31 December 2023

The Great Australian (post COVID-19) Rip Off!


The world has changed dramatically since 2020, where governments and corporations have lied and forced people into actions that are against medical practices, where also ‘human rights’ have been (unlawfully) thrown under a bus.

Tens of thousands of Australians have also been unlawfully issued Infringement Notices, where they have been withdrawn en masse, after a challenge in the Supreme Court in NSW meaning they were invalid to begin with, where police acted dishonestly in the first place, under dictation from the government, which has been downplayed by the mainstream media, but that is a separate and quite lengthy topic in itself.

The topic of this post is that of price gouging Australian consumers/shoppers/corporate fodder or generally anyone that participates in the ‘economy’. 

One of the government’s priorities, apart from looking after the safety of its (own) people is this behemoth called the economy.

What is good for the economy may not be good for the people.

Governments require a strong economy, meaning the serfs keeping busy spending, purchasing imported goods, leaving cash behind, using credit cards, loans to acquire goods services etc.

Those little mice need to keep the wheels of industry turning.


Restricting people from using cash is also a high priority for governments and corporations, as ‘going cashless’ is for the purpose of monitoring and collecting data for next level analytics, which also includes limiting actions/movements, e.g. you cannot get a home loan because you have too many smashed avo meals at restaurants or you eat too much junk food, where you are the author of your own health issues so medical care for certain illnesses will be denied.

Some people may call the above a ‘conspiracy theory’ but the above examples are a fact, paying specific attention that medical care has been denied for many as they have, for example, not succumbed to a trial drug forced by governments and medical practitioners without full disclosure of the ingested product.

According to the law medical care must be give to every person, without prejudice or conditions, which has not been the case in Australia.

MANY people in government should give themselves a pat on the back, as they have taken action to boost the economy significantly therefore making their bosses and the banking giants super rich, putting aside 'big pharma'.

The people in government deliberately created the ‘housing crisis’ by dumping more immigrants (also referred to a debt slaves/corporate fodder) than the general population/infrastructure can handle.

While then Premier Dan Andrews unlawfully installed a martial law type lockup of Victorians the government imported over thirty thousand Chinese nationals under the cover of darkness. 

The supply to demand ratio quickly changed where prices skyrocketed, putting many Australians into financial hardship, below the (Henderson) poverty line into the streets/tents/cars for accommodation with little to no reprieve from those who created the problem in the first place.

The government also 'punishes' you for being poor:

As with all this hopelessness, and no sign of help, in despair some have taken their lives.

Apperently road traffic fines are all about 'if it saves one life', as 'marketed' in Victoria under the 'Towards Zero' campaign, a number the authorities are fully aware will NEVER occur.

But all that does not matter, as the housing crisis action alone triggered other actions which brought in huge revenue, in the form of tax dollars for those in government, so that their pensions after their useless tenure ( to the general population) will be secured to support a life of luxury for their family members.

Building costs have (artificially) skyrocketed in the process, creating more debt for the ‘debt slaves’ to the (immense) pleasure of the banking world.

Since 2020, goods and services/’consumer’ items/’things’ have gone up anything from one hundred to  five hundred percent, with no real justifiable cause, even though the pandemic is often heard as an excuse, where (deliberately) zero intervention from the authorities that monitor this, yet the government continues to falsify the Consumer Price and Living Cost indexes, where in reality we (Australia) are in a recession.

Another couple of items high on governments agendas are to lie to the general population without transparency which the people in the Australian Government are excellent at, supported by their corrupt ‘brethren’ in the judiciary and to install a level of pain, be it financial, mental or emotional to a (well defined) level that is below the general population rioting.

Paying two to five times for ‘things’ is GREAT for the ‘economy’, but not really for you, right?

ZERO intervention on this just shows you how much the government ‘cares’ about you, the lowly serf.

So why is there a push for your alleged ‘health’ to forcibly take a trial drug

30 December 2023

Deliberate(?) failure of government re: SMS phishing (Smishing)


There are at least a couple of fundamentals the average ‘Joe’ should be aware of, that being:

1). The first job of a government is to ‘look after the safety of its people’, meaning the people in the Executive, Parliament and last but definitely not least that being the Judiciary, meaning the serfs/plebs/general population are left out of the equation.

2). The corporation aggregate commonly referred to as the 'Australian Government', being part of the Five Eyes surveillance network, obtains its residents data in real-time storing it on servers for later retrieval.

This screenshot of an SMS sent out to Australian mobile phone numbers has not been intercepted by the government as fraudulent or at risk to the vulnerable.

The ‘vulnerable’ are at the best of times targeted, neglected and often dejected by those in authority.

A vulnerable man or woman may fall into this category via mental, physical, or financial difficulties.

With regards to the SMS, a website is mentioned that has zero correlation to any mentioned topic within the message.

Keeping in mind that the government has a real-time blacklist of sites that it sees not fit for Australian internet users to access or 'consume', where any access to the site is met with a generic error that notifies the user that the sites does not exist, even though in reality it does, once one changes the DNS servers.

The fact the site mentioned in the message is not flagged and allowed to go through Australian servers is a ‘deliberate’ failure of government.

Authorities are alerted IMMEDIATELY if a message from an Australian registered mobile number like 0461380 235, contains ‘key words’ which may threaten the ‘safety’ of the government’s people, as opposed to the general population.

The government is more than capable to stamp out ALL messages that contain malicious intent / fraudulent dealings against the general population, but rather chooses not to do so.

That’s how much the government ‘cares’ about you (the ‘vulnerable’).

So why would they really care about your health, with regards to a particular global event that started 4 years ago?

27 December 2023

Telstra to move your NBN home phone to Telstra 4G – DON’T DO IT (Update)

Consumer Advice


Telstra has advised its universal service obligation (USO) customers (those on the $25-45 per month plan) that receive a landline only (not data) via NBN that it is moving their home phone to Telstra 4G.

BLOODY INCOMPETENT TELSTRA STRIKES AGAIN (UPDATE 2 APRIL)

I received another letter on 1 April (not an April Fool’s joke) after having advised Telstra on 12 March that I categorically did not want to move from NBN to 4G. I could not have made that clearer and was given a reference number. This NEW letter was a reminder that the NBN-based landline would be moved to 4G.

So I rang Telstra again, WASTING MORE TIME, and explained that I had categorically ASKED TO REMAIN ON NBN. What manner of incompetence would allow a second letter telling me that it was going to 4G? The assistant looked up the original reference number and said that it had not been actioned because the request had not been processed correctly. I was given another reference number and assured that it would be processed correctly this time. The assistant also said that they had experienced a huge response to staying on NBN, and they were weeks behind due to that.

Why am I annoyed at Telstra?

I am annoyed at Telstra because it says if you do nothing, your home landline phone will automatically swap to Telstra 4G from 18 April 2023. I am doubly annoyed at the absolute incompetence of its so-called ‘customer service’ centre.

It should state (but does not) that you will stay with NBN if you do nothing (the old opt-in, opt-out status quo argument). Frankly, it is a dirty trick as many pensioners and non-tech savvy users don’t understand the implications of this and cannot be bothered to ring 1800 621 290 or visit a Telstra store. The Telecommunications Ombudsman and ACCC have heard about that and agreed that it should have been opt-in – yet Telstra seems content to ignore best practice.



A move from NBN landline to Telstra 4G could be a disaster.

Telstra won’t tell you that there are things such as blackspots where the signal is barely a single bar or two. It won’t admit that some areas have extremely variable signal strength, and it has been unable to fix that.

It also won’t tell you that by moving to Telstra 4G, your landline will save Telstra money as it does not have to pay NBN. The revenue goes straight to Telstra’s bottom line. It is likely not subject to the same Universal Service obligations either.

And if you have emergency medical devices, alarms, Fax, EFTPOS etc., Telstra 4G won’t work.

I rang Telstra, and it was not easy. First, the support person wanted to know why I wanted to stay with the NBN Connection when Tesltra 4G was so much better. I said it was my option to remain with NBN – full stop. But they insisted on knowing, so I let them have it regarding crap Telstra signal strength; all the while, the 4G signal was dropping out, and we were both asking, “Can you hear me?”

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE YOUR LANDLINE TO TELSTRA 4G, SO DON’T DO IT. BUT YOU HAVE TO CALL THEM TO STOP THIS


NBN provides a far more reliable service with far fewer outages and issues. Even if you just use NBN for your phone, you still have a Telstra modem and can upgrade the VOICE service to VOICE and DATA should you need it. Although at that time, it would make sense to swap to a decent NBN provider like Aussie Broadband (a company that cares), which has a landline plan for $10 per month that includes unlimited national/mobile calls across Australia. That is on top of the DATA plan starting from $69/25/10Mbps per month (Telstra is $80 per month).

CyberShack Telstra news




26 December 2023

Victoria Police falsifying flight data?


Victoria Police commits criminal offences every single day, period.

The ‘problem’ there is to catch them out, where that is only just one hurdle.

The next problem is that if one (i.e. the serf) wants to take action, there are a few more hurdles to overcome.

The courts are corrupt and they’re corrupt to the core.

One then has to get past the ‘gate keeper’ of the court, you know, the one who stop matters getting into a ‘court of public record’, because that could alert the general population that something is not right, where that would be embarrassing for their bosses and the stakeholders (see post:   )

Just say the (lucky) serf gets the paperwork past the gate keeper, the matter is then put forward before a judicial registrar, magistrate or judge, where it may not even make it onto a ‘public record’, i.e. the juicy parts.

While the system is rigged, some people may have success BUT it comes at a price called an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) which is against the ‘public interest’ and should be exposed as it (the NDA) realistically has no lawful standing.

In any event it seems that Victoria Police have falsified the information of their helicopter, to look like an aeroplane, with no registration or type code.

An ‘honest’ mistake? Believe what you will.

Anyone want to bring this up with CASA?

23 December 2023

Digital ID will go mainstream across Australia in 2024. Here’s how it can work for everyone


n a world promising self-driving cars and artificial general intelligence, the prospect of a new form of digital identity verification can feel … less than exciting.

And yet digital identity is about to be unleashed in Australia and around the world. In 2024, many years before most of us experience the joy of commuting in our fully autonomous car, new forms of digital ID will profoundly change how we engage with government and business. For example, digital ID may remove the pain of handing over physical copies of your driver’s licence, passport and birth certificate when renewing your Working with Children Check or setting up a new bank account.

How can we gain the benefits of digital ID – convenience, efficiency, lower risk of cybercrime – while minimising the attendant risks, such as privacy leaks, data misuse, and reduced trust in government?

In a new paper released today by the Human Technology Institute, we propose legal and policy guardrails to improve user safeguards and build community trust for the rollout of digital ID in New South Wales. While the paper focuses on NSW, it contains ten principles to support the development of any safe, reliable and responsible digital identity system.

Across Australia, governments are kickstarting digital identity initiatives

Some forms of digital identification already operate in Australia at scale. For example, the Document Verification Service was introduced as early as 2009 to automate checking of important documents such as passports.

Last year this service was used more than 140 million times by roughly 2,700 government and private sector organisations. A limited form of facial verification technology was used well over a million times.

A key problem, however, is that Australia has not had an effective legal framework to govern even the existing digital ID system. This is starting to change.


Read more: A national digital ID scheme is being proposed. An expert weighs the pros and (many more) cons


In June this year, the federal government released a national strategy for digital identity resilience. In its final sittings for 2023, the Australian Parliament passed the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, which provides some important protections for privacy and other rights.

Also in December, the government proposed a second law, the Digital ID Bill 2023. This bill would provide rules for a major expansion of Australia’s system of digital identification.

Notwithstanding this recent flurry of activity in the federal government, NSW has long been Australia’s leading jurisdiction in this area. It announced its Digital ID program in April 2022 and has quietly worked to put in place the key elements of what could become a world-leading digital ID system, with strong community safeguards.

What is a ‘digital identity’, and what are the risks?

The technologies at the heart of digital ID are powerful and carry risks.

In particular, facial verification technology matches an individual’s face data against a recorded reference image. It may also incorporate “liveness detection”, which checks that the face to be verified belongs to a genuine individual requesting a service in real time (as opposed to a photograph, for example).

NSW’s digital identity initiative uses both these technologies.

Overall, digital identity should mean less of our personal information is collected and used by third parties. For example, when someone enters a pub and a bouncer asks for ID, the only information the bouncer needs to know is that the patron is over 18. The bouncer doesn’t need other personal information on their licence, such as their address or organ donor status.

Good design and regulation would ensure the digital ID service can verify someone’s age without disclosing other sensitive data.

On the other hand, these technologies use sensitive personal information and this brings risks when they are used to make decisions that affect people’s rights. Errors may result in an individual being denied an essential government service.

Because a digital ID system would by its nature collect sensitive personal information, it also poses risks of identity fraud or hacking of personal information.

Making digital ID safe

There must be robust safeguards in place to address these risks.

Accountable digital identity systems should be voluntary, not compulsory. They need to ensure citizens have options for choice and consent, and should be usable and accessible for everyone.

Digital ID also needs to be safe. It should protect the sensitive personal information of users and make sure this data is not used for other, unintended purposes like law enforcement.


Read more: Australia's National Digital ID is here, but the government's not talking about it


To achieve these aims, we recommend that NSW Digital ID be grounded in legislation that enshrines:

  • user protections, including providing for privacy and data security of all users

  • performance standards, ensuring that digital identity performs to a high standard of accuracy and be fit for purpose, with public reporting by the responsible government agency or department on relevant independent benchmarking and technical standards compliance

  • oversight and accountability, with both internal and external monitoring, and clear redress mechanisms

  • interoperability with other government systems.

These principles are not specific to NSW. They are relevant and transferable to other jurisdictions looking to develop digital identity systems.

Whether Australia’s digital identity transformation is a success depends on how digital identity systems are established in law and practice. It is crucial that robust governance mechanisms are in place to ensure digital identity systems are safe, secure and accountable. Only then will Australians embrace and trust the digital transformation that is afoot.


HTI’s work to develop independent expert advice outlining a governance framework and training strategy for NSW Digital ID was funded by a James Martin Institute Policy Challenge Grant. 

Source:The Conversation



21 December 2023

The Right To Silence Across Australian Jurisdictions

The right to silence is not protected by the Australian Constitution, unlike in the United States where is is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to that nation’s constitution and reflected in what are commonly known as ‘Miranda rights’, also known as the right against self-incrimination.

Rather, protections against a person’s silence being used against them in criminal proceedings have developed in Westminster (British) common law – which is law developed by the courts over many years.

Here’s a general outline of the current protections in states and territories across Australia, as contained in laws and crystalised in formal cautions given by the police.

What is the right to silence?

In short, the right to silence in Australia is derived from various common law principles including the presumption of innocence, the burdens and standards of proof in a criminal trial and the privilege against self-incrimination.

The right to silence means that no adverse inference should be drawn from a defendant’s failure to answer police questions during interview or to present evidence at trial. An ‘adverse inference’ is any kind of assumption or conclusion that a person is more likely to be guilty.

The principle means that, other than their name and address, a charged criminal defendant is not required to provide any information to police (subject to some limitations), and their failure to answer police questions cannot be used against them at trial.

One common limitation to the right to silence in Australia is an exception in circumstances of partial silence. This means that a defendant cannot invoke their right to silence if, during a police interview, they answer some questions but not others. In those circumstances, an adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that they have partially responded to police inquiries.

Generally, it’s best to not provide any response during a police interview, other than providing your name and address – an approach called a “no comment interview”.

Although the right to silence exists under common law and therefore across Australia, it has also been codified (or legislated) in each State and Territory. Some of these provisions are identical (as they are part of uniform evidence law) whilst others have their own distinct wording.

The right to silence in New South Wales

The right to silence in NSW is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) which provides that:

(1) Subject to section 89A, in a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused–

(a) to answer one or more questions, or

(b) to respond to a representation,

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2) Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4) In this section–

“inference” includes–

(a) an inference of consciousness of guilt, or

(b) an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

 This right is severely limited by the operation of section 89A of the Evidence Act which has curtailed the right to silence in certain situations.

A full explanation of the right to silence in New South Wales and its dilution since 1 September 2013 following the enactment of section 89A, as well as situations where the right does not apply at all and witnesses can be compelled to give evidence is contained in this article.


The right to silence under Federal law

The right to silence under Federal law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), which states:

1)  In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused:

(a)  to answer one or more questions; or

(b)  to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)  Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3)  Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)  In this section:

“inference” includes:

(a)  an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b)  an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in Victoria

The right to silence under Victorian law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Vic), which  states:

1)  In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused:

(a)  to answer one or more questions; or

(b)  to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)  Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3)  Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)  In this section:

“inference” includes:

(a)  an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b)  an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in Queensland

The right to silence under Queensland law is outlined under section 397 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 (Qld), which states:

Nothing in this chapter affects the right of a person to refuse to answer questions, unless required to answer the questions by or under an Act.

This preserves the common law right to silence in Queensland.

The right to silence in the Australian Capital Territory

The right to silence under ACT law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), which states:

(1)     In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or someone else failed:

(a)     to answer 1 or more questions; or

(b)     to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at the time was exercising functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)     Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw an inference mentioned in subsection (1).

(3)     Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)     In this section:

“inference” includes the following:

(a)     an inference of consciousness of guilt;

(b)     an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in Tasmania

The right to silence under Tasmanian law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), which  states:

1)  In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused:

(a)  to answer one or more questions; or

(b)  to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)  Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3)  Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)  In this section:

“inference” includes:

(a)  an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b)  an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in the Northern Territory

The right to silence under Northern Territory law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 2011 (NT), which  states:

1)  In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused:

(a)  to answer one or more questions; or

(b)  to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)  Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3)  Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)  In this section:

“inference” includes:

(a)  an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b)  an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in South Australia

The right to silence under South Australian law is outlined under section 18(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), which  states:

the failure of any person charged with an offence to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution.

The right to silence in Western Australia

The right to silence under Western Australian law is outlined under section 8(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), which  states:

the failure of any person charged with an offence to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution.

Source: Sydney Criminal Lawyers

17 December 2023

Victoria Police – template letter of empty threats (Enforcement warrants and seven-day notices)


Enforcement warrants and seven-day notices.

"DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER" or rather should it be ‘IGNORE THIS LETTER’?

Some citizens or rather ‘sovereign citizens’ or the 'free man’ on the land may interpret this letter as an offer to contract, but the reality is quite different.

You’ve already ‘contracted’ with your friendly police force, hence you are the proud recipient of this letter.

In this letter Victoria Police claim that there is in ‘outstanding’ (as in spectacular?) warrant to arrest.

They then state that if you do not respond within 7 days (where 14, is normally acceptable, and 28 can also be used), the police will ‘assume’ that you are avoiding them.

What about if you’re on holidays locally, interstate or overseas? What about if your work has taken you away from home for a month? What about if you’ve landed in hospital had an operation or three, and have gone into rehabilitation for a couple of months?

This is clearly an oppressive ‘penal colony policy’ by those in government.

First and foremost, you are 'guilty' of whatever they conjure up, oh, that's strict liability and absolute liability. See post: The difference between Absolute and Strict Liability

Victoria Police then lists 5 actions where you will be punished as a result of not showing up within 7 days.

1). Victoria Police will then inform 'Social Security' a federal jurisdiction, that you are ‘Unlawfully at Liberty’, an illegal action by VicPol.

2). Victoria Police states that they will Break, Enter and Search ANY PLACE where you are suspected to be, INCLUDING your place of employment. Well, they better be sure that every ‘i’ is dotted and ‘t’ is crossed, where the so called warrant is stamped and signed by the relative issuing authority, where you could also obtain the affidavit for this action if the need arises.

3). Victoria Police also states that they will release your photo to media outlets, where not only this is a breach of your privacy, but also could result in a lawsuit for defamation, which they don't care as it's the tax payers that are paying, if the lawsuit becomes successful and not the actioning police person. 

4). Victoria Police states that any motor vehicle that is registered in your name may be subject to police ‘scrutiny’, define scrutiny, as in roadworthy?

5). Victoria Police also states that if there are any ‘outstanding’ fines with the Sheriff’s Office, Victoria Police ‘may’ contact the Sheriff’s Office to request you Driver’s Licence to be suspended.

This therefore indicates that the (lawfully appointed) Sheriff or the lawfully appointed Sheriff’s officer, persons that are subject to the Supreme Court of Victoria, will act under the dictation of Victoria Police, an unlawful action.

The person that was mentioned in this letter, did not attend the police station, where after 7 days and later on 3 years the above five threats did not occur.

Why?

Because Victoria Police never possessed any lawfully issued warrant.

NOTE:

Familiarise yourself with your state's Bench Warrant, which must be signed, stamped and dated in order for it to be valid.

13 December 2023

FOI - Primary VISA Grants (186 & 482) Sponsors 2017-2020


Australia importing trash/low quality migrants/corporate slaves, under whatever pretext they can.

See which companies support this action in the 70 page document:



10 December 2023

Every Victorian must work for at least 5 of the 12 months to pay taxes only

Why? Dan Andrews introduced the following taxes to recovery the debt of his (deliberate) 'mismanagement':


1. A New Stamp Duty On Property Transfers Between Spouses (2017-18)
2. An Increased Motor Vehicle Duty On New Cars (2017-18)
3.A New Stamp Duty On Off-The-Plan Purchasers (2017-18)
4. A New So-Called 'Vacant Home Tax (2017-18)
5. Widening Of Vacant Residential Land Tax To Uninhabitable Properties (2019-20)
6. Retrospective Increase In Insurance Duty For Overseas-Based Insurers (2019-20) 7. A New Annual Property Valuation To Increase Land Tax
8. Cladding Rectification Tax (2019/20) 9. Environment Mitigation Levy
10. Increased Luxury Car Tax (2019-20)
11. Increased Land Tax For Homes With Contiguous Blocks On A Separate Title (2019-20) 12. Increased Fire Services Property Levy (2015-16)
13. Increased Fire Services Property Levy (2019-20) 14 A New Point Of Consumption Gambling Tax
15. A Tripling Of Brown Coal Royalties (2016-17) 16. Gold Mining Royalties (2019-20)
17. A New Tax On Uber And Taxi Fares. (2016-17 Update)
18. A New Corporate Restructure Duty (2019-20) 19.Increased Foreign Stamp Duty (2019-20)
20.Increased Foreign Stamp Duty (2016-17)
21 Introduced Foreign Stamp Duty (2015-16)
22. Increased Absentee Landowner Surcharge
For Foreigner Property (2019-20)
23.Increased Absentee Landowner Surcharge For Foreigner Property (2016-17) 24.Increased Absentee Landowner Surcharge For Foreigner Property (2015-16)
25.A New City Access Tax For West Gate Tunnel
26. A New 'On-Dock Rail' Charge On Imported Shipping Containers
27.Increase To The Municipal And Industrial Landfill Levy ('Bin Tax')
28. Road Occupation Charge On Construction Companies
29. Number Plate Tax
30.Electric Vehicle Tax
31. A New Affordable Housing Tax (Windfall Gain Tax On Rezoned Land)
32. Increased Land Tax On Taxable Landholdings Above $1.8 Million
33.Increased Stamp Duty On Property Transactions
34.Expanded Point Of Consumption Tax On Gambling To Keno
35.10 Per Cent Increase To Victorian Government Penalty Units
36.Expanded Land Tax On Gender-Exclusive Clubs
37.Mental Health Payroll Tax Surcharge 38. Increased Wagering And Betting Tax (2021-2022)
39.Increased Fire Services Property Levy (2021-22)
40.50 Per Cent Increase To Births, Deaths And Marriages Fees
41.Proposed Levy On Employers To Fund 5 Days Sick Leave For Casual Employees - Initially A Government-Funded Trial To Be Followed Up With A New Tax After 2 Years
42. Narrowing The Land Tax Exemption For Charitable Institutions By Harshly Insisting That Charitable Institutions "Exclusively" Use Their Land For Charitable Purposes, Otherwise Triggering A Full Land Tax Charge On The Entire Landholding.
43.Increase To The WorkCover Average Premium Rate
44. Increased Payroll Tax On Businesses (Jobs Tax) 45.Increased Land Tax On Landholdings Above $300,000
46.Land Tax On Landholdings Between $50,000 To $300,000 (Rent Tax)
47.Increased Absentee Landowner Surcharge
48. Increased Wagering And Betting Tax (2023-24) 49.Payroll Tax On Independent Schools (Schools Tax)
50.Holiday & Tourism Tax"
Source:supplied

07 December 2023

Newly discovered Bluetooth security flaws reveals all devices launched after 2014 can be hacked

The recently discovered security flaws affect devices like laptops, PCs, smartphone and other with Bluetooth 4.2 or newer versions.


The security flaw affects Apple AirDrop as well. (Image Source: Pixabay)

Security researchers at Eurecom have discovered new Bluetooth security flaws that allow hackers to impersonate devices and perform man-in-the-middle attacks.

The six new attacks – named ‘BLUFFS’ were discovered by Daniele Antonioli and make use of 2 undiscovered exploits in the Bluetooth architecture that can be used to decrypt the content of files when users are sending data using the technology. Cybersecurity experts say that the flaws are not limited to a particular hardware or software configuration but affects Bluetooth at an architectural level.

A report by Bleeping Computer suggests that the vulnerabilities impact all devices with Bluetooth 4.2, which was released in late 2014 and also affects Bluetooth 5.4, which was unveiled earlier this year. Apple’s AirDrop feature is also vulnerable since it uses Bluetooth to transfer files between devices.

This means all devices with Bluetooth including laptops, PCs, smartphones, tablets and others are affected by the problem. The research paper states that all Bluetooth-enabled devices are susceptible to at least 3 out of 6 BLUFFS attacks.

What can I do to protect myself?

Since the Bluetooth exploits work at an architectural level, users can do nothing at the moment to fix the vulnerabilities. Instead, the solution requires device manufacturers to make changes to the security mechanisms used by the technology and reject the low-security authentication methods used by older devices. However, it is still unclear if some sort of patches can be released for existing devices.

Currently, the best way to protect yourself against the newly found Bluetooth security flaws is to turn off Bluetooth as soon as you are done using it, but this might be inconvenient for the majority of users. Another precaution users can take is to prevent sharing sensitive files and images via Bluetooth in a public place.

First published on: 30-11-2023 at 11:58 IST 

06 December 2023

Aussies scammed by their telcos to update their phone


There is a new scam going around, not from an Indian call centre (surprise, surprise), where this time it is by one of the ‘Big Three’ Australian telecommunications carriers, that being Telstra, Optus or Vodafone

Sales staff within the telco are telling their customers that their phone is not a 4G (or LTE) one, where the customer must update it to a new one or the service will be cut off.

They are saying this to people who have a few years old flagship Samsung or other branded smartphones, even the U.S’s favourite that being Huawei.

In verbal conversations, they are convincing the user that the phone being used is not a 4G one, where they must update to a new model if they want their service to continue.

For example Samsung’s Galaxy S series smartphone is its flagship model, where in Australia 4G / LTE was rolled out in 2011/2012, coinciding with that brand’s first Galaxy 'S' model.

In the Apple ecosphere, the iPhone 5 was Apple’s first 4G capable smartphone.

To see if your smartphone or even newish flip phone has been communicating on 4G frequencies,  a good resource is gsmarena.com.

If you have been ‘forced’ or lied to or enticed in order to update your existing smartphone to a ‘new’ 4G one, then legal advice should be sought, including communications with the TIO (Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman).

05 December 2023

‘No science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels


Exclusive: UAE’s Sultan Al Jaber says phase-out of coal, oil and gas would take world ‘back into caves’

Sultan Al Jaber: ‘There is no science out there that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.’ Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

The president of Cop28, Sultan Al Jaber, has claimed there is “no science” indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global heating to 1.5C, the Guardian and the Centre for Climate Reporting can reveal.

Al Jaber also said a phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”.

The comments were “incredibly concerning” and “verging on climate denial”, scientists said, and they were at odds with the position of the UN secretary general, António Guterres.

Al Jaber made the comments in ill-tempered responses to questions from Mary Robinson, the chair of the Elders group and a former UN special envoy for climate change, during a live online event on 21 November. As well as running Cop28 in Dubai, Al Jaber is also the chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company, Adnoc, which many observers see as a serious conflict of interest.

Cop28 president refuses to commit to phasing out fossil fuels – video

More than 100 countries already support a phase-out of fossil fuels and whether the final Cop28 agreement calls for this or uses weaker language such as “phase-down” is one of the most fiercely fought issues at the summit and may be the key determinant of its success. Deep and rapid cuts are needed to bring fossil fuel emissions to zero and limit fast-worsening climate impacts.

Al Jaber spoke with Robinson at a She Changes Climate event. Robinson said: “We’re in an absolute crisis that is hurting women and children more than anyone … and it’s because we have not yet committed to phasing out fossil fuel. That is the one decision that Cop28 can take and in many ways, because you’re head of Adnoc, you could actually take it with more credibility.”

Al Jaber said: “I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”

Robinson challenged him further, saying: “I read that your company is investing in a lot more fossil fuel in the future.” Al Jaber responded: “You’re reading your own media, which is biased and wrong. I am telling you I am the man in charge.”

Al Jaber then said: “Please help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”

“I don’t think [you] will be able to help solve the climate problem by pointing fingers or contributing to the polarisation and the divide that is already happening in the world. Show me the solutions. Stop the pointing of fingers. Stop it,” Al Jaber said.

Guterres told Cop28 delegates on Friday: “The science is clear: The 1.5C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce, not abate. Phase out, with a clear timeframe.”

Bill Hare, the chief executive of Climate Analytics, said: “This is an extraordinary, revealing, worrying and belligerent exchange. ‘Sending us back to caves’ is the oldest of fossil fuel industry tropes: it’s verging on climate denial.”

“Al Jaber is asking for a 1.5C roadmap – anyone who cares can find that in the International Energy Agency’s latest net zero emissions scenario, which says there cannot be any new fossil fuel development. The science is absolutely clear [and] that absolutely means a phase-out by mid-century, which will enhance the lives of all of humanity.”

Prof Sir David King, the chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group and a former UK chief scientific adviser, said: “It is incredibly concerning and surprising to hear the Cop28 president defend the use of fossil fuels. It is undeniable that to limit global warming to 1.5C we must all rapidly reduce carbon emissions and phase-out the use of fossil fuels by 2035 at the latest. The alternative is an unmanageable future for humanity.”

Dr Friederike Otto, of Imperial College London, UK, said: “The science of climate change has been clear for decades: we need to stop burning fossil fuels. A failure to phase out fossil fuels at Cop28 will put several millions more vulnerable people in the firing line of climate change. This would be a terrible legacy for Cop28.”

Otto also rejected the claim that fossil fuels were necessary for development in poorer countries, saying that the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “shows that the UN’s sustainable development goals are not achievable by continuing the current fossil-driven high emission economies. [There are] massive co-benefits that come with changing to a fossil-free world”.

A spokesperson for Cop28 said: “The IEA and IPCC 1.5C scenarios clearly state that fossil fuels will have to play a role in the future energy system, albeit a smaller one. The Cop president was quoting the science, and leading climate experts.

“He has clearly said that the oil and gas industry must tackle scope 1 and 2 emissions [from their operations], must invest in clean energy and clean technologies to address scope 3 emissions [from burning fuels], and that all industry must align around keeping the north star of 1.5C within reach.

“Once again, this is clearly part of a continued effort to undermine the Cop presidency’s tangible achievements and a misrepresentation of our position and successes to date.”

The spokesperson said the presidency had operationalised the loss and damage fund with more than $700m, launched a $30bn private market climate vehicle, and brought 51 oil companies to agree decarbonisation targets and 119 countries to sign a pledge to triple renewable energy. “This is just the beginning,” the spokesperson said.

Al Jaber is also head of Masdar, the UAE’s renewable energy company, but his appointment as Cop28 president has been controversial. Shortly before the summit, leaked documents showed that the UAE had planned to use climate meetings with governments to promote oil and gas deals. Al Jaber denied having seen or used the talking points in the documents. Adnoc also has the largest net-zero-busting expansion plans for oil and gas, according to independent analysis.

The issue of a phase-out or phase-down is complicated by the terms not having agreed definitions and by the highly uncertain role of technologies to “abate” emissions, such as carbon capture and storage. “Keeping the Paris agreement targets alive will require a full fossil fuel phase-out, not a vague phase-down relying on unproven technologies,” said Otto.

More than 100 African, European, Pacific and Caribbean countries back a phase-out of unabated fossil fuels. The US, the world’s biggest oil and gas producer, also backs a phase-out. Others, such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and China, reject the call. Both options are on the table at Cop28, as well as proposals to only mention coal, or to not say anything at all about fossil fuels.

Cop26 in Glasgow in 2021 agreed for the first time to “phase down” coal use, but this had been watered down from “phase out” at the last minute, bringing the Cop26 president, Alok Sharma, to tears.

In his conversation with Robinson, Al Jaber also said: “A phase-down and a phase-out of fossil fuel in my view is inevitable. That is essential. But we need to be real serious and pragmatic about it.”

“Hold on. Let me just explain,” he said. “The world will continue to need energy sources. We [UAE] are the only ones in the world today that have been decarbonising the oil and gas resources. We have the lowest carbon intensity.”

This refers to the emissions from the energy used to extract fossil fuels, not the far larger emissions from burning the fuels. “There is no such thing as ‘low carbon’ or ‘lower carbon’ oil and gas,” said Otto.

Numerous commentators have said that negative or embarrassing revelations about Al Jaber and Adnoc increase the pressure on him to deliver a strong Cop28 deal. The Guardian reported recently that state-run UAE oil and gas fields had been flaring gas almost daily despite having committed 20 years ago to a policy of zero routine flaring.

The Guardian previously reported that Adnoc had been able to read emails to and from the Cop28 office until the Guardian raised the issue in June and that the UAE had also failed to report its oil industry’s emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane.

Harjeet Singh, at Climate Action Network, said: “Cop28 must deliver a decision on phasing out fossil fuels in a just and equitable manner, without any loopholes or escape routes for the industry to continue expanding and exacerbating the climate crisis.”

Cop28: Can fossil fuel companies transition to clean energy?
On Tuesday 5 December, 8pm-9.15pm GMT, join Damian Carrington, Christiana Figueres, Tessa Khan and Mike Coffin for a livestreamed discussion on whether fossil fuel companies can transition to clean energy. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live

01 December 2023

SCAM ALERT: Registry Australia (Pty Ltd) Domain Name Hijacking FRAUD

This 'internet scam' that is delivered via Australia Post, and it's a scam, or a hijacking of your Domain Name Registration.

This type of scam has been going on for over 20 years where the authorities have done nothing to shut this scam down.


This scam is aimed at the larger corporations, whose accountants 'just pay the bills' presented before them.

Sure if you factually read this so called bill 'like' piece of paper, it does state that it is not a renewal notice or bill, but its sheer existence falls under unconscionable conduct, no?

A domain name registration can cost you $20, where they'll hijack yours for nearly 5 times as much.

See other registrations by 'Registry Australia':


Surely this cannot be an 'honest' business?

Anyone care to take them to court over unconscionable / deceptive conduct?

28 November 2023

Does Signal give your private & confidential conversations upon a court subpoena?

The scenario is as follows;

You’ve decided to use the messaging app called Signal in order for more private conversations with friends and family and the occasional group chatting about the New World Order, Bilderberg meetings and Zionist control over the world.


So, the only details the app acquires is the phone number you are using, where then you can put a username that you identify as for the day (e.g. Chief BigLongHorne) or entirety of the app.

For some reason (maybe) your conversation is noticed by a government plant, within the group, where as a result Signal Messenger LLC is served with a subpoena.

AS stated above only two forms of identification exist, where both may not be factually belonging to your ‘person’ or you (which are two different entities)

Governments are notorious for not housing the brightest sparks in the business, where most are just brainless order followers.

The example below is a classic case, where the FBI agent, whose name has been redacted, has less cranial matter than the below average human, as seen by his list of demands, for ‘items’ that do not exist within Signal.


See original 12 page subpoena within the Central District of California:


See the 3 page response given by Signal Messenger, LLC:



See explanation by Mental Outlaw:


SSSniperWolf: A Liar, Internet Trash, Google’s supported Cash Cow


Over the past few weeks the internet or more accurately the platform YouTube, has been ablaze with regards to trash content creator Alia ‘Lia’ Shelesh better known as SSSniperwolf and more importantly Google's reaction to a very big no-no of doxing. 

Taking online content and running with it offline is a violation of Ts&Cs, yet Google’s reaction was pitiful and basically a slap on the wrists for one of its biggest cash cows.

If  a male would have done this to a female, then all sorts of accusations would fly where a lawsuit would surely follow, in the most litigious nation on the planet. 

In one of her videos, Lia (or is it Liar?) states that you just cannot take someone’s content and re-upload it and monetise it, yet that is the entire purpose of her channel.

Just another trash content creator called out for what she’s being doing and more.

If you're interested in this topic, see more:

SSSniperWolf: A Complete History of Lies

YouTube Is Protecting SSSniperwolf...


Decline of Youtube - blocked vids, fake reviews, shadow bans, clickbait, hidden dislikes etc


What SssniperWolf Has Done Endangers Us All


YouTube's Terrible Response...


The Satisfying Downfall of SSSniperWolf


SSSniperwolf stole her life


SSSniperwolf Illegally Doxxed Jacksfilms?


The END of SSSniperWolf : She Has ALWAYS Been This Way… It Gets Worse in the Downfall

The Fall of SssniperWolf: YouTube's worst Creator


The problem is not the content creators but rather the people that subscribe to this trash

26 November 2023

Microsoft may replace the Start button with the Copilot AI in Windows 12


Windows 12 could see a substantial system redesign in order to include a more AI-centric user experience. The start button could thus be replaced with Copilot AI, which is already available as a preview version in the latest Windows 11 update.

The next major version for the Windows operating system is expected to launch sometime in 2024, and Microsoft has been dropping hints on possible new features since late last year. AI is most likely going to get a bigger focus, since Microsoft is already collaborating with OpenAI on the Copilot feature, but we could see some design changes that revolve around AI-based interactions, as well. This was suggested by MS CEO Satya Nadella during the Snapdragon X Elite presentation on october 24.

As the entire computing industry is shifting focus to support an ever increasing number of AI-powered features, Microsoft too intends to be on the forefront of the AI movement starting with extensive software support integrated right in its hero product. The latest Windows 11 version already supports a preview for Copilot AI, but, given the beta state of the feature, this is still somewhat sluggish. With better hardware support coming on processors like Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Elite or AMD’s Hawk point, the AI interactions on Windows 12 should feel much smoother. However, Nadella mentioned that this will require “a new system architecture.”

Furthermore, according to Nadella, the upcoming OS could change the entire user experience, with Copilot somehow replacing the Start button. “The Copilot is like the Start button,” Nadella explains. “It becomes the orchestrator of all your app experiences. So for example, I just go there and express my intent and it either navigates me to an application or it brings the application to the Copilot, so it helps me learn, query and create — and completely changes, I think, the user habits.”

Right now, Copilot can launch most of the integrated applications on its own, yet it cannot access the file explorer and perform related tasks. Hopefully, Microsoft can expand the AI functions, especially the vocal commands, to support even more interactions in Windows 12.

Source:NotebookCheck.

If you value your privacy, then Microsoft products should not be loaded onto you computer.