The English Banking System - National Monetary Commission - 1910

See document:

Farmer Wants a Wife OH&S breach gagged by NDA

'Reality' shows are a farce!

They are nothing more than producers' wet dream to get 'contestants' (read guinea pigs, lab rats, 'social experiment' participants) to get them to do whatever they want and keep their mouths shut under corporate law called an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement), which we believe has no lawful legs to stand on, but that's another topic altogether, especially when it comes to breaking the law.

With specific reference to the 2022 production of Farmer Wants A Wife within Victoria we have obtained information from a source that wishes to remain unnamed, for obvious reasons.

While that person may be labelled as a 'whistle blower' that person will NOT be protected under any Whistle Blowing Act of 1984 (by Eric Arthur Blair).

Contestants are told what to say.

They are told what to do and how to act, and if they don't they quite simply won't get paid in the case of FWAW 40% after taping and and the remaining 60% when the show is aired, remembering that they cannot 'squeal' to anyone because they 'voluntarily' signed a (lawful?) contract.

The poor struggling to find a hubby single women MUST purchase their own wardrobe as defined by the producers.

Also, the words that you see in the final product (i.e. on the television) are not the constant's own, but rather carefully scripted ones by the producers.

During taping if they do not get it right, they must repeat them until they do, exactly how the producers want.

So what you see is not the real reactions of the people but rather carefully scripted responses and action/events conjured up by the producers.

Now, here comes the fun part.

The producers abused the women in such a manner that for a lengthy period of time they had to walk an incredible amount of hours in the heat, without water or even a toilet break where as a result one woman fainted.

Once again no one can say anything because if that episode does not air they will not get paid the remaining 60%, and besides they are apparently 'legally' bound by a NDA.

Brilliant way to shut people up, remembering that she 'could' have died as a result of this negligence.

You are being conned by the farce called reality TV and by viewing it you're 'feeding' the scum that deceives you.

Phone number spoofing

Don’t panic if you get a spam text from your own number

If you have received a spam text message from your own number, you are not alone. As The Verge reported, at the moment, there is a scam campaign going on in which scammers are sending spoof messages to people. You should know that your phone number hasn't been stolen, and you haven't been hacked. Scammers can make it appear as if these messages are coming from customers' own phone numbers, but they are not.

It looks like Verizon customers are the most affected by the spoof message campaign, but customers of other carriers have received such spoof messages as well. The scam text often says that you have paid your bill and offers a free gift.

The message includes a link through which you can supposedly redeem your gift card. It's a good idea not to tap on the link inside. If you tap on it, you risk compromising your phone. Users who have tapped on the link inside the spoof message have been redirected to a Russian website.

What to do in the case of receiving a spoofing message

If you receive a scam message on your phone, it's advisable to forward the spam text to number 7726, no matter which carrier you are using. This will directly send the message to your carrier's spam defense team.

Another thing you can do is file a complaint with the FCC. When you begin filing the complaint in the "Phone Issues" category, choose the "Unwanted Calls/Messages (including do not call and spoofing)" option. Then, choose the sub-issue "my own number is being spoofed," and continue filing the complaint.

Source: phonearena.com

Scott Morrison not sworn in correctly as Prime Minister

According to the PM’s website Scott Morrison was allegedly sworn in to office on the 24^th day of August 2018, as the 30^th Prime Minister of Australia.

So, what is this ‘oath’ or affirmation, and where is it described?

Australia’s founding legal document, the Constitution is the place where one can find the oath or affirmation.

The transcription of the above is as follows:

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

SO HELP ME GOD !

AFFIRMATION.

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

(NOTE.—The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)

[ Signature 1] [Edward. H. Alderson]

[Reading Clerk]s

Who was Australia’s first Prime Minister and what was his oath?

After federation, Sir Edmund Barton was the first Prime Minister of the “Commonwealth of Australia”.

The oath that he took, transcribes to the following:

“I Edmund Barton, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria Her Heirs and Successors according to law?

This is in line with the words from the Constitution.

How is a Prime Minister appointed?

The prime minister of Australia is appointed by the governor-general of Australia under Section 64 of the Australian Constitution,  which means the oath/affirmation must be taken from the last section of the Constitution, that being the Schedule.

What lawfully enacted instrument allows for the change of the oath or affirmation into office?

Since the current so called Prime Minister’s oath does not align with the Constitution, in which lawfully enacted document are the words written with regards to what he stated?

See video:

The words that he said were as follows:

“I Scott John Morrison, do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia, in the office of the Prime Minister and I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, so help me God”.

They are not the words required as per the Constitution, period.

If ‘you’ (the serf) do not state the correct oath/affirmation in court, you cannot proceed with the information you desire to present, your words/testimony/actions cannot be taken into consideration.

It was also revealed that in Tasmania the judiciary’s oath of office was incorrect for 30 years, therefore at law, their orders had no lawful standing, but the effected people did not seek to obtain a remedy from this fraudulent action.

Mr. Scott John Morrison has no lawful standing as Prime Minister of Australia.

The ‘journalists’ have not brought this to the attention of the general population, where even so called ‘constitutional experts’ are silent on this.

What a pathetic farce this colony Australia really is!

P.S. “Queen of Australia”?

What lawfully enacted instrument allows for the creation of such an entity?

How Thieves Can Hack and Disable Your Home Alarm System

When it comes to the security of the Internet of Things, a lot of the attention has focused on the dangers of the connected toaster, fridge and thermostat. But a more insidious security threat lies with devices that aren’t even on the internet: wireless home alarms. Two researchers say that top-selling home alarm setups can […]

When it comes to the security of the Internet of Things, a lot of the attention has focused on the dangers of the connected toaster, fridge and thermostat. But a more insidious security threat lies with devices that aren't even on the internet: wireless home alarms.

Two researchers say that top-selling home alarm setups can be easily subverted to either suppress the alarms or create multiple false alarms that would render them unreliable. False alarms could be set off using a simple tool from up to 250 yards away, though disabling the alarm would require closer proximity of about 10 feet from the home.

"An attacker can walk up to a front door and suppress the alarm as they open the door, do whatever they want within the home and then exfiltrate, and it’s like they were never there," says Logan Lamb, a security researcher at the Oak Ridge National Lab, who conducted his work independent of the government.

Lamb looked at three top brands of home alarm systems made by ADT, Vivint and a third company that asked that their name not be identified. The Vivint system uses equipment manufactured by 2Gig, which supplies its equipment to more than 4,000 distributors.

Separately, Silvio Cesare, who works for Qualys, also looked, independent of his job, at more than half a dozen popular systems used in Australia, where he lives, including ones made by Swann, an Australian firm that also sells its systems in the U.S.

No matter what the brand or where they're sold, the two researchers found identical problems: All the wireless alarm systems they examined rely on radio frequency signals sent between door and window sensors to a control system that triggers an alarm when any of these entryways are breached. The signals deploy any time a tagged window or door is opened, whether or not the alarm is enabled. But when enabled, the system will trip the alarm and also send a silent alert to the monitoring company, which contacts the occupants and/or the police. But the researchers found that the systems fail to encrypt or authenticate the signals being sent from sensors to control panels, making it easy for someone to intercept the data, decipher the commands, and play them back to control panels at will.

"All of the systems use different hardware but they are effectively the same," Lamb says. "[They're] still using these wireless communications from the mid-90s for the actual security."

The signals can also be jammed to prevent them from tipping an alarm by sending radio noise to prevent the signal from getting through from sensors to the control panel.

"Jamming the intra-home communications suppresses alarms to both the occupants and the monitoring company," Lamb says.

Although some alarms use anti-jamming counter measures to prevent someone from blocking signals from sensors to control panels---if they detect a jamming technique, they issue an audible alarm to the occupant and send an automatic transmission to the monitoring company---but Lamb says there are techniques to beat the countermeasures as well, which he'll discuss at his talk.

One of the Australian products that Cesare examined had an additional vulnerability: Not only was he able to intercept unencrypted signals, he could also discover the stored password on the devices---the password a homeowner would use to arm and disarm the whole setup.

The two researchers plan to present their findings separately next month at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas. Lamb will also present his research at theDef Con hacker conference. The researchers both focused on home-alarm systems, rather than commercial-grade models used to secure businesses.

The two researchers each used a software-defined radio to intercept and replay communications. Lamb used a USRP N210, which costs about $1,700. For a serious home-burglary ring, this would be a small investment. Lamb says he was able to do a replay attack---copying signals and sending them back to the system to trigger false alarms---from 250 yards away using this device without a direct line of sight to the sensors. Software-defined radios are controlled with software and can be tweaked to monitor different frequencies. With minimal changes to the code in his SDR, Lamb was able to "have my way in all the systems."

But he could also use an RTL-SDR---a device that costs about $10 from Amazon to monitor signals. These devices don't transmit signals, so an attacker wouldn't be able to disable the alarm system. But he could monitor the signals from up to 65 feet away. Because the transmissions contain a unique identifier for each monitored device and event, an attacker could identify when a window or door in a house was opened by an occupant and possibly use it to identify where victims are in the house---for example, when occupants close a bedroom door for the night, indicating they've gone to bed.

"So as people go about their days in their homes, these packets are being broadcast everywhere," he says. "And since they’re unencrypted, adversaries can just sit around and listen in. Suppose you have a small [monitoring] device to chuck in a [rain] gutter. With minimal effort you could tell when someone leaves the house ... and establish habits. I think there’s some value there and some privacy concerns."

Cesare found that some systems used a remote that let homeowner to arm and disarm their alarms without entering a password on a control panel. This data is transmitted in the clear, also via radio frequency, and can be monitored. He found that most of the systems he examined used only a single code. "I captured the codes that were being sent and replayed them and defeated the security of these systems," he says. Cesare notes that the systems could be made more secure by using rolling codes that change, instead of fixed ones, but the manufacturers chose the easier method to implement with their hardware, at the expense of security.

Cesare was also able to physically capture stored passwords a system made by Swann. All he had to do was attach a microcontroller programmer to read data off the EEPROM. Although he says the firmware was protected, preventing him from reading it, the password was exposed, offering another attack vector to disable the alarm.

Cesare points out that commercial-grade systems are likely more secure than the home systems they examined. "In the home-alarm product, there is an expectation that you're not going to have as strong security as a commercial-grade system," he says. But customers still expect at least basic security. As Lamb and Cesare show, that's debatable.

Source: wired.com