Australia the official prison island for welfare recipients

From the article on 22 Sep 2018, by theguardian.com of the headline:

Former welfare recipients who refuse to pay back debt face travel ban


Australia’s human services minister says 20 orders have been issued as part of move to recoup funds

Australians who owe money to the federal government under the welfare system will be banned from overseas travel until they repay the funds. Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP

Australians who owe money to the federal government will be banned from leaving the country until they repay the funds, in a move to claw back $800m in debt.

Travels bans have been issued over the past decade to parents who did not make child support payments and were extended in June to former welfare recipients who have refused to repay the finance.

The human services minister, Michael Keenan, says 20 orders have been issued, and his department is looking to step up efforts to recoup funds owed by more than 150,000 people who no longer receive welfare.

“If you received a payment you were not entitled to, you have an obligation to repay the money you owe and we will use every tool at our disposal to ensure it is recovered,” Keenan said in a statement on Saturday.

He said people currently receiving welfare or making repayments would not be targeted by the measure, but former recipients who refused to pay back their debt would also be charged interest.

The rate of repayment would be measured against an individual’s circumstances and those in hardship could defer their returns, Keenan said.

He said they would target people who consistently refused to pay back money owed.

“It’s very important people repay money to the Australian taxpayer,” he added. “The money that funds the welfare system has been earned by hardworking Australians and they expect us to make sure that system operates with integrity, that people get the support that they need and that they’re not getting more out of the system than they’re entitled to.”

The minister said the travel bans would be issued only for large debts where efforts to recoup the money had previously failed.

But Labor’s shadow health spokeswoman, Catherine King, was wary of the measure and wanted to see more detail.

“We had the robo-debt scandal where people in fact did not have debts at all and were absolutely hounded by this government,” she said.

“The government would want to be very, very careful, that it knows absolutely that these people do have debts, that this isn’t another debacle in the making.”

While Everyone Was Distracted By Strawberries, Peter Dutton Introduced Laws To Snoop On Your Private Chats

The legislation was introduced into parliament just 10 days after consultation ended, and not all submissions have been made public.

Posted on September 21, 2018, at 12:19 pm

Home affairs minister Peter Dutton has been accused of rushing legislation that tech companies say could have the effect of weakening encryption, privacy and security of all Australians.

Shortly after the House of Representatives passed tough new anti-food tampering legislation on Thursday morning, and just before the house debated whether to pass a motion of no confidence in Dutton over the au pairs scandal, the home affairs minister introduced the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018.

The swift introduction of the legislation came as a shock to both the technology sector, Labor and the Greens.

It was just 10 days after submissions closed on the draft legislation, and just over a month after that draft was first released.

The legislation if passed would force tech companies to: remove protections on devices, give law enforcement agencies the design specs of their devices, install software on a device when asked, provide access to devices, and help agencies build their own systems.

The companies that would be most affected by the legislation, including Wickr, Facebook, Google and Amazon had all raised alarms that the requirements for companies to allow law enforcement agencies to exploit weaknesses in encryption to investigate serious crimes could also have the effect in creating vulnerability for law-abiding users, who rely on encryption for security and privacy online.

In his speech introducing the legislation, Dutton justified the proposed new powers by saying that more than 55% of communications intercepted by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) under warrant as of July last year was encrypted, compared with 3% in June 2013.

For the AFP (Australian Federal Police), the figure is more than 90%.

"The lack of access to encrypted communications presents an increasingly significant barrier for national security and law enforcement agencies in investigating serious crimes and national security threats," Dutton said.

"The AFP advise that encrypted communications have directly impacted around 200 operations conducted by the AFP in the last 12 months, all of which related to the investigation of serious criminal offences carrying a penalty of seven years imprisonment or more."

Dutton said the legislation was "reasonable and proportionate" and the government had "consulted extensively with industry and the public" on the legislation.

But the government has so far refused to publish all 14,000 submissions received to the exposure draft legislation. BuzzFeed News understands that the department contacted everyone who made a submission and told them that unless they opt in to having their submission published, it will not be made public.

On Friday afternoon, the department published some of the submissions, including from the Australian Human Rights Commission, the privacy commissioner, Telstra and Optus. The department noted that over 14,000 of the submissions were form letters from Digital Rights Watch, but it is believed some submissions have still not been made public.

Nicole Buskiewicz, the managing director of Digital Industry Group Inc (DIGI), which represents companies including Google, Facebook and Amazon in Australia, said the government is ignoring the voices of people who made a submission to the department.

"Given the seriousness of the issues raised by the bill and the potential adverse impact on the security of online communications generally, DIGI urges the government to increase dialogue with civil society and industry to find global solutions to the problems identified by the government to support law enforcement and security agencies in their goal of protecting citizens from harm," she said in a statement.

"We call on the government to undertake further consultation and to address the issues raised in the submissions provided."

Labor's shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus, shadow communications minister Michelle Rowland, and shadow minister digital economy Ed Husic, have also called for the government to not rush the legislation through parliament, labelling the decision to introduce the legislation so quickly a "mockery" and "unacceptable".

"It is simply implausible that Peter Dutton could have in such a short timeframe given due consideration to the widespread concerns when dealing with encryption that raised by industry and other stakeholders," the Labor MPs said in a statement.

"Instead, the government appears to have taken a tick and flick approach to an incredibly complicated bill, with potentially far-reaching consequence for the privacy and digital security of all Australians."

Labor noted that it took two years for similar UK legislation to be passed after the initial announcement of the legislation.

"It is vital that the government engages in proper consultation processes when introducing entirely new national security laws with the potential to impact every Australian who uses a phone or computer," they said.

Greens senator Jordon Steele-John said the short window between consultation and legislation being introduced meant there was no way the government had time to properly consider the feedback.

“This is massive government overreach and something we should all be extremely concerned about," he said. "It makes a mockery of our right to privacy, leaves us more vulnerable to cyber espionage and permanently weakens existing protections we all rely on to stay safe and secure online."

The legislation has not yet been debated in the House of Representatives, and Labor is pushing for the legislation to be examined by the joint standing committee on intelligence and security before it is voted on.

Dutton said amendments to the legislation had been made in response to the consultation, but he has not spelled out what specifically has been changed. 

Source buzzfeed.com

Mainstream media warns not to identify emu killer, as cop's son?

(illustration taken from social media)

Even though UK's dailymail published the details of the man who deliberately ran over 10 emus with his 4WD vehicle as 20 year old Jacob Macdonald, a police officer's son, the Australian mainstream media has not mentioned his name as an example by adelaidenow.com.au publication stating:

“We ask that people do not ‘name and shame’ alleged suspects on social media. This both compromises potential prosecutions, as well as risks incorrectly identifying innocent people.”

Getting it wrong on identifying alleged criminals can have devastating consequences for those who have been incorrectly identified, but there is another aspect to criminal law that many may not be aware of.

There are many court cases from the state's Supreme Courts to the High Court of Australia which are of significance to the community that hold powerful remedies with regards to the unlawful actions of the authorities in Australia.

There are also court cases that are sealed, where they are not available to the general population, where there is no reference to their existence in online resources.

In some cases this is done to allegedly protect victims, or more specifically the criminals, but in other circumstances people have put together documentation to the courts of how the authorities have subverted the justice system, with documentation that is undeniable, exposing the corruption of the Australian courts or those in government.

MANY should be aware that the system takes care of its own, where one of the 'own' is the state's police force.

Apparently the general population is told that every person is equal in the eyes of the law, but to many the reality is quite different. 

MANY police officers get away with criminal offences with either a slap on the wrist or a paid 'vacation' (suspension with pay), whereas if a person from the general population would be charged with the same criminal offence, the outcome is quite different.

By drawing attention to the fact that the person is the son of a police officer, would be of benefit to the community to indicate that 'justice is served' equally in the eyes of the law.

In Australia MANY judicial registrars / magistrates / judges 'err' at law, and the more people witness this the better it is for the accused or rather the person harmed by the law.

There is plenty of fraud within the archives that people in government do not want the general population to be aware of where one set of documents comes to mind that being the secret letters regarding Whitlam's dismissal in 1975,  between the Australia governor general, John Kerr and the Queen.

Nothing to hide nothing to fear, right?

