12 August 2017
The herd population's actions, movements, conversations and digital footprints must be stored in some government dungeon for whatever reason though up to justify a political agenda, as mandated by some unlawfully enacted Act.
But when it comes to government transparency, there is an eerie silence.
ANY facebook lawyer will know that the three levels of government must operate independently of each other as also there must be a separation between the church and state.
The people in Australia's government have brought in savages from overseas, under whatever pretext, that commit violent criminal actions against the good people of Australia.
In order to cover up the extent of this apparent 'failure' of government, their brethren from the court system, want to conceal the extent of criminal activities committed against the good people of Australia.
In effect the 'system' is supporting the criminal actions of migrants against the good people of Australia.
How can you trust ANY judge / magistrate if they are to conceal the truth?
DNA Testing Data Is Disturbingly Vulnerable To Hackers
Hidden within our genetic code is a vast treasure trove of personal information about our health, relationships, personality and family history. Given all the sensitive details that a DNA test can reveal, you would hope that the people and programs handling that information would be vigilant in safeguarding its security. But it turns out that isn't necessarily the case.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
In a new study that will be presented next week at the 26th USENIX Security Symposium in Vancouver, University of Washington researchers analysed the security practices of common, open-source DNA processing programs and found that they were, in general, lacking. That means all that super-sensitive information those programs are processing is potentially vulnerable to hackers. If you think identity fraud is bad, imagine someone hacking your genetic code.
"You can imagine someone altering the DNA at a crime scene, or making it unreadable. Or an attacker stealing data or modifying it in a certain way to make it seem like someone has a disease someone doesn't actually have," Peter Ney, a co-author of the peer-reviewed study and PhD student at the school's Computer Security and Privacy Research Lab, told Gizmodo.
Now, this doesn't mean that if you've used a DNA testing service you should start panicking. Reading DNA is far cheaper today than it's ever been in the past, but it's still something that requires a big, expensive machine. Writing DNA is even more difficult. Those things create a big hurdle for anyone who might be interested in hacking into sequencing software.
"In the future," though, said co-author Lee Organick, "that might not always be the case."
Right now, for example, machines from Illumina can sequence DNA for about $US1000 ($1269), but the company has promised that in the next decade it will do it for $US100 ($127).
"You can imagine someone altering the DNA at a crime scene, or making it unreadable.
It doesn't take much to imagine how exposing someone's genetic information could be harmful. Hackers could tamper with crime scene evidence, or expose private health information or details about someone's family relationships. Imagine Wikileaks leaking that a political candidate had, say, a strong likelihood of developing Alzheimer's. Could that influence how people vote? In the US, the (pretty weak) anti-genetic discrimination laws can't do much to protect people if their information is exposed illegally.
The University of Washington researchers looked specifically at the programs that process and analyse DNA after sequencing — those are the algorithms that interpret your genetic information and tell you, say, whether you're at risk to develop a certain disease. Companies such as 23andMe or Ancestry.com use similar programs, as do the many DNA testing start-ups like those in Helix's new launched DNA 'app store.' Researchers looked at commonly used, open-source versions of those programs. Many, they found, were written in programming languages known for having security issues. Some also contained specific vulnerabilities and security problems.
"This basic security analysis implies that the security of the sequencing data processing pipeline is not sufficient if or when attackers target," they wrote.
Separately, the researchers looked at whether DNA being used to store non-genetic information might be vulnerable to malware. They found that it was. While this threat reads a little more science fiction, it's also concerning. It means that you could program malware into DNA and then use it to take control of a machine being used to analyse it. Hackers could, in theory, fake a blood or spit sample and then use it to gain access to computer systems when those samples are being analysed.
That risk, though fascinating, is little more than theoretical. Encoding DNA with information is an extremely nascent pursuit, and code like that instructing a computer to execute a task is at risk for being made unreadable by all the other noise in a DNA sequence. In order to pull off this feat, researchers had to disable computer security features and even add a vulnerability to the DNA sequencing program.
Greg Hampikian, a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State said the more immediate vulnerabilities the researchers highlighted are concerning.
"If you could break into a crime lab you could alter data, but if you can break into the crime lab's data, you have a much more efficient route. And if the data is altered, that's what will be used to testify in court," he said. "We've had accidents where tubes have been swapped. If you could maliciously alter or erase that's obviously a big problem."
"DNA testing is important. But as this technology matures and becomes more ubiquitous, it's something the industry needs to think about. They're working with very sensitive data."
Michael Marciano, a forensic molecular biologist at Syracuse University, said that while he believes the security practices in academic and medical research don't present a threat at the moment, consumer DNA testing companies are a black box.
"With 23andMe and Ancestry you're signing over your DNA to them, and how are they handling DNA security? There that data is linked to your name," he said.
Because it's unclear how that data is secured and used, he told Gizmodo, he even recommends that his students steer clear of consumer DNA tests.
"There's nothing more sensitive than someone's DNA," he said.
This doesn't mean that you should ring up your DNA testing service and ask that they destroy the files on your DNA. Instead, the researchers hope that highlighting these security issues before DNA data is more vulnerable to attack will prevent major hacks that spill our biological secrets.
"We don't think people should change their behaviour today. DNA testing is important," said Ney. "But as this technology matures and becomes more ubiquitous, it's something the industry needs to think about. They're working with very sensitive data."
gizmodo.com.au 11 Aug 2017
11 August 2017
Australia's police 'force' was setup and run by literally criminals, just really really well behaved ones.
Therefore the 'good' inhabitants of Australia were policed by criminals.
How does that work?
Well, extremely well for the people who designed this model.
So here we are 116 years after the founding legal document has been enacted on how the people in government must govern, and we have a 'business' called the Australian Border Force laced with criminals in charge of your destiny.
Any (honest) constitutional lawyer should be able to tell you that this business is not a lawful organisation as per the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
You cannot trust the AFP (Australian Federal Police) in prosecuting criminals, as members are given orders to leave the 'untouchables' alone, and besides the AFP (or any other policing business) do not work for 'you' (the serf), they work for the people in 'government' and protect their criminal activities.
The (local) police are committing offences against the good people of Australia every single day.
Some of Australia MP's are rattled because they did not know Section 44 of the 'Constitution' existed, but let's not let the cat out of the bag that ALL of Australia's MP's are in office unlawfully and MUST be removed.
Any common magistrate will tell you that;
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
As usual the problem is much more serious than the mainstream media is telling the people.
10 August 2017
So good peoples of Australia, if you haven't heard (or you're a free man) we have a new enemy in town.
It's apparently called 'terrorism'.
Remember once upon a time there was this evil that was (apparently) going to take over the world called communism?
Apparently the communists were so much of a threat to Australia (lol, pmsl, etc, etc), the people in government made a law called the Communist Party Dissolution Act from 1950.
"Oohhh those Russians" (Damn you Boney M!)
Once we have this thing called the information superhighway, and can obtain documents at the drop of a (whistle-blower's) hat, we can see how ludicrous this apparent threat 'communism' really was.
So in the words of a famous author and linguist, Noam Chomsky, let's take a few of words from his book / lecture; Manufacturing Consent - The political economy of the mass media Part 1 (15 Mar 1989) - " two events seem rather remote from one another"..
1). apparently terrorists are Muslim,
2). they use encrypted communications...
hence the (polygamous) marriage of the various entities:
So you don't think it can happen in Australia?
It (the banning of encrypted communications for the serf population) did happen in Pakistan.
Yes, Pakistan, you know the SAVAGES in the 'council' who ordered the 'revenge rape' of a girl.
Idea: Bring these councillors as 'refugees' to Australia in the name of diversity.
In today's modern day and age it is incredible how quickly information travels.
In the "good ol' days" the banking cartel would have their own courier who put false information though in order for people to sell their stocks before the real news got out where the same people would by the stocks for huge profits.
People can even share an unlawful 'fine' over the interwebs and ask others how to get out of it, or even sending others their unlawful arrest warrant issued by an unlawful sheriff of Victoria (a natural person by the name of Mr. Brendan Facey).
But the CEO's of banks don't commit criminal activities, or do they?
The people in charge of businesses known as banks commit criminal activities against their shareholders, tax payers, 'mums and dads' investors (the people who pay for the fraud if/when something goes wrong), every single day and get away with it.
Why do the CEO's of banks get away with committing criminal activities?
Because no one from the serf population takes them to task.
Because if they try, they are threatened by an army of lawyers / barristers also making it cost prohibitive to the below average beer Australian.
We have obtained documentation that shows that the current CEO of the Commonwealth Bank Mr. Ian Mark Narev (you know they're a criminal because they have their 3 names mentioned) has committed one of the greatest no-nos against a 'person' ( or even a free man) that being a low life's common law crime of theft.
At this point in time the information has been provided on the basis of anonymity without divulging any specifics.
The people of countries can be world famous for many reasons.
For example the people of Switzerland could be known for their input into governing their own affairs in a country known as a direct democracy (let's not talk about the secret money laundering accounts).
The people of Germany could be known as the automotive powerhouse production of Europe, 6 weeks of annual leave, and very very fast roads (let's not talk about the war that allegedly killed 60 million Europeans)
The Russians... oooohhhhh those Russians (Boney M).
The Chinese could be seen as the production capital of the world (let's omit slave labour conditions).
The English are very famous for being savages that go to the Greek islands and trash the place (let's not talk about the alleged paedophiles tied to the Monarchy).
So what will the relatively new nation of colonialists go down in some secret government dossier or some law review or university law professor's deeply hidden url link?
Well 'we' say that it's a nation where the people have lost it all.
The people (i.e. the serfs) of this continent have been given sovereignty over the people in Australia's parliament and lost it.
How do we know that the people are sovereign?
Easy, it's written in this document referred to as the 'Constitution', you know that pesky document the people in government must abide by, you know the one rattling the cages of MPs in office over Section 44, i.e. citizenship.
The current Rule of Law for Dummies (in Australia) is as follows;
From over the seas:
1). The U.K. Monarch (NOT the 'Queen' of Australia - as that's an unlawful title / 'person')
1b). The parliament of the U.K.
From within the colony of Australia;
2). The people,
3). The parliament.
At one point in time the Constitution was taught to the children of the masses, where at a point in time not too long ago the people in government twigged that it's a document the herd population's children should not be taught in schools, therefore it was taken out of the curriculum.
So no real loss to the people in government as they are acutely aware that once the herd mentality kicks in there is no stopping it, and in the case of the good ol' Aussie bogans, they're just interested in footy and beer and not the 'authority' vested in them.
Australia was a great 'social' experiment, where the people 'had' all the authority and took none of it.
Why 'had'? The Labour party (oops, another 'unconstitutional' entity), being the official republic vehicle will steer the herd towards a republic doing away with this pesky document called the Constitution, once and for all, until then the people STILL have 'authority'.
Viva la gay marriage, and don't forget the voice of the minority group, the unrepresented pregnant albino Japanese single mothers.
08 August 2017
We have obtained documentation that has apparently been sent to the current premier of Victoria, a Mr. Daniel Andrews (currently of the Labour Party - oops in office unlawfully, according to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, you know, Section 44) of the following content as contained within the pdf file attached:
Please note that the sender's details have been edited for the purpose of the document being in the public domain.
07 August 2017
The mainstream media too has jumped on it making the herd population aware that Section 44 of the 'Constitution' can claim a few scalps, with regards to dual citizenship or allegiance to a 'foreign power' (freemasons not excluded from this section either) leaving MP's to do what they do best, that being deceiving the good people of Australia, and going into an overdrive deception mode that it may not apply to them or some other lame excuse, or even a false interpretation of the law.
What the mainstream media has not caught on is that not one MP is sitting in office lawfully, but let's not let that pesky Constitution leave our parliaments empty, or law enforcement left to charging them otherwise Allah forbid, the country just might be run by the serfs, and the 'authorities'* will never let that happen.
When you refer to this bugbear (to the unlawfully sitting MP's) called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, you should also make reference to a book that should be side by side with the Constitution commonly referred to as the 'Quick and Garran' (for short) i.e. by the authors Sirs John Quick and Robert Garran called the Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.
So what is actually meant by this creature called 'marriage' in the 'Constitution' according to the learned authors and according to what the legal framers had in mind.
So for those who require their spoons and bullets in silver, the definition of marriage is found on page 608 of the 'Quick and Garran' under item 200 of the heading "Marriage".
From there on you will read:
"According to the law of England a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.."
Thank you and goodbye on that topic.
* often confused as people in government as opposed to the mass population of Australia.
Illustration: Source Supplied.