31 December 2018

You're being conned into handing over data to government agencies for free

In the good ol' days in order to obtain information on a person of interest or subject, it could have an arduous task for the requester to collate the necessary information from the various sources within this machine we call government, depending on how large the 'file' was.

As new technology is implemented it is used to better catalogue the serfs, but the 'problem' still exists where the administration of this tech is at a high operating cost to the government.

Since the internet came into the public domain, where it became commercialised, a (virtual) goldmine of data came into the hands of people in government.

An incredible source of information is this invention called email, where many people erroneously believe it is secure.

With the implementation of new technologies (i.e. apps, programs, operating systems), the end user is given less and less choice to make their data private or local PC based.

As an example with regards to Microsoft's Windows operating system, upon a fresh installation you can create a local user 'account', but you are 'enticed' into creating an online profile, through the various Microsoft based email account domains such as hotmail, live or outlook for free.

As people should realise, there is a cost to your 'free' account where that cost is that the data that is stored on the corporation's servers now belongs to them, where they do with it as they please, alleged privacy and terms and conditions statements aside.

Now the best part about this collection of data, is that it is easily available to persons who have the tools to access the so called 'secure' accounts.

Today one of the best tools for providing data to the various players is the smart phone, which people have embraced so quickly, where they are quite happy to put in all the hard work in cataloguing their life for the various so called 'government' agencies to have access to.

As an example in the below screen capture, all you have to do to get 'free' WiFi access from your device is give them your email address, and you're up and running, where you give access to another entity to your information.

Note: For the preservation of your privacy, we do not recommend logging into any service from your smartphone.

Do people really read the Terms and Conditions they agree to when using these devices / services?

Do people deserve the (digital) slavery they're in?

29 December 2018

Home Affairs cannot be bothered listing all agencies with access to metadata

With a disclosure notice or court order, government agencies otherwise exempted are able to tap Australia's metadata stores.

The Department of Home Affairs says it would take "considerable time and resources" for it to determine how many agencies across Australia's three tiers of government have accessed metadata held under the nation's data retention laws.

Responding to Questions on Notice, Home Affairs pointed out another of the loopholes that gives agencies, not on the list of 21 enforcement agencies, the ability to access metadata.

"Section 280(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 creates an exemption to the general prohibition against the disclosure of metadata for Commonwealth, state, or territory entities that are not enforcement agencies," Home Affairs said.

"The authorities that can utilise this exemption are not specified."

Agencies that have the power to order the disclosure of information could force the issue with a court order or notice to produce powers, the department said.

"Listing all Commonwealth, State, and Territory agencies with this existing lawful authority would take considerable time and resources. Examples include tax authorities and corrective services," it said.

As ZDNet reported nearly three years ago, 61 agencies that previously had access to metadata looked to be added as declared enforcement agencies, which would give them warrantless access.

In June 2017, it was revealed the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) had been advising agencies and departments to attempt to access metadata through other means.

"On advice from the Attorney-General's Department, the department has considered other methods of obtaining metadata using statutory coercive powers under portfolio legislation, and by engaging the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to obtain metadata," the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources wrote a letter dated June 10, 2016, and published on RightToKnow.

"The department has received preliminary legal advice as to the merits of using coercive powers, which suggests that the approach is problematic due to the construction of portfolio legislation.

"Advice received from the AFP indicates that it does not have the resourcing, compliance, or risk considerations to obtain metadata on behalf of other agencies, including the department."

Last month, the Communications Alliance detailed a list of agencies that tried to access telco metadata following the introduction of Australia's metadata retention regime.

The industry group pointed out that a request for metadata does not mean data was disclosed. It was not possible to accurately compile how many requests and disclosures were made.

"We have seen, for example, one carrier that made 132 disclosures in response to 114 requests over a 12-month period, while some other carriers have experienced smaller volumes over similar periods," it said.

Free PDF: Australia's encryption laws: An insider's guide

"Determining volumes is further complicated by the fact that while responses to some requests are derived from the mandatory data retention store, some requests can also be met by interrogating business systems or databases that hold similar or identical information for commercial use."

The list contained four local councils, Centrelink, and the Victorian Institute of Teaching.

Comms Alliance added that its list might not be complete.

In March 2017, AGD said it had no issue with the ability of government agencies to make demands on telco data outside of the scope of Australia's data retention laws.

"There have long been provisions in the Telecommunications Act 1997 allowing records, including telecommunications data, to be disclosed where required or authorised by law," a spokesperson for AGD told ZDNet at the time.

"These powers are distinct from the data retention regime set out under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979."

In its response to ZDNet, AGD did not say it would look to prevent agencies from accessing metadata by other means.

Australia's data retention regime came into being after it was supported by both major parties in Parliament.

Speaking in June 2016, then Shadow Communications Minister Jason Clare said Labor helped "fix" the government's data retention legislation.

"The changes we forced the government to make mean tighter rules, and for the first time real oversight over the use and misuse of this data," Clare said.

Source: zdnet.com, 21 Dec 2018

20 December 2018

Australian Government falsifies social security data

This is only what they've been caught out with:

Source: Herald Sun

There is plenty more falsified government data which is not being exposed.

19 December 2018

Queensland police officer charged with leaking domestic violence victim's address

Download audio

Every week an Australian woman is murdered by her current or former partner and Australian police are at the forefront of that crisis, responding to incidents of domestic violence every two minutes.

But this week a Queensland police officer was stood down from duty after being accused of leaking the address of a domestic violence complainant to her former partner.

Senior Constable Neil Punchard will face court next month after being charged with nine counts of computer hacking.

The Senior Constable allegedly accessed a confidential police database to look up the woman's details then allegedly passed them on to her former partner, who was subject to an ongoing domestic violence order.

If you're in an abusive situation, or know someone who is, call 1800 RESPECT — that's 1800 737 732.

Statement from the QLD Police Service:
The Queensland Police Service (QPS) conducted a review into a matter which led to further inquiries being conducted. As a result of this criminal investigation, an officer was issued with a Notice to Appear for nine counts of computer hacking.
The Queensland Police Service holds substantial intelligence and information holdings and takes information privacy very seriously. All members are required to adhere to QPS policy and procedures concerning the access to and use of this information. The QPS provides significant training to all members on the use and access to confidential information contained on QPS databases.
Training on the use of these databases commences with recruit training and continues throughout the member's service. Such training includes online learning products and face-to-face training on how to use the information contained in the databases. Breaches of QPS policy and procedures are subject to a robust internal investigation process. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this time due to matters before the court.

Source: abc.net.au

Parliamentary debates on Queensland Police corruption from 1984

Queensland Police motto: WITH HONOUR WE SERVE

Within the first line of an article by The Guardian from August this year, on Queensland police corruption, it is stated that:

"The culture is now far worse than before the Fitzgerald reforms, advocates say"

One did not realise that corruption was a 'culture' but rather lack of it.

In any event what else would one expect from a colony whose police where actual convicts, i.e. not people of 'honour', where this is reflected in the 'culture' today.

See Hansard (Parliamentary Debates) on the topic of Queensland police corruption from 18 September 1984.

Please note: that official government documents have known to be falsified.

See the article mentioned above:


17 December 2018

Cash being demonised for greater control of the serfs in the colony called Australia

Governments and corporations are now demonising cash, under whatever pretext the corporations think of this month, in order to gain full access to the tax slaves movements, which then can be used to control their lives.

Apparently now, if you save money for a 'rainy day' (plenty of those in Melbourne), then you're branded with a negative connotation that being of a hoarder.

Many humans from the herd population love the (digital) slavery they're in, i.e. being a 'product' that gives data way to corporations for very little reward, like $2 for every 50 litres of fuel purchased, for surrendering their docket, which contains the purchaser's history within that docket.

The forcing of people to go cashless is not for the benefit to those people, but rather government and corporations, although there are many arguments put forward, where convenience is pushed as the main selling point.

Forget about the farcical excuse of security.

Going cashless gives rise to more credit card fraud as mentioned in mainstream media news articles;

You are demonised for hoarding cash, where you are told that it's fine being in the bank, but 'fine' for who?

If you have cash in the bank, you do not own that cash, as it is no longer in your possession, but rather in the possession of the bank.

Then many so called government agencies can take that cash from your person's account name.

Quite simply, if you do not have that cash in the bank, they cannot take it from you.

If you stash your cash under the proverbial mattress, then no one knows how much cash you've saved, meaning they have no control over you in the aspect of your 'savings'.

Australia's ('Big Four') banks use your cash to commit criminal activity where the current royal commission into banking, etc was a farce not exposing the full extent of the criminal activity the banks are involved in.

Cash used in 'street' crimes pales in comparison to the criminal activities by those in government and in corporations.

Getting rid of cash is just another form of total control over the serfs in the colony of Australia.

We do not recommend keeping your cash in someone else's premises, e.g. a 'bank'.

Keep ca$h alive, save it, use it.

You do realise that it's their (the government's) currency and they want it back.

12 December 2018

The U.S. industrial terrorists?

There's been a lot of noise with regards to the communications side of the information technology world basically started by the administration of the United States focusing on consumer electronics coming out of China, in particular by Huawei.

The administration of the U.S. told people* of this planet not to use Huawei's routers.

What's all the racket really about?

Let's put aside the fact that Huawei refuses to patch their routers to communicate via the so called secure protocol https, instead of http, as mandated a few years back.

Colonialists are all about control, whether it be on a local or global scale, it's all about control, where this policy is adhered to by the administration of the colony labelled as the "land of the free".

In 2013, the Fairfax publication wrote an article on Huawei of the title 'it's the biggest company that no one has ever heard of'.

In 2015, uSens Inc also wrote on Huawei being 'The Biggest Smartphone Company You Never Heard Of'.

The electronics and telecommunications company was founded in Shenzhen in 1987, where it started out with a total of 20 employees in Australia in 2004.

Today it has customers in over 170 countries, where its technology serves more than a third of the population of the planet

Huawei has knocked off Apple from its perch in terms of smartphone sales.

On the 'global stage' Huawei is a threat to the dominance by U.S corporations, like Apple and Google, based products.

The apparent (now fashionable) excuse used against Huawei is 'security' in that Huawei's products 'could' be used for spying?

Did we forget how Apple was exposed for spying on 'you'?

Did we somehow become desensitised to the fact that Google is one of the planets largest spying corporations? 

Let's take a looks at an excerpt from an article by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation;

focusing on the sentence contain the words: 

"Ms. Meng is facing extradition to the US on suspicion she violated US sanctions against Iran."

The U.S. initiated sanctions against Iran, meaning limiting business (in the form of commerce / trade, scientific and military) with Iran.

Meng Wanzhou was born in Beijing, China and therefore a Chinese National.

To the best of our knowledge China has not signed an agreement following in the footsteps of the U.S in terms of sanctioning Iran, therefore Ms. Meng has no case to answer for.

It seems that it's an act of terrorism by the administration of the US.

* Note: to be more accurate the US administration does not want Huawei hardware to be used by people in government, for the fear that the hardware 'could' be used for spying where there is zero regards for the serf population being spied on. 

See also the 'war' on chips as described by the publication, The Economist:

10 December 2018

Christmas in Australia is about

Let's start of this little skit with a tune from Australia's favourite children's show host Humphrey B. Bear, with a slight change of the words which go like this:

What a funny ol' colony is Australia,
It gets in all manner of strife
It leads a very colonial life
and Human Rights isn't its favourite fare.

and now a word from our sponsors oops sorry administration:

You see, Christmas in Australia is not about a child being born somewhere in Israel, to an apparent virgin mother with no man officially claiming to seed her (out of wedlock - a huge no-no for the place and time), but rather a non material deity.

Christmas in Australia is not about family unity or values and respecting each other.

Your success, worth or value is judged by what sort or present you put under the Christmas tree.

In this country the administration tells you that you must be a 'better' consumer.

You must purchase more junk the corporations produce and import into this country to satisfy the balance sheet, run by ex bankers in charge of the country like Malcolm Turnbull, who was replaced by the now head of this 'business' called Australia, Mr. Scott Morrison.

You will notice how much emphasis the news media will put on how much people spent during Christmas.

The problem with the people in government wanting the tax slaves to be 'better' consumers is that the people in government are implementing austerity on the serf population.

This is done via a number of methods which take away the tool (cash) needed for people to sustain themselves, and hence less disposable income (whatever that is the tax department defines as) to spend on cheap Chinese junk, or espionage electronics supplied by Huawei or ZTE et al.

This Christmas, think about the last twelve months, how the people in government have locked down Australia's general population with law that restricts the people's movements, communications and so called rights, putting aside any official pretexts.

Say goodbye to those 'privileges' you had in 2018, because most of you chose to ignore the actions of people in government, with the bogan attitude of "she'll be right, mate", where all that matters is beer and footy.

The new year will also bring more oppressive law, where as usual the majority will do nothing about it, as the previous generations have done nothing as well.

09 December 2018

Lawyer X or Informer 3838, defence barrister Nicola Gobbo?

(Image: Source supplied)

Crooked cops and lawyers are rife in the colony called Australia, where the judiciary supports their actions.

With the matter of 'Lawyer X' (or Informer 3838), in the public spotlight now, it seems that the bent barrister's actions were documented by the Fairfax publication in 2010, under the subtle headline;
Lawyer 'demanded $20m' in the following article:


The High Court of Australia lifted suppression orders to reveal the barrister, 'who cannot be identified' represented Mockbel and other underworld figures while informing against her clients between 2005-2009.

See also article from 8 Dec 2018 by abc.net.au of the headline:
Victoria Police's legal fight to keep Lawyer X gangland informer secret cost $4.52 million at:


07 December 2018

Facebook denies UK allegations after Six4Three document dump

Social media giant maintains it has 'never sold people's data'

In context: The Six4Three files are a compilation of Facebook internal emails and memos that were recently released by the UK parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The documents outline various discussion within the company regarding monetizing user data particularly surrounding the 3.0 platform changes in 2015. Facebook denies all allegations made by the committee.
Facebook has seen almost no end to public scrutiny since the Cambridge Analytica scandal. It comes as no surprise that revelations and criticisms leveled at the social media titan in recent weeks have spun the company into turmoil and had the denial machine working overtime.

On Wednesday, a British parliamentary committee made public numerous damaging internal emails and documents showing that the company allowed “special access” to users’ data to partner companies like Lyft and Netflix while denying access to competitors such as Vine.

“Facebook have clearly entered into whitelisting agreements with certain companies, which meant that after the platform changes in 2014/15 they maintained full access to friends’ data [sic],” stated Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee Chairman Damian Collins in his summary of the document dump known as the “Six4Three files.” He adds, “It is not clear that there was any user consent for this, nor how Facebook decided which companies should be whitelisted or not.”

"The documents were selectively leaked to publish some, but not all, of the internal discussions at Facebook at the time of our platform changes. But the facts are clear: we’ve never sold people’s data."

Facebook quickly responded to the Six4Three files with a rebuttal saying they were “cherry-picked” and taken out of “context.”

“We changed our platform policies in 2014/15 to prevent apps from requesting permission to access friends’ private information,” said a Facebook spokesperson referring to the whitelisting allegation. “In some situations, when necessary, we allowed developers to access a list of the users’ friends. This was not friends’ private information but a list of your friends (name and profile pic).”

Collins also points out emails that spelled out the collection of user call and text logs on Android devices. He claims Facebook went to great lengths to keep users from realizing such data was being collected from them.
“Facebook knew that the changes to its policies on the Android mobile phone system, which enabled the Facebook app to collect a record of calls and texts sent by the user would be controversial. To mitigate any bad PR, Facebook planned to make it as hard of possible for users to know that this was one of the underlying features of the upgrade of their app.”
Facebook flatly denied the allegation saying that users had to “opt-in” to share their call and message logs. The company pointed out that it only used this information to improve Facebook Lite and Messenger apps' abilities to make call suggestions and rank contact lists. It says that an audit conducted this year showed that such data is not as useful after it becomes old insinuating that it no longer collects such logs.

“After a thorough review in 2018, it became clear that the information is not as useful after about a year,” the spokesperson said. “You are unlikely to need to call someone who you last called over a year ago compared to a contact you called just last week.”

However, the company stopped short of explicitly saying that it no longer collects this information.

There were four other areas that Collins expressed concerns over ranging from the valuation of friends’ data to increase FB revenues to using data collected from the Onavo VPN app. Facebook had “explanations” for them all and maintains that Six4Three only selected "some, but not all" documents and discussion in these matters.

You can check out the full 250-page document dump including the DCMS’s summary at the UK parliament’s website. Facebook's response is posted in its Newsroom.

Text source: techspot .com

03 December 2018

Who do the police work for?

MANY people may be of the erroneous belief that the police work for them (the tax payers), or even are members of the 'public service'.

Why even the Victorian Government washed its hands of police, especially when it came to coughing up for compensation.

See article from The Age publication at:

Every state or territory may have its legal peculiarities with regards to its police force.

In Victoria the police have been corporatised since 2013, i.e. (officially) since the Victoria Police Act 2013, where every 'job' has a cost associated with it.

See the current Victoria Police Fees & Charges document within the pdf:

Apparently in Western Australia the police are not even a legal entity:

Let's take a look at a common example of a 'common law' criminal action of theft.

We've obtained information on at least a dozen case files of stolen phones, that will never receive attention, even if the alleged suspect is 'known to police', where the most common excuse given to the serfs is that there is not enough resources.

Let's take a look at the photo at the beginning of this post, which is with regards to an actual case file, where a man was accused of stealing a mobile phone from a telco's retail store.

The accused was cooperative, non aggressive and non-threatening, but it took 4 squad vehicles and 8 uniformed officers to deal with the matter, where most of the time 6 officers where literally doing nothing with regards to the job on hand.

Meanwhile if you (the serf) requires the police to find your $2300 piece of iJunk, then there are no resources, as they are taken up by an 8:1 (police to serf) ratio if the crime is committed against a corporation.

As the masses should be aware the police are part of your 'friendly' government, BUT the 'problem' (for the herd population) is that the people in government see their own population as the primary enemy, as mentioned in numerous lectures by Noam Chomsky.

Therefore you (the serf) are literally the enemy of federal and state police force.