Reminder: Australia is a nanny state.

Mainstream media's lies on Melbourne's 'growth'

If one was to be reading an article by The Age publication of the headline "A city bursting at the seems: Melbourne's massive growth", one would have the comprehension that the conditions are so favourable that the people of Melbourne are on a breeding spree to populate the planet with their litter.

When we use the word growth with regards to population, we would associate this term with the words 'growth rate' in relation to natural growth rate or more specifically a statistic called fertility rate (a figure pertaining to births per woman; 1.83 for 2015 in Australia), where the figure relates to an overall percentage, for example 1.4% of Australia in 2016.

Australia's federal government has taken an action of dumping approx. 2500 people per week into Melbourne, creating pressure and stresses as a result causing a great deal of angst among the good people under the corporation of the City of Melbourne (in reference to an 1852 law).

As a result Melbourne's traffic has skyrocketed, where now gridlock is the norm, made worse by infrastructure projects in a lot of places, to satisfy the traffic of yesteryear rather than the future.

Years ago the Royal Automotive Club of Victoria mentioned that traffic jams are an assault on the family unit as this is time which could be as little as two hours per day needlessly taken away from children or one's partner.

The public transport system is stretched beyond its capacity, a capacity which is calculated in arrears based on natural growth and not a sudden onslaught.

With every second street's older houses being demolished to make way for units for anything between 3 to 8 dwellings, this puts extra strain on the pipes which are calculated to carry an amount of water base on a dwelling size of approx 30% of the total land area, where new residences now can take up 90% of the land.

The good ol' government slogan of "good for the economy" maybe in relation to the building industry does not really cut it anymore, especially when an action makes life more difficult for the current inhabitants.

'Good for the economy' does not necessarily man good for the people.

Another passive aggressive action brought to you by the people in government, supported by a corporate media headline lie.

You'd swear that Eryk Bagshaw was working for a Rupert Murdoch publication.

Tax Havens built into Australian law since 1953 re: Moeliker v Chapman

On the infamous High Court of Australia case; Moeliker v Chapman, the question of taxation was stayed in the court.

Also, a bit of editing had to be done before official publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

 Which brings us to:

"...Since 1953 tax laws for multinationals have allowed the evasion of taxes on corporate profits tax havens have existed for the wealthy and continue to exist. The tax office admits this it is not a legal entity, how can it be party to a treaty..."

 

From the document by Kevin W.D. Thompson from 2009:

submitted to the "PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA"

at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jsct/october2002/subs/sub1to1-2.pdf

Three month delay in public news media on fake bank apps

(illustration: Mr Mackie, South Park)

There is no real reason for 'apps' to exist in order for a person to conduct business transactions with the entities that have an online presence.

The Bank of Melbourne app, actually opens up the device's web browser in order for the user to conduct their business, therefore negating the need for the use of that app.

Does the Australian Government's Bureau of Meteorology need an app or instead put the information on a mobile friendly web address, which it has. 

The duopoly of Apple and Google, have muscled out all competitors and alternative mobile phone operating systems, where the duopoly makes billions of dollars annually from data collected from the app development industry.


Despite whatever assurances the corporations give with regards to the weeding out of suspect apps, the real severity of the risks are being deliberately kept from the public eye.

It took three months before information made the public news media about a suspect banking app, where the claim was that it was shut down within hours of the app being published.

Apps are a closed system, where the end user is unable to scrutinise where their data is going, unlike a website's publicly available source code.

Apps are a real danger to the unsuspecting consumers, but since their existence is aggressively pushed by the duopoly for their huge profitability, it seems that they will be with us for the long run, despite the fact that there are better programming alternatives.

Governments that support the use of their services via apps that must be purchased (for 'free' i.e. no cash exchanged) are supporting data collection by those corporations, which pose a significant risk to the end user's privacy.


We do not support the use of Apple or Google apps.

See article from  20 Sep 2018 by news.com.au of the headline:


CommBank, ANZ hit with scam apps

CUSTOMERS of major Aussie banks have fallen victim to a cunning scam targeting banking apps on mobile phones.

CommBank has been hit with a fake app scam.Source:Supplied

MORE than a thousand CommBank and ANZ customers may have unwittingly handed out their log-in details and credit card numbers after downloading malicious banking apps.

The fake apps went undetected in the Google Play store for weeks and were installed more than 1000 times before IT security research firm ESET raised the alarm in June, The Age reported Thursday.

ESET senior research fellow Nick FitzGerald told the newspaper the apps were discovered during routine checks. He said it was rare for fake banking apps to pass the automated Google Play system.

The fake CommBank and ANZ apps had basic functionality, requesting credit card details or log-in credentials, which may have helped them slip through.

“The apps use obfuscation, which may have contributed to them slipping into the store undetected,” he told The Age, adding code similarities suggested the two apps were the work of the same attacker.

“This is a big concern for anyone who may have handed over personal information. The loss of personally identifiable information can result in financial fraud that may affect you for the rest of your life very negatively.”

CommBank-owned Auckland Savings Bank was also targeted, as were banks in the UK, Switzerland and Poland, and European cryptocurrency exchange Bitpanda, according to the report.

A Google spokesman declined to say how many times the apps were downloaded or how they made it into the Google Play store.

“We remove applications that violate our policies, such as apps that are illegal or that promote hate speech,” he said. “We don’t comment on individual applications — you can check out our policies for more information.”

As the banks were impersonated, not hacked, the scam falls outside Australia’s new mandatory data-breach notification scheme passed into law earlier this year.

A CommBank spokeswoman said the security of customers’ banking details was a “top priority”. “We proactively monitor app stores, and use customer feedback, to identify potential security risks for our customers,” she said.

“Once a suspicious app is identified, we work with the app store to ensure the app is quickly removed or disabled. To protect our customers, we offer the benefit from our 100 per cent Security Guarantee against unauthorised transactions where customers are not at fault.”

An ANZ spokeswoman said the bank was “constantly monitoring for fake ANZ apps and the latest security scams”.

“In June 2018 via a customer we became aware of a fraudulent app called ANZ PayOnGO being advertised on Google Play,” she said. “We worked closely with the Google Play team to have the app removed in a few hours.”

CBA SECURITY ADVICE

Tips on keeping safe when downloading our apps:

• Only install apps from official stores, such as Apple’s App Store or Google Play (for Android phone or tablet).

• Check the name of the publisher before downloading the app.

• Avoid installing apps from links received in an email, social media post, text message or a web page that doesn’t look right. The best way to download an app is to go to the store and download it from there.

• Read user reviews and ratings to assess if an app delivers a good experience.

• Many apps collect and send personal data from your phone, including your location and contacts. Keep on top of this by reviewing and managing permissions for each app. On an iOS device, this can be done under the ‘Settings > Privacy’ function. On an Android device, you can find them under ‘Application Manager’.

• Read the terms of any app looking to access your contacts, location or other personal information when you log in using a third party service (such as Facebook or LinkedIn).

• If a customer notices an unusual transaction on their account, they should contact us on 13 2221 immediately to report it.

• Our apps are published from “Commonwealth Bank of Australia” or “CommSec”. MasterCard publishes two apps for business merchants, “CommBank Simplify Controls” and “CommBank Simplify Payments”, on our behalf.

Source: CommBank

ANZ SECURITY ADVICE

Customers should always check the following before to downloading a new app:

• Check the popularity of the app: thousands of downloads and very few reviews suggests a fake app.

• Check the name of the app or developer and reviews: minor errors in the name, inconsistency with ANZ products or suspicious comments may indicate the app is a fake.

• Check the pattern of reviews including time frames from app launch to commentary: reviews in quick succession of launch are a red flag.

• If in doubt, go to the web page of the developer: lack of details about the developers, and linkage to a legitimate site is another indicator.

• Check that the permissions required by the app are in line with activities you will be performing: if the permissions seem excessive this is another red flag.

• If a customer believes they have downloaded a fake ANZ app please contact us immediately on 1800 033 844

• If they suspect a fake ANZ app is available on Google Play or on the App Store, they should contact hoax@cybersecurity.anz.com

• Information on the latest security alerts can be found on ANZ.com — https://www.anz.com.au/security/fraud-detection/latest-security-alerts/

Source: ANZ