20 June 2020

The false classification of the ‘pandemic’?

According to whatever authorities, there is a classification of an alleged virus to be at a ‘pandemic’ level.

From an official mainstream media source, the current stated infection rate in Australia is at 7436 cases, with a death rate of 102.

This equates to one death in 72.9 cases.

So, let’s see how the numbers stack up against the Australian Bureau of Statistics results for a virus called influenza (maybe in combination with pneumonia).

From the link above, there is also one other statistic that the government uses and we’ll compare the novel Coronavirus to this.


In 2017 there were 1,255 deaths due to influenza, recording a standardised death rate of 3.9 per 100,000 persons. This is a significant increase from 2016 where 464 influenza deaths were recorded. An individual dying from influenza in 2017 was most likely to be female, aged over 75 years, have multiple co-morbidities and living in the eastern states of Australia.

According to the ABS we have 25.2 million people at the end of 2018.

According to worldometers.info, we have 25.5 million now.

Let’s just say that we have 25 million people where the official figures is that 102 died from novel Coronavirus, at the half year mark.

That means we have a death rate of 1 person per 245,098 persons 
or as the government puts it a standardised death rate of 0.408 per 100,000 persons.

It seems that the flu/pneumonia are more of a ‘pandemic’ (in Australia) than the alleged novel Coronavirus.

Note, we totally omitted the 4269 deaths for 2017 and 3336 deaths for 2016 due to influenza and pneumonia, from the above screen capture.

So, why did the 'Australian Government' really halt the nation?

Attending a protest - Privacy suggestions not always accurate

It can be difficult to obtain factual information with regards to many topics, where currently people's privacy, with regards to smartphone use should be a huge topic of concern for EVERY user.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is just one organisation that provides information about digital privacy, free speech and legal aspects of privacy being US centric.

Now whether people have (factually) had enough or there are agent provocateurs in relation to organised protests, the use of smartphones during these activities could be to your detriment.

A piece of advice given to safeguard your privacy, when attending a protest is to:
".. take a screenshot of the photo on your mobile device to remove the metadata.."

 We know for a fact that the above suggestion may not hide your metadata, as described in the above article, where the amount of data given is dependent on the operating system and its version also depending on the smartphone manufacturer's decision to include whatever data they choose within the operating system's interface which is in charge of the screenshot data.

In this experiment we took a photo which was then screen captured, were only a portion of that screen capture is published as seen in the attachment below:

The metadata contained from this screen capture above contains the following identifying fields which have been blacked out:

Remembering that ALL metadata is used to identify you/your device, the more concerning pieces of information in this screen capture are the Camera maker and Camera model, which have been blacked out for the poster's privacy.

So, it is still not a good idea to post a screen capture of a picture to upload to social media without actually stripping the EXIF data first.

There are smartphone apps available for this purpose.

15 June 2020

Cafés requiring your details lawful? Privacy guaranteed?

If the Australian Government did not obtain your private and personal information during the so called pandemic, then you are required to provide your name and number and of those with you during more relaxed times, but is this lawful and what assurances are there of privacy and ‘punishment’ if there was a breach?

Now that the apparent pandemic is on its tail end according to the authorities of many states and territories of Australia, people’s movements are met with less restrictions but there is one aspect (of many) that still does not make sense and that is more data collection.

Apparently  when you now decide to conduct business inside a café, eatery they ‘require’ your details e.g name and phone number.  

So, now let’s be very clear about this. If you are required to take an action it MUST be defined in a law i.e. an Act.

In your response to this post, can you point us to a lawfully enacted Act that states this, as we have not seen such an Act?

Secondly, what are the privacy guarantees, given the fact that we have seen people put their details on a clip board where the details of others were visible?

What are the guarantees that the business will comply with privacy law, given the fact that the above example already occurred?

- What is the punishment for the business for such a privacy breach?

- Will you be notified of this breach?
(Let’s take an educated guess, and say no)

- What financial compensation will you receive for such a breach?
(Let’s go out on a limb here, and say none)

Just another scam the people are blindly following.