Linus’ Linux video – Techies too scared to call out the industry heavyweight?

About a year ago Linus Sebastian started a series of videos about using Linux as a daily driver.

His approach to the challenge may have been entertaining to some, where other’s reaction to his poor choices on tasks, was what can be described as pussyfooting around.

Would it be not true to say that they were scared as LTT fans (fanatics) would jump on their channel and bully them?

See video:

In any event Mr. Sebastian’s halt on production and workplace issues could be the beginning of a total remodelling as also workplace bullying has come to light. 

See also allegations of sexual harrasnemnt within a toxic workplace in video:

Linus exposed in leaked audio recording?

Is the LMG (Linus Media Group) above the law?

What sort of 'justice' does victim get if one has not got millions of dollars in order to sue a company?

The land of the 'free', aye?

Linus Tech Tips / Linus Media Group misleading users, bigger problem than initally exposed?

BREAKING NEWS in the YouTube tech space!

Linus' tech channel is a multimillion corporation, which is the go to place for many people who make decisions from this corporation's advice/tests.

No corporation is immune from fraud, and fraud can take place under many guises.

Are they just simple mistakes or deliberately concealed errors in order to be the 'first to market' with videos in order to monetise the high view rate of an inital reporting on a tech product?

Linus' blatant lies exposed?

Let's see some opinions.

See video:

and also:

See the corporation's original video:

The corruption of the police & courts - Police and the illusive 'Full Brief'

Victoria: The Police State. (source)

The Police:

Unbeknown to the majority of the general population, the colony’s state police forces are not honourable organisations.

After all the colony’s first police force was comprised of criminals, and not honourable persons.

MANY within act with impunity and disregard for the law all because their ‘victims’ are unaware of the law or their rights.

They (the police) tamper with evidence, mislead the court, lie under oath, deliberately do not provide all information to a defendent with regards to that person's matter.

It’s truly a game to them of how much the police can get away with, and what their victims are prepared to put up with.

If a person has been accused by police of an alleged criminal act, e.g. a traffic offence, that person will be deceived by the police and the court.

The deception by police will begin with the paperwork.

By law, or according to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the accused must be provided with a preliminary brief and that's all.

There's a problem with that, as one cannot make a plea nor seek legal advice based on a preliminary brief.

Therefore a 'Full Brief' must be supplied, and it's not. e.g.:

The accused must apply or give written notice for a full brief, therefore making the procedure more complicated for the accused, where it's all about putting up barriers for the people.

 

As mentioned above road traffic offences are criminal and not civil according to the statutes.

In criminal law, the burden of proof is on the accuser or the 'informant' or prosecution/police, when it comes to traffic offences.

But there's a slight 'glitch in the matrix' as traffic offences are unlawfully classified as strict liablity or absolute liability matters meaning the first and foremost the accused is guilty of the alleged crime.

Briefly:

Absolute liability    - you're guilty and a penalty is enforced

Strict liability          - you're guilty where you have to prove otherwise

So, the law is stacked up against you from the very beginning.

Covid fines:

As of the time of this post, Victoria Police are still pursuing Covid related 'Infringement Notices' despite the fact they have been withdrawn as there is no lawfully enacted instrument to give rise to such an (alleged) infringement.

The CHO's (Chief Health Officer's) 'directions' are public policy, i.e. directed towards government and have zero effect on the general population.

Victoria Police are therefore wasting precious court time and Victorian taxpayer's dollars for a futile argument, hardly an 'honourable' action.

The Courts:

The courts are also part of the corruption, aiding police, conspiring against those seeking a remedy or even 'justice'.

The purpose of a court is to overview the Executive to protect the public.

First and foremost, ALL Australian courts must be under 'Chapter III' (of the Constitution), remebering that Royal Assent under the Queen of Australia is not lawful.

They must act solely in the Crown right.

The Magistrates Court of Victoria has 'stakeholders' (which are financial institutions) and its decision making process is influenced (therfore prejudiced) by those stakeholders, as seen in a MCV document in the following post:

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

Court Services Victoria is owned by 'stakeholders' includig but not limited to Challenger Group and Australia's leading banks.

The judiciary receives their paycheque from Court Services Victoria.

The courts are all about equity, Andrews v ANZ HCA [2012] HCA 30, p63.

A order made by the Court must be authenticated by the person who constituted the Court, as stated in the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 Section 18 (2).

Judges/magistrates are tort feasors. 

Australian courts are not legislative as described in Lane v Morrison [2009] HCA 29.

A registrar/deputy Registrar has no authority, as stated in R v Davison [1954], HCA 46.

Hearing - ex-parte:

It is an abuse of power, where it is against both federal and state law.

The 'Quick and Garran' in S206 - Service (p. 614) states, that one is not bound by judgement of court without being heard first, yet all courts in this colony execute judgements on ex-parte matters.

Both parties must be in a court hearing as described in High Court of Australia case Taylor v Taylor [1979] HCA 38.

An ex-parte hearing is a breach of a 'fair hearing', as stated in a law called the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilites Act (2006) Vic, Section 24.

Your plea:

When the accused/defendant enters a court that person is lied to by the court from the very beginning,

From the front desk, the court will tell the defendant that there are only two choices of a plea, that being guilty or not guilty.

That is a plain and simple lie, a deception by the court.

There are factually 3 pleas.

Guilty or not guilty and nolo contendre or a choice the court gives you that being no plea, as seen in the court document below:

Form 43 - Magistrates' Court Criminal Procedure Rules 2009 (Document date: 2019)

Some Procedures Regarding the Law:

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court checks the Act against the Constitution, signing off on it, where the Governor stamps it with the Royal Identifier.

All law in Victoria, including that which was allegedly enacted during Covid, must be compatible with Human Rights, where the process is outlined within the SARC (Scrutiny of Acts and Regualtions Committee).

A Proclamaton Certifiacte MUST be issued for a law to be valid.

There are many more apects to each of the above sections, where only a few select items are mentioned in this post.

Corrupt IBAC - Operation Sandon: Corruption watchdog IBAC cut Daniel Andrews’ name after draft

Daniel Andrews responds to IBAC’s Operation Sandon report at a press conference on Thursday. Picture: Jason Edwards

     Two references to Premier Daniel Andrews in the Victorian corruption watchdog’s draft Operation Sandon report – flagging concerns about political donors and lobbyists buying “privileged access” to senior politicians – were cut from the final findings.

The Australian can reveal the final paragraph in the section covering the Premier’s secret evidence to the five-year investigation was watered down between IBAC’s draft and final reports to remove any specific mention of the Premier.

Operation Sandon found property developer John Woodman and his associates “lobbied, cultivated, or financially supported state political candidates, political staff, MPs, and ministers” including the Premier, making hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to each major party in pursuit of favourable treatment.

The watchdog presented evidence that Mr Woodman also funnelled more than $1m in secret payments to two Casey mayors – Labor-turned-Liberal-affiliated Sam Aziz and Liberal former VFL player Geoff Ablett – in return for favourable planning decisions in Melbourne’s outer southeast.

Responding to the tabling of the report on Thursday, Mr Andrews said he had acted “appropriately at all times”, and signalled his government would be willing to overhaul the state’s planning laws, stripping ­decision-making powers from councils.

Acting IBAC Commissioner Stephen Farrow said the watchdog – which is legally unable to make a finding of criminal conduct – would forward all evidence compiled over the course of the five-year investigation to the Office of Public Prosecutions, paving the way for the agency to pursue charges against multiple individuals.

In the draft report, the final paragraph explicitly refers to “Mr Andrews and Mr Woodman’s” attending political fundraising events as an example of how donations can secure access to decision makers. A second omitted reference ­related to a conversation between Mr Andrews and a Labor-aligned lobbyist associated with Mr Woodman and how this inter­action illustrates the significant role lobbyists may play and the “appearance of a sense of obligation” arising from the developer’s donations.

The draft paragraph states: “Mr Andrews and Mr Woodman’s attendance at such functions provides another illustration of the opportunities for privileged access at a ministerial level that Mr Woodman and his lobbyists were able to gain. It also reflects the ­importance of the substantial ­donations that Mr Woodman had made over time. The conversation between Mr Staindl (a Labor-aligned lobbyist) and Mr Andrews also illustrates the significant role that a lobbyist may play and the appearance of a sense of obligation from Mr Woodman’s financial contribution to the party.”

But in the final report, released on Thursday by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, the paragraph was significantly altered to read: “Mr Woodman and his associates’ ­engagements with senior members of the Victorian government provide another illustration of the opportunities for privileged access that they were able to gain in relation to planning matters. Their ­attempts to influence senior state politicians further demonstrate the importance of political ­donations and the significant role of lobbyists in helping to open doors to decision-makers.”

Responding to questions from The Australian, IBAC said the paragraph had been changed to remove Mr Andrews’ name but it was “common” for IBAC to make changes to draft reports. “The changes to this paragraph were because the point being made was not limited to the Premier, but also referred to other senior members of the state government,” an IBAC spokesperson said.

IBAC said it was part of its natural justice process that witnesses named in draft reports were given the opportunity to “provide comment or further evidence” but in this case the Premier made “no submissions on the draft Operation Sandon report”.

The Andrews government was approached for comment about the removal of the Premier’s name.

Mr Andrews said his cabinet would consider all 34 of the report’s recommendations and respond “in due course”, flagging the government’s “clear position … that the role of local councils in significant planning decisions should be reduced, and we will have more to say on this matter”.

Asked to characterise his relationship with Mr Woodman in the face of findings that the pair had met repeatedly at Labor fundraisers over many years, and even attended an intimate lunch in 2017 for which the property developer paid $10,000 to the ALP, the Premier said: “I don’t have a relationship with him. I’m not sure when I first met him, but I can tell you I haven’t seen him for a long time.”

In an interview last year, Mr Woodman said he had known the Premier “since he had pimples on his face”.

“I don’t know what my complexion looked like at the time, or when it was,” Mr Andrews said when quizzed over Mr Woodman’s recollection.

The Premier seized on the fact that Operation Sandon had not made any official adverse findings against him.

The report goes to a tapped phone call between Mr Woodman and his lobbyist Phil Staindl in which the pair discussed a conversation Mr Staindl had conducted with Mr Andrews days earlier, at a February 2019 Labor Party function. Mr Staindl told Mr Woodman that Mr Andrews had described a journalist pursuing the developer over corruption allegations as an “arsehole” and asked him to apologise to Mr Woodman for the planning minister’s deferral of the government’s decision over an amendment that stood to make Mr Woodman millions.

Mr Staindl also told Mr Woodman that Mr Andrews had requested the property developer’s phone number.

Mr Andrews disputed Mr Staindl’s recollection in his evidence to IBAC, but the corruption watchdog found that the “general tenor” of the conversation “was as Mr Staindl described”.

Asked to respond to the fact that the watchdog appeared to prefer the lobbyist’s version of events over his, Mr Andrews ­reiterated that no adverse findings had been made against him.

Mr Farrow defended the watchdog’s decision to examine Mr Andrews in private, despite conducting 40 days of public examinations of more than 20 other witnesses.

The acting commissioner cited four criteria which had to be met under legislation governing who could be examined publicly.

“Public interest might be one (criterion), but there’s also the extent to which the question relates to serious or systemic corrupt ­conduct, and that depends on the particular evidence that’s being examined in the course of that examination,” Mr Farrow said.

Amid findings from IBAC that the Liberal Party had received even more cash in donations from Mr Woodman than Labor did, Opposition Leader John Pesutto seized on the watchdog’s preference for Mr Staindl’s evidence over the Premier’s.

“Put simply, IBAC rejected the evidence of Victoria’s most senior political figure and preferred the account of a lobbyist,” Mr Pesutto said.

TGA funding enquiry email

In case you were wondering why the TGA always sides with the drug manufacturers, who they call SPONSORS.  BREAKING-The TGA disputed @SenatorAntic's claim that 96% of their funding comes from industry, in Senate hearings last week.

They're splitting hairs over 2%. Here is a TGA staffer stating that 94% of their $210 million annual budget is funded by industry.

That's $197.4 million pa.

Source:supplied

Lily D’Ambrosio’s Labor Party branch forged signatures of dead men

Rotten branch of the Andrews Labour tree, above the law?

No criminal prosecution for electoral fraud?

It seems that anyone associated with Andrews is above the law.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and Minister for Climate Action Lily D’Ambrosio. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Crosling

     

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has continued to stand by key frontbencher Lily D’Ambrosio and says revelations about a state branch associated with her are matters for the state party, not for him.

The Australian revealed today that only 13 of 132 members of the Lalor South branch continued to be registered following the party’s branch-stacking investigation. Furthermore, at least two people had their signatures forged for their membership to be renewed after their death.

“I would not draw any comparison whatsoever between what you’ve put to me in relation to Lily,” Mr Andrews said in response to questions at a press conference.

“Go back and read the resignation statements of those who resigned and the statement in relation to the one minister who was in fact removed and I don’t think there can be any comparison drawn.”

Mr Andrews was referring to the original scandal in 2020 that led to his referral of the matter to the IBAC, and led to the internal investigation.

“These are matters for the state secretary and as for any integrity agency, they do not need to be referred matters and, in fact, unbeknownst to us at the time, that integrity agency was, in fact, investigating these matters at the time that it was referred,” he said.

“We had an intervention in this state. We’ve had a comprehensive process of reform. We are a stronger party because of that.

“We are a better party because of that and what’s more, when it comes to the integrity of Lily D’Ambrosio … I don’t think I’ve ever met anybody more focused on their duties than her. She’s a person of character and integrity.”

Labor Party branch forged signatures of dead men

Leaked details circulated during Victorian Labor’s 2020 branch-stacking investigation show that less than 10 per cent – or 13 of 132 – members signed up to Climate Action, Energy and ­Resources Minister Lily D’Ambrosio’s Lalor South branch continued to be registered following the probe, which was conducted by former premier Steve Bracks and former federal deputy Labor ­leader Jenny Macklin.

The children of two men whose memberships of the branch were renewed for two years after their deaths have expressed their shock and disappointment at learning of the conduct.

“I’m shocked. I wasn’t aware of him being a member of the Labor Party,” said Tom Donato, whose father, Antonio, died in 2017.

Tom Donato at home in Melbourne on Monday: ‘I’m shocked. I wasn’t aware of him being a member of the Labor Party’. Picture: Valeriu Campan

No other Victorian ALP branch lost more members in the Bracks-Macklin clean-out, which was commissioned by Mr Andrews following revelations in 2020 of “industrial scale” branch-stacking being conducted by the Premier’s factional enemy Adem Somyurek.

Mr Somyurek was expelled from the Labor Party, and the scandal ultimately ended the parliamentary careers of all of his prominent allies, including former ministers Marlene Kairouz, Luke Donnellan and Robin Scott.

But despite records given to The Australian, which show Ms D’Ambrosio’s ALP branch was the only one in Victoria where 100 per cent of membership fees were paid by non-traceable means – in other words in cash – no public scrutiny has been brought to bear on allegations of branch-stacking within the Socialist Left faction, to which both the minister and the Premier belong. A 2021 joint IBAC and ­Ombudsman investigation, known as Operation Watts, ­focused exclusively on allegations concerning Mr Somyurek’s Mods faction.

Daniel Andrews and Lily D’Ambrosio. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Luis Enrique Ascui

In response to more than 1000 words of questions from The Australian about the alleged conduct of Ms D’Ambrosio’s ALP branch, Mr Andrews on Monday praised her as an “outstanding member” of his team.

“Memberships are a matter for the party,” the Premier said. “The government supports every recommendation from IBAC’s Operation Watts report and is working to deliver all of them.”

Mr Andrews did not directly address any of the detailed allegations made against Ms D’Ambrosio, her ALP branch or her staff.

The minister said it was the first time these matters had been raised with her and that she expected her staff to follow the law and the rules of the ALP. The leaked Labor records reveal that 113, or 86 per cent, of the 132 members of Ms D’Ambrosio’s branch, based in Melbourne’s northern suburbs, were paying the minimum fee of $35 a year, on the basis that they held concession cards.

Lily D’Ambrosio. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Luis Enrique Ascu

Many of them were elderly members of the local Italian community, including Antonio ­Donato, who died in July 2017 aged 82, and Celestino Nigro, who died in September 2017 aged 77.

Obituaries were published for both Italian-born men in Italian community newspaper Il Globo.

Despite their deaths, Donato and Nigro’s memberships were twice renewed posthumously, in May 2018 and May 2019, giving them continuity of membership until May 2020.

Membership forms are required to be signed by members, meaning signatures for both Donato and Nigro were forged when their forms were submitted, ­although it is not clear exactly who forged the signatures.

Membership fees for both men were paid in cash, according to membership lists from as late as April 2020 for Nigro, and July 2019 for Donato.

Contacted by The Australian on Monday, Nigro’s daughter, Mary, said she was “disappointed that they’d use a dead person like that to get political power”.

“I cannot believe that the Labor Party would go to the extent of forging my deceased ­father’s name to use that for their party benefit. If they are capable of doing this, what else are they capable of? I’m very disappointed in their conduct. They should just let the deceased rest in peace,” she said. Ms Nigro said she was aware that both her father and mother were ALP members “when he was alive”.

Donato’s son, Tom, said he was “shocked” to learn his father was even an ALP member, let alone that his membership was being renewed beyond the grave.

“I’m shocked. I wasn’t aware of him being a member of the Labor Party. He wasn’t that way inclined. He wasn’t an Australian citizen, so he couldn’t vote,” Mr Donato said.

He said he was aware Ms D’Ambrosio would often speak at the Italian club with which his parents had been involved.

IL Globo Obituary for Antonio Donato.

Ms D’Ambrosio said: “Some of my electorate office staff are involved in local ALP branch activities, and it is my expectation that when they do so they always comply with the rules of the party and the terms of their employment contract. This is the first time this matter has been raised with me.

“There were no allegations, and no findings against me in the Bracks and Macklin review.

“I support the work of Steve Bracks and Jenny Macklin in reforming and modernising the Victorian ALP, which has left us with a stronger party. I’m a proud life member of the ALP and I have always sought to act with honesty and integrity in my work as a member of parliament.”

Party documents circulated in 2020 show bulk membership renewals were submitted by Lidia Argondizzo, who was then and remains an electorate officer in Ms D’Ambrosio’s Mill Park office, and previously served as a state MP from 2002 to 2006.

The documents show Ms ­Argondizzo used a cheque drawn from a bank account belonging to the ALP to make the payment to the party on behalf of the members whose memberships had been paid in cash, in a matter that is similar to the kind of branchstacking that ended the Labor Party careers of Mr Somyurek and his allies. However, Ms Argondizzo vehemently denies she engagedin branch stacking.

In response to questions about her conduct, Ms ­Argondizzo said: “When it comes to matters related to the ALP, I believe I have always acted in ­accordance with the party rules and the law.

“I have no knowledge regarding the membership renewals of those two specific individuals and I categorically deny any wrongdoing in relation to them.”

The documents also show that as recently as July 2019, Ms D’Ambrosio’s branch was meeting in her electorate office during business hours, at 10.30am on the third Friday of every month.

The meetings, and Ms ­Argondizzo’s role in lodging bulk memberships, came long after an Ombudsman’s investigation into Labor’s “Red Shirts” rorts ahead of the 2014 state election highlighted the party’s improper use of taxpayer-funded staff and ­resources for party political purposes.

Branch-stacking is generally deployed by political operatives to maximise their faction’s influence in internal party ballots.

Google’s web DRM Proposal, a new age of (digital) slavery

Who asked for this —

Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

(All part of the nanny state agenda)

 

The little Android robot is watching everything you do.

Google's newest proposed web standard is... DRM? Over the weekend the Internet got wind of this proposal for a "Web Environment Integrity API. " The explainer is authored by four Googlers, including at least one person on Chrome's "Privacy Sandbox" team, which is responding to the death of tracking cookies by building a user-tracking ad platform right into the browser.

The intro to the Web Integrity API starts out: "Users often depend on websites trusting the client environment they run in. This trust may assume that the client environment is honest about certain aspects of itself, keeps user data and intellectual property secure, and is transparent about whether or not a human is using it."

The goal of the project is to learn more about the person on the other side of the web browser, ensuring they aren't a robot and that the browser hasn't been modified or tampered with in any unapproved ways. The intro says this data would be useful to advertisers to better count ad impressions, stop social network bots, enforce intellectual property rights, stop cheating in web games, and help financial transactions be more secure.

Perhaps the most telling line of the explainer is that it "takes inspiration from existing native attestation signals such as [Apple's] App Attest and the [Android] Play Integrity API." Play Integrity (formerly called "SafetyNet") is an Android API that lets apps find out if your device has been rooted. Root access allows you full control over the device that you purchased, and a lot of app developers don't like that. So if you root an Android phone and get flagged by the Android Integrity API, several types of apps will just refuse to run. You'll generally be locked out of banking apps, Google Wallet, online games, Snapchat, and some media apps like Netflix. You could be using root access to cheat at games or phish banking data, but you could also just want root to customize your device, remove crapware, or have a viable backup system. Play Integrity doesn't care and will lock you out of those apps either way. Google wants the same thing for the web.

Google's plan is that, during a webpage transaction, the web server could require you to pass an "environment attestation" test before you get any data. At this point your browser would contact a "third-party" attestation server, and you would need to pass some kind of test. If you passed, you would get a signed "IntegrityToken" that verifies your environment is unmodified and points to the content you wanted unlocked. You bring this back to the web server, and if the server trusts the attestation company, you get the content unlocked and finally get a response with the data you wanted.

Google's diagram of the Web Integrity API.

Google likes to describe its APIs in a generic sense, but in reality, most of the actors in this play would probably be Google. Google may or may not be supplying the website, Chrome would be the browser, and the attestation server would definitely be from Google.

Google's document pinky-promises the company doesn't want to use this for anything evil. The authors "strongly feel" the API shouldn't be used to uniquely fingerprint people, but they also want "some indicator enabling rate limiting against a physical device." In the "non-goals" section, the project says it doesn't want to "interfere with browser functionality, including plugins and extensions." That's a veiled reference to not killing ad-blockers, even though the project mentions better advertising support as some of its goals. Chrome already has a "kill ad blockers" plan anyway (or at least "watered-down ad blockers" plan). It's called Manifest V3, which will change the way critical extension APIs work so they can't modify webpage content as effectively. Google also says it doesn't want to "exclude other vendors" from its DRM scheme.

Google hasn't done much in the way of public promotion of this idea yet, and even the documentation is only hosted on an employee's personal GitHub account, rather than an official Google repo. The earliest proposal we can find is from April 2022. Over the weekend, an updated spec was published, and the proposal got picked up by HackerNews and device-repair YouTuber Louis Rossmann. This caused the Internet to descend upon the repo's GitHub issues forum and start absolutely cooking Google in the replies.

Issue #134 calls the idea "absolutely unethical and against the open web." Issue #113 say they "can't believe this is even proposed." Issue #127 adds: "Have you ever stopped to consider that you're the bad guys?" Another user posted a screed entirely in hexadecimal that, when translated, starts with "Death to Fascists" and wishes explosive diarrhea on everyone involved. So reception so far has been... mixed.

Exactly how the rest of the world feels about this is not necessarily relevant, though. Google owns the world's most popular web browser, the world's largest advertising network, the world's biggest search engine, the world's most popular operating system, and some of the world's most popular websites. So really, Google can do whatever it wants. Other projects like Chrome's "Privacy Sandbox" ad platform and the adblock-limiting manifest V3 have been universally panned, but Google has kept right on trucking with the projects. There have been some small project tweaks and delays, but Google keeps marching forward.

For now this is only a "proposal" API, but in May Google published an "intent to prototype" notice, meaning it's building the feature into Chrome right now for testing. There's a page for feature-development tracking on chromestatus.com. We've asked Google for a comment and will update this page if it sends anything.

See also: Google Wants To Destroy The Internet... by Mutahar at SomeOrdinaryGamers

See also: 

Google guilty of ad-fraud against its customers including NYTimes, Reuters, Wired, Mashable and Gizmodo