many say they do not have the hundreds of dollars to spare.

Readers seeking support and information about suicide prevention can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14

Australian Government lies about Centrelink extortion

Approximately a month after the news of Centrelink extorting their 'customers' for debts that they have not accrued has made it into the public arena, Centrelink is still continuing with this action, to the tune of 20,000 letters per week.

What may be considered worse is that the people in the 'Australian Government' are lying, in that they are stating the problem does not exist.

How can you trust a government that provides deliberately false information to the people on such an important matter.

Could you trust this government to provide you with factual / truthful responses on lesser matters?

Centrelink is an unlawfully created 'business', a middle man between the corporation conglomerate called the 'Australian Government' and the welfare recipient.

To make things even worse Centrelink claims that they are above the law, by stating in their brochure that they are "exempt from most subpoenas".

See blog post of the headline:
Centrelink is exempt from most subpoenas - BOLLOCKS !

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/centrelink-is-exempt-from-most-subpoenas.html

How can you trust law makers that enact laws that make businesses above the law?

How is that making a law for "peace, order, and good government"
(page 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act).

If you received an extortion letter from Centrelink, you may want to sue the CEO of Centrelink Grant Tidswell.

It seems that the people in government are bunch of dodgy liars, doesn't it ?

How secure is your private data on your fingerprint scanning Android phone?

Some companies may have you believe that you should buy a new phone every year.

Why? Is that technology really beneficial to your survival or theirs? Is a software or hardware enabled feature, packaged up in a 'new' phone not a dodgy sales practice?

Alright, alright, so you're a proud member of the brainwashed herd populace and have been conned into purchasing a new 'droid phone with fingerprint scanner from anything between $1200 - $1600 (depending on your resident country's dodgy taxing policy) 'cause you're a wannabe gangsta rapper and have secret stuffs on your droid.

Warning: Conspiracy theory line following;
Smartphones are made with back-doors as mandated by governments against the enemy of the state that being the mass population.

So, here's a screen capture from a piece of software that tells the user how easy it is to open up a 'secure' (pmsl) Android phone.

"Don worry" says Mr. Muppet wannabe gangsta rapper (more like crapper),
"I got mi a finga prin skanna"
It's going to be as useful as a rectal scanner, you moron!

You may have a short span of attention Mr. Crapper, but 'member the "conspiracy theory" from above?

Well, this piece of software reads the fingerprint id where all the user has to do is accept the read value, and they're in.... "simples" (see screen-capture below).

We hear that drug lords prefer the old Nokia GSM phones.

But wait, Australia's telco Telstra has shut down its GSM network on 1 Dec 2016.

Drat! Foiled again!!!

Free consulting note to authorities:
Drug lords less likely to use Telstra?


So how secure is your new Droid with fingerprint scanner?

A brief response (as it's the 'holidays' in 'Straya) - Not very!

Oh well, back to the drawing board for some.

A government for the people versus one of a colony

The policy differences - a gov for the people -v- a gov of a colony(?):

On BBC World News on the ABC News 24 tv channel, the China24 news outlet stated that in 2016 the Chinese government addressed the problem of people living in poverty where (we say 'allegedly') 10 million people were lifted from poverty, according to the president's message.

The (Chinese) government said it has a long way to go, where there are still 50-60 million people that need help urgently.

MEANWHILE.....

The company called the 'Australian Government' states no such messages nor has any policy that actively (genuinely?) combats homelessness, unemployment, etc, instead it (e.g.) rapes the land of minerals (tax free) and further enslaves the mass population.

It has a 'slave labour' import policy under whatever banner be it 'refugees' / 'hu-man' rights / 457 or other BS visa numbers that ultimately leave the 'Aussies' out of work where further consequences arise.

A primary difference between a government for the 'people' and a government of a 'colony'.

Australia was settled as an economic project, a 'chartered corporation'.

This 'government' is NOT for the people's benefit, never was.

KNOW YOUR ADVERSARY !!! !!! !!!