A look into Corporate fraud in Australia, Stranglehold of Monopolies, Telecom's Oppression, Biased Law System, Corporate influence in politics, Industrial Relations disadvantaging workers, Outsourcing Australian Jobs, Offshore Banking, Petrochemical company domination, Invisibly Visible.
It's not what you see, it's what goes on behind the scenes. Australia, the warrantless colony.
Note: Site has more info in desktop mode or 'web version' as seen at bottom of page, when on smartphone.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (ABN: 122 104 616)
Australia's Prime Minister (CEO) Tony Abbott : "Australia is Open for Business"
If people think they have a right to ‘free speech’ now, they are sadly
mistaken.
You are only allowed
to write/post what governments and corporations allow you to.
Eric Arthur Blair’s
Nineteen Eighty-Four is kindergarten material compared to what is
being enacted today.
Corporations like
Google work with the FiveEyes governments in censoring,
removing/deleting videos from their platforms, in this case YouTube
in effect ‘removing’ history.
"I will rip out your heart"
A clip that was posted on YouTube features censored words, where attention was paid to one word.
Is this word vulgar or 'politically incorrect'?
Does this word 'hurt' people's feelings or offends a minority?
What is so heinous about this word that the 'public' cannot see it in its pure unadulterated spelling?
Well the word is "heart".
Not only is the subtitle censored but also the audio is edited
It's irrelevant whether it is self censored or whether the platform censored it, the problem is that it was censored.
Cybersecurity firm Mandiant has unveiled
a groundbreaking discovery that demonstrates how threat actors could
potentially bypass browser isolation technologies using QR codes as a
covert command-and-control
(C2) communication channel. The research, disclosed on December 8,
2024, raises significant concerns about the effectiveness of current
browser isolation security measures.
The
novel technique, developed by Mandiant's Red Team, leverages
machine-readable QR codes embedded within web pages to establish
unauthorized communication channels. This method proves effective
against all major types of browser isolation solutions, including
remote, on-premises, and local implementations, potentially compromising
organizations' security infrastructure.
"The
discovery highlights a critical weakness in what many organizations
consider a robust security measure," explained a senior researcher at
Mandiant. "By utilizing QR codes as a transmission medium,
attackers can effectively circumvent traditional browser isolation
protections that are designed to separate user browsing activity from
the corporate network."
The
proof-of-concept implementation demonstrated by Mandiant researchers
utilizes Google Chrome in headless mode, integrated with Cobalt Strike's External C2 feature.
The malicious implant operates by rendering web pages in a headless
browser, capturing screenshots of embedded QR codes, and subsequently
decoding them to extract command data.
However,
the technique does come with notable limitations. The researchers found
that the QR code-based C2 method is constrained by a maximum data
capacity of 2,189 bytes, primarily due to streaming quality issues.
Additionally, the communication process experiences significant latency,
with each request taking approximately five seconds to complete, making
high-throughput operations like SOCKS proxying impractical.
"While the current implementation may not be optimal for large-scale data exfiltration, it proves the concept that browser isolation
can be circumvented through creative means," stated a Mandiant Research
Team. "This should serve as a wake-up call for organizations relying
solely on browser isolation as their primary defense mechanism.
"In
response to these findings, Mandiant has issued several recommendations
for organizations to strengthen their security posture. These include
implementing comprehensive traffic inspection mechanisms to detect
anomalous patterns indicative of QR code-based C2 activity, conducting
regular domain reputation checks, and deploying advanced URL scanning
solutions.
Security
experts emphasize the importance of adopting a multi-layered "defense
in depth" strategy rather than depending on a single security solution.
"Organizations need to understand that no single security measure is
foolproof," noted a cybersecurity analyst familiar with the research.
"This discovery reinforces the need for comprehensive security
strategies that combine multiple protective layers."
The
revelation has prompted increased attention from the cybersecurity
community, with several organizations already beginning to evaluate
their browser isolation implementations in light of this new threat
vector. Security vendors are also expected to develop countermeasures to
detect and prevent such QR code-based bypass attempts.
As
organizations continue to rely on browser isolation technologies as
part of their security infrastructure, Mandiant's discovery serves as a
crucial reminder of the ever-evolving nature of cyber threats and the
importance of maintaining robust, multi-layered security defenses.
Urged to up security after 'Salt Typhoon' hackers breach providers worldwide.
Australia has issued a joint warning with its international partners
as the United States accuses China-backed hacking group Salt Typhoon of
targeting telecommunications networks in dozens of countries and
recording phone conversations of American political figures.
The advisory was issued on Wednesday
by cyber defence watchdog the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) and
its Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), alongside security agency
counterparts from the US, Canada, and New Zealand.
The notice urged telecommunications companies to increase their
network security in the wake of some US residents having their phone
conversations, text messages, or related call and text records accessed.
For many people, this allegedly included metadata being stolen —
which can include information on the dates, times, locations, and
recipients of calls and text messages.
"We believe a large number of Americans' metadata was taken," a US
official told local journalists on the condition of anonymity, as Reutersreported.
"We do not believe it's every cell phone in the country, but we
believe it's potentially a large number of individuals that the Chinese
government was focused on."
At least eight US telecommunications providers have been affected by
the cyber espionage campaign, and hackers were likely to maintain some
access to US networks, according to the White House.
The wide-ranging incursion came to light earlier this year, and while
the threat has remained since, the true extent to which Salt Typhoon
hackers still had access to critical networks around the world remained
unclear.
The Australian government has not confirmed whether Australian telecommunication networks have been breached.
US senator Mark Warner, chairman of the country’s senate intelligence committee, told The Washington Post in November that the attacks were the "worst telecom hack in our nation's history — by far".
Chinese officials have denied responsibility and have previously
described allegations of state-based hacking as disinformation, or false
narratives.
Australian organisations urged to boost cyber security
Telcos and organisations working to defend communications
infrastructure in Australia should “strengthen their visibility and
harden devices against [People’s Republic of China]-affiliated and other
malicious cyber actors”, ASD said in a statement.
“Our US partners have observed these actors compromising networks of major global telecommunications providers.
“Actors have focused on large US internet backbone routers, such as provider edge and customer edge routers.
“The compromises and malicious activity target exposed and vulnerable
services, unpatched devices, and under-secured environments.”
ASD said it encouraged Australian organisations to maintain "high
visibility” networks so that cyber defenders had “detailed insight into
network traffic, user activity, and data flow” to help them detect
potential threats.
The Australian government has accused China of being behind numerous
cyber attacks and related security incidents in recent years.
'Very senior’ US figures allegedly had calls hacked
Telephone calls involving “very senior” US political figures had been
targeted and recorded by Salt Typhoon hackers this year, the White
House alleged on Saturday.
Anne Neuberger, the US deputy national security advisor for cyber and
emerging technology, said while the metadata of a large number of
Americans had likely been stolen, officials believed “the purpose of the
operation was more focused”.
"We believe ... the actual number of calls that they took, recorded
and took, was really more focused on very senior political individuals,"
she said, as Reutersreported.
Neuberger did not reveal the names of anyone who was targeted, but
said the US was “still investigating the scope and scale” of the hacking
campaign.
The New York Times
reported in October that phones used by then-presidential candidate
Donald Trump, members of Trump's family, members of president Joe
Biden’s administration, and officials at the US State Department had
been targeted by China-linked hackers.
Asked about US reports of potential telecommunications attacks on 28
October, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lin
Jian, said, “China urges the US to stop various types of irresponsible
moves to blame the victim, stop cyberattacks globally, and stop using
cyber security issues to vilify China.”
Neuberger said on Saturday that Biden had been briefed on the US
government’s latest findings and the White House "has made it a priority
for the federal government to do everything it can to get to the bottom
of this".
US government officials reportedly told NBC News
that citizens could use encrypted messaging apps — the likes of which
include Facebook Messenger, Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram — to minimise
the chance of their communications being intercepted.
A US senate commerce subcommittee hearing is expected to discuss the Salt Typhoon hacking on 11 December, local time.
Privacy is something valued by all of us, at least to some degree.
Arriving home at the end of the day, it’s important to know that what
goes on behind closed doors is not being monitored by authorities or
some other party.
Equally, we may not want all of our personal communications with
friends, partners and family members to be available without proper
justification by some government employee, or our intimate images to be
accessible to others without our consent.
In the 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell imagined a dystopian future
where telescreens monitoring citizens in both the public and private
realms were ubiquitous. And while this idea might send shivers down the
spine, the reality is that it’s not far from the truth in 2018.
Indeed, authoritarