24 July 2020

Martial law on the prison isle, the colony called Australia?

Penal Colony Policies in full force, the nanny state agenda in action.

There is no law stating that you must: 

1). answer your phone, 
2). be at home when someone knocks on your front door.

Breaking and entering into your home is a criminal offence.

COVID test useless: “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic”

It is surprising that to date no person has posted the test results for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (that people are mandated to do in Victoria/Australia), which apparently leads to the COVID-19 disease AND what it means.

We have obtained information from a source that wishes to remain anonymous, where in reality the test for COVID is quite useless going by official documentation.

So, what is the NPAAC?

It's the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council.

So, what does it have to say about such a test?

See screen capture of page 4:

So what is NATA?

It's the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia.

See what they have to say about accreditation at:

See the effects of wrongful testing from an article in 2007 by The New York Times at:

All this medical jargon too much to comprehend?

Let's simplify this with a motoring analogy:

It's like obtaining a fine as a result of a velocity measuring device that is not accredited by National Measurement Institute or subject under the National Measurement Act 1960.


Class action against Google for tracking even when opt-out enabled

  • A class-action lawsuit filed Tuesday alleges that Google tracks users on hundreds of thousands of apps even when they opt out of "Web & App Activity" in the settings.

  • The data privacy lawsuit accuses the search engine giant of violating wiretap law and California privacy law by recording what users are looking at in apps.

  • It also alleges the tracking occurs through Google's Firebase, a popular set of software for app makers.

  • Alphabet Inc's Google records what people are doing on hundreds of thousands of mobile apps even when they follow the company's recommended settings for stopping such monitoring, a lawsuit seeking class action status alleged on Tuesday.

    The data privacy lawsuit is the second filed in as many months against Google by the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner on behalf a handful of individual consumers. The firm's clients also have included Google competitors such as Facebook Inc and Oracle Corp.

    Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing.

    The new complaint in a U.S. district court in San Jose accuses Google of violating federal wiretap law and California privacy law by logging what users are looking at in news, ride-hailing and other types of apps despite them having turned off "Web & App Activity" tracking in their Google account settings.

    The lawsuit alleges the data collection happens through Google's Firebase, a set of software popular among app makers for storing data, delivering notifications and ads, and tracking glitches and clicks.

    Firebase typically operates inside apps invisibly to consumers.

    "Even when consumers follow Google's own instructions and turn off 'Web & App Activity' tracking on their 'Privacy Controls,' Google nevertheless continues to intercept consumers' app usage and app browsing communications and personal information," the lawsuit contends.

    Google uses some Firebase data to improve its products and personalize ads and other content for consumers, according to the lawsuit.

    Reuters reported in March that U.S. antitrust investigators are looking into whether Google has unlawfully stifled competition in advertising and other businesses by effectively making Firebase unavoidable.

    In its case last month, Boies Schiller Flexner accused Google of surreptitiously recording Chrome browser users' activity even when they activated what Google calls Incognito mode. Google said it would fight the claim.

    Source: Business Insider

    23 July 2020

    Government fraud - COVIDSafe app links to Liberal party.

    COVIDSafe's problems aren't Google or Apple's fault despite government claims

    Australia's COVIDSafe app is unreliable, and so far has proved to be of little practical benefit, but it doesn't have to be an ongoing political sideshow.

    The iOS version of Australia's troubled COVID-19 contact tracing app, COVIDSafe, tries to connect to every device a user's phone has ever connected to, indefinitely, and that's just one of the lingering bugs.

    Every time the Bluetooth controller disconnects from a device, such as when COVIDSafe successfully exchanges data with another app user, it will attempt the reconnect 15 seconds later.

    "When devices go out of range or switch identifier, these connections will stay pending indefinitely," wrote Richard Nelson, when reporting the bug some 16 days ago.

    "This is almost certainly the cause of COVIDSafe causing some (maybe not all) issues with connections to Apple Watch and other devices."

    Both the Android and iOS versions of COVIDSafe have previously been reported to interfere with blood glucose monitors, as well as fitness activity trackers, earbuds, and in-car audio.

    The Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) acknowledged this iOS bug on GitHub the following day, but has not posted an update since.

    Another unfixed bug prevents some iOS-to-iOS exchanges thanks to bad handling of payloads longer than Bluetooth's maximum transmission unit (MTU).

    The government continues to blame the app's unreliability on both Android and iOS on a lack of cooperation from Apple and Google. According to tech community developers who've been debugging the app, that's not true.

    "If the government are claiming that the issues are Apple's fault, then it just doesn't make sense when we know that there are perfectly good explanations that are not Apple's fault," developer Jim Mussared told ZDNet.

    "We know that there's a bug here, and we know that it results in the app not functioning, and we know that it results in breaking connectivity to other devices. So what grounds have they therefore got to be blaming mysterious issues on iPhones?"

    The government is also continuing to rule out moving to the contact tracing API developed jointly by Apple and Google -- which wasn't available when COVIDSafe was developed -- on the grounds that it would remove them from the process.

    "There's no way we're shifting to a platform that will take out the contact tracers," said Nick Coatsworth, Australia's deputy Chief Medical Officer, in June.

    The Apple-Google approach was designed to be more protective of people's privacy, but the flipside is that it can't provide data in all the ways a contact tracer might want.

    One scenario is when a person who tests positive for COVID-19 tells a contact tracer that they were on public transport at a certain time. COVIDSafe logs could potentially identify which app users were in the vicinity at that time.

    "Apple-Google doesn't really facilitate that direction of looking at the data," Mussared said.

    "The Apple-Google system inverts the reporting such that the notified person (i.e. the detected contact) sends the details of the exposure to the authorities, however that info does not include the source of the exposure, only the time and 'risk metric'," he said.

    That gets you a lot of the way there, which means it's at least useful for contact tracers while still preserving privacy.

    "At least the Apple-Google thing works," Mussared added. "If you're gonna have an app, at least get some benefit from it."

    Does COVIDSafe's cost represent value for money?

    The government's spending on its coronavirus-related app is reportedly millions more than previously thought.

    Technology company DELV has been paid more than AU$3.8 million to develop the coronavirus information app, reported 9News on Monday.

    The total for work on that app and COVIDSafe was reportedly around AU$6 million.

    DELV also "has links to the Liberal Party", according to 9News, although a spokesman for Health Minister Greg Hunt said "the entire procurement process ... has been undertaken under Australian Government procurement rules."

    The federal government's coronavirus advertising spend has been more than AU$64 million, though how much of that was specifically for COVIDSafe is not yet known.

    Meanwhile, Ireland's contact tracing app, which is based on the Apple-Google tracing system, has seen 1.3 million downloads in its first eight days.

    "It still has to prove its mettle," Seán L'Estrange, a social scientist at University College Dublin, told the Guardian.

    At €850,000 (around AU$1.4 million) the app is "dirt cheap", he said, given that the average cost of identifying each case of infection is €42,000.

    "Even if it fails to produce the goods, little has been lost."

    Stubborn politicians keep misrepresenting everything

    The effectiveness of COVIDSafe, or rather the lack of effectiveness, continues to distract from the government's COVID-19 messaging. It didn't have to be this way.

    The Minister for Government Services, Stuart Robert, continues to misrepresent COVIDSafe's utility and the research into its potential benefits.

    "It's found over 200 specific cases of contact tracing where people have actually helped professionals who have used it to contact other Australians that may have been impacted," Robert told radio FiveAA Adelaide as recently as last Thursday.

    "It's designed to augment manual tracing, and that's what it's doing," he said.

    "As the Sax Institute says the truth is, it is critical to containing a second wave [of COVID-19 infections]."

    Neither of these things are true.

    COVIDSafe may have been used in 200 people's tracing procedures, but it has yet to identify a single individual who hadn't already been found by traditional methods.

    The Sax Institute said that COVIDSafe "has the potential to be an important adjunct" to manual contact tracing, not "critical to containing a second wave", but only if the bugs are fixed and more people use it.

    Continued social distancing and large-scale testing are what's "vital" to avoiding a second wave, they said.
     misleading comments by Robert, and similar ones by his ministerial colleagues, are nothing more than political spin designed to smudge over previous misinformation.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison is to blame, thanks to his daft comparison of COVIDSafe to wearing sunscreen, and the made-up target for app downloads.

    Robert has said Services Australia's goals now include transparency, but we have yet to see that in the case of COVIDSafe.

    An honest government could dig itself out of this hole by acknowledging that COVIDSafe was over-sold, and that there isn't any magical technical solution that'll prevent the spread of the disease.

    A government with a spine would be happy to acknowledge that its strategy has changed, and simply suck up the usual whinging from journalists about "backflips".

    After all, it's only a few million dollars, a tiny part of a total national COVID-19 response that has already cost tens of billions of dollars.

    22 July 2020

    New ASIO law one more step towards a totalitarian state

    With Federal Parliament flat out dealing with the social and economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, now is hardly the right time for a government to introduce legislation giving ASIO the power to question 14-year-old children, interfere with the rights of legal advisers, and enable the tracking of individuals without the need for a warrant. But Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has no such qualms. On Wednesday he introduced the benignly titled Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020.

    Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton has introduced new laws to Parliament overhauling ASIO's questioning powers.CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN

    This proposed legislation represents a further attack on the rule of law in Australia and requires the full attention of a properly-functioning federal Parliament, not one which under current arrangements, fewer members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are attending because of social distancing requirements.
    Peter Dutton’s law would allow ASIO to seek a warrant so they can question young people between 14 and 18 if that young person is a target of an ASIO investigation into politically-motivated violence: broad criteria to say the least.
    Then there is a serious attack on the fundamental right of a person, whether they be 14 or 40, to choose their own lawyer when they are subject to investigation by ASIO. The bill allows for a prescribed authority, which is a judge or Administrative Appeals member selected by the government, to stop a person ASIO is seeking to question from contacting their lawyer if “satisfied, based on circumstances relating to the lawyer, that, if the subject is permitted to contact the lawyer, a person involved in activity prejudicial to security may be alerted that the activity is being investigated, or that a record or other thing the subject may be requested to produce might be destroyed, damaged or altered.” This power is sweeping and allows for hearsay "evidence" to be used. All ASIO would have to do is tell the judge or AAT member that they have heard from "sources" that the lawyer requested by the detainee is a security risk.

    But even if the lawyer passes muster and sits with his or her client, the ASIO officers doing the questioning can have the lawyer removed. The Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill says that can happen, “if the lawyer’s conduct is unduly disrupting questioning. This may be the case where, for example, a lawyer repeatedly interrupts questioning (other than to make reasonable requests for clarification or a break to provide advice), in a way that prevents or hinders questions being asked or answered.” So if the ASIO officers are badgering or harassing a frightened 14-year-old, or asking questions that are completely irrelevant, they have carte blanche.
    Under Dutton’s law, not only are their restrictions placed on the rights of individuals and their lawyers but there will be an “independent prescribed authority” established, a judge or member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that will pick a suitable (for which read tame) lawyer to advise the individual when they are in ASIO custody.
    As a lawyer, one hears and reads stories about colleagues in authoritarian states where such powers are given to and used by security agencies, but one never expected it in democratic Australia.
    Not only does Dutton’s bill impinge significantly on the rights of lawyers and their clients, it reduces independent scrutiny of ASIO’s surveillance activities. ASIO officers will have the power to track individuals and will only have to get the OK to do so from another ASIO officer rather than having to file paperwork for a warrant from an independent judicial officer. This approval can be oral, so long as paperwork is filed two days later. And what sort of tracking technology is allowed? Any technology ASIO “has access to” albeit with the usual toothless caveats about it being “appropriate and subject to strict accountability requirements and restrictions".
    While the new ASIO bill builds on the post 9/11 suite of laws that have vastly expanded the powers of the security state in Australia, this particular proposed law takes matters in an even more sinister direction. It deserves our legislators’ full attention, and must not be waved through the parliament as an afterthought to a coronavirus debate.
    Greg Barns is a barrister and Criminal Justice Spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance.
    Source: The Age 13 May 2020

    20 July 2020

    Mainstream media LIES on 'Idiot Aussies' face mask rules

    The Rupert Murdoch news (almost) monopoly has stated in a headline:

    "Idiot Aussies rise up against Victoria's mandatory face mask rules"

    Please note that according to a government body called the 'Department of Health and Human Services Victoria' it is stated that:

    "There will be no enforcement on the use of face masks. You will not be fined if you don’t wear one. "

    as seen in combined screen captures below:

    See reference to the document from the Department of Health and Human Services at:

    19 July 2020

    COVID mask fines unlawful!


    You can bet your 3 (yes three) constitutions (1 federal and 2 state) that the fines Victoria Police will be handing out to Victorians for not wearing masks from Thursday the 23rd day of July 2020 are ‘unlawful’.

    You can try to argue this belligerently where you will fail in doing so.

    You can try to do this under a ‘Section 78B Notice’ (from the Judiciary Act 1903) where you MUST have the ‘correct’ paperwork in order to expose the criminal actions of those involved in the judicature (i.e. in the ‘administration’ of justice).

    Remembering that in any court matter, where a fine is involved against your ‘person’ the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

    The Victorian government has a LOT to answer for with regards to putting law into circulation without the proper procedure being followed.

    IF you know where they stuffed up AND you can prove it, you have a good chance of ‘winning’ against the prosecution’s allegation of your illegal activity.

    If you are the recipient of an allegation of an infringement, we do not recommend it be paid, but rather taken to court, with a view to a class action lawsuit.

    See also:

    Source: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-masks-covid-19

    and let's not forget this: