17 June 2023

Police & FOI Work Together to Block Citizens’ Access to Their Own Data


It has been reported that the Queensland Freedom of Information Office (QFOI) and the State’s Police Force (QPS) are working together to prevent citizens from accessing their own personal data.

Restricting access to information

The Queensland Police Records and Information Management Exchange (QPrime) database stores a range of personal information about Queensland residents.

Officers from the QPS and QFOI sat down for a meeting last year to discuss the ‘nature or the breadth of the applications that were being received and the consequences of the breath of those…’.

The government agencies say they ‘identified there were much broader public policy implications to be considered in terms of what documents get released’, before agreeing that citizens should be block from accessing information about themselves on the database.

Right to access personal data

Privacy advocates has slammed the ‘behind closed doors’ meeting as well as the decision of the agencies to ‘quietly agree’ not to release the data.

They point out that in a democracy, it is fundamental for citizens to have access to personal data held by government agencies in order to make the state accountable for misconduct and help safeguard against abuses of power.

They are concerned by the fact the meeting and its resolution occurred in the absence of consultation with other organisations or agencies, making it appear the QPS and QFOI are ‘in cahoots’ with denying citizens important rights to information that is being held about them – information that can expose illegal monitoring and investigations, among other things.

President of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Justice Martin Daubney, has launched a scathing criticism of the conduct, stating:

‘It’s starting to sound awfully like the police and the [QFOI] sat down behind closed doors to set matters of policy… Can you just sit back and think about how this looks? If it were to be the subject of discussion, I don’t know, on the front page of a metropolitan daily, you know, how would that look?

“There’s this old-fashioned thing called the rules of natural justice and giving people the opportunity to be heard.”

Access to information

Queensland privacy laws currently require government agencies that hold personal information to grant individuals access.

One of the reasons for this rule is that people should be allowed to check and review their own information, and request that it be changed. There are limited exceptions to this rule, including where it is against the “public interest”.

Since 2016, the QPS has been routinely refusing access on this ground.

If police refuse to release information, the next step is to apply for access to access through the QFOI – which is meant to be an independent body that reviews contested information access decisions made by state government agencies.

No blanket refusal

The QPS has released a statement to the effect it does not have a policy of ‘blanket refusal’ to access.

It claims the ‘right to information’ is still assessed on an individual basis, and that refusal only occurs if release would “likely be contrary to the public interest as it causes significant detriment to the QPS law enforcement activities”.

Concealing police corruption?

However, the chairman of the Australian Privacy Foundation, David Vaile, suggests that police are engaging in the routine refusal of access, and one of the reasons may be to conceal the extent of police data breaches and other illegal activities, as well as to conceal evidence of its mismanagement of information and procedural breaches.

Privacy breaches

In recent years, several police officers have faced investigations and even criminal charges for computer hacking offences.

In one case, an officer was charged for looking up the personal details of his former girlfriends as well as the former Australian netball captain, Laura Geitz, “out of curiosity”.

More recently, Senior Queensland Police Officer Neil Punchard was charged with nine computer hacking offences for using the QPrime Database to look up the confidential details of a domestic violence victim. He then gave the woman’s new address to his friend, the woman’s abusive former partner.

Social Justice advocate Renee Eaves has also publicly revealed that when she was able to access her file from the QPrime database, it showed police had accessed her records 1,400 times over eight years.

There are concerns that many officers who have illegally used restricted databases have gone undisciplined, with a report finding that QPS took no disciplinary action against 52 of the 59 officers investigated internally for computer hacking during a 13-month period.


Source: Sydney Criminal Lawyers

15 June 2023

The lies of manufacturers and reviewers on Solid State Drives


What's the BEST drive for gaming?

What drive is for 'content' creators, you know OnlyFans?

What SSD is best for workstation type loads?

Is 7300MB per second too slow for my games?

There are many misconceptions and 'lies' used to promote a manufacturer's wares, in order to be the sales kings of the industry.

It's a bit like reading an automotive manufacturer's fuel economy figures which can even be 30% less than in the real world.

Unfortunately many so called tech reviewers also have little to no idea, where all they're doing is supporting the advertising babble.

"What's the best gaming SSD in 2023?" could be answered in a simple line being: The same one as in 2020?

There are other more crucial specifications that are deliberately not focused on such as longevity, endurance, or even how long can the maximum speed be kept for, or a more real world use case scenario that 99% of the computing population does, where the speed of random read and writes are most important.

One of the better explanations out there is presented in this video:

 


See also:

User reviews useless compared to tech reviews, eg. Western Digital SN350

12 June 2023

King’s Birthday, but is there a ‘King’ of Australia?


On the 12 of June most of Australia, except for Queensland and Western Australia celebrates the UK’s monarch’s birthday.

Before, it was known for most people’s lives as the Queen’s birthday, where there was also a Queen of ‘Australia’ which the legal system works under.

Was this figure put in lawfully into the colony’s legislature?

Short answer, no.

So now the motherland has a new monarch, but does that make him automatically a ‘King’ of the colony?

Of course not, as always there is a procedure that must be adhered to.

So let’s see if the ‘rascals and outlaws’ in the colony have done their paperwork correctly?

Does Australia’s Constitution allow for the creation of a ‘King of Australia’?

Remembering that the Constitution is Australia’s fundamental legal document, describing how the people in government must act, including their oath for appointments.

Is there an enumerated head of power within the Constitution to create a title for the King of Australia?

Let’s not buy into a conspiracy theories, and go straight to the government, after all isn’t their word final?

A FOI (Freedom of Information) request was sent to the Australian Government to provide the necessary paperwork.

On the 20th of October 2020 a response was given.

See document FOI22/234; CM22/43725, below:


Source:

https://constitutionwatch.com.au/is-there-a-power-within-the-constitution-to-create-a-king-of-australia/

"This most recent Freedom of Information response fails to provide for an enumerated head of power within the constitution to create a title for the King of Australia. There is no current instrument one can point to for a legal purpose to use an alternate title in Australian and State law. If you can point to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 for the Queens title (albeit beyond power) which legal instrument does the Australian and State Government's rely upon for a constitutional source of authority within Australia if there is no instrument creating a new title for our Commonwealth realm?"

AS if that’s not enough, let’s not stop at just one question.

As we know the authorities act beyond their power in many cases.

Robodebt, Victorian residential tower lock ups just to name a recent couple.

Lets see if the Australian authorities have shoved in a King somewhere into this colony.

Please note that Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary states the following on Enumerated powers doctrine:

The doctrine that, where the Commonwealth seeks to support the validity of its legislation, it is necessary for the Commonwealth to point to an enumerated power given to it in the Commonwealth Constitution.


So, once again the final word of those in control of the plebs was sought to clarify any misgivings.

The author of the Freedom of Information Request made to the Prime Minister and Cabinets Office who administrate the Royal Style and Titles Act which creates a title for the monarch to adopt for use in relation to Australia and its Territories beyond the power of the Parliament of Australia was transferred to the Attorney Generals Office for response.

See Document FOI23/154; CM23/6473:


Source:

https://constitutionwatch.com.au/is-there-currently-a-king-of-australia/

It is clear that neither the Prime Minister and Cabinet Office nor the Attorney Generals Office can provide a law made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, binding on all the courts, judges and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth for the valid creation of a title for the King to adopt in relation to Australia and its Territories. Additionally they could not provide the valid enumerated Head of Power within the Constitution to empower the Parliament to enact an Act to create a title for the monarch to adopt for use in relation to Australia and its Territories.

If no such title exists and no such Act has been created for this adoption where can one point to for the power and authority of the Parliament, the legislator and the Judiciary?

11 June 2023

Documents Removed – How to plea in court


The Australian Government and its subsidiaries is corrupt to the core.

The colony’s residents live in a totalitarian state, where propaganda states that democracy prevails.

MANY are also oblivious to the corruption within the legal business, but don’t count on the mainstream media’s ‘investigative’ journalists to tell you, as they’ve been wiped out a while ago, where they’re basically government and corporate lapdogs.

So called ‘free speech’ has been a thing of the past for a while, where it was crushed since the advent of an (alleged) global health situation.

Governments and their subservient ‘news’ outlets together with the world’s largest advertising corporations masquerading as ‘social media’ (Meta) and search engines (Google) and others, went on a vicious assault on free speech removing information under the banner of alleged misinformation.

People even posting official government documentation were not only stopped from doing so, but also banned from sites.

In Australia one does not have the alleged democratic right to protest, but rather has to ask for permission from the state’s police forces.

Australia is a much better version of Xi Jinping’s China or Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea communist regimes, but better for those in government and not people.

The legal profession is one that cons people into many actions, where consent is the most important one, which is obtained via fear, force or deception.

One of the government’s fraud on the people during the past 3 years was the unlawful issuing of Infringement Notices, or colloquially known as ‘Covid fines’

This government fraud has been exposed for New South Wales and also Victoria, but the governments are still chasing people for them, where it's crickets for the other states.

Never forget that the federal government also acted unlawfully in the ‘Robodebt’ social security scam against recipients, where suicides occurred as a result.

One of the biggest legal scams that has been going around for decades that is hidden from the public or more specifically those trying to obtain ‘justice’, by the ‘administration of justice’ also including lawyers, solicitors, court registrars, magistrates and judges is that what is referred to as the ‘3 pleas’.

At any point in time, usually the morning queue would be the best time to conduct this survey, in any court, is when a man or woman come up to the front desk to see the court clerk with regards to one’s matter, the clerk will ask “ How do you wish to plea, guilty or not guilty”.

There is the first lie to you by the court.

This type of lie is referred as lying by omission.

You do not have two choices, guilty or not guilty, but also a third one, that being no plea, which they do not want you to use, as this is costly to the administration, but vital to your defence.

This site has been interfered with by unknown external entities where documents and videos have been removed.

Attention has been drawn to a post from January 2016, where a legal document has been removed from the post How to plea in court see link: https://corpau.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-to-plea-in-court.html which has now been restored.

This document is a government created document, being specific, an excerpt from the Magistrates’ Court Criminal Procedure Rules 2009, Form 43.

A current version of the document is as follows:



Which is sourced from:

See other posts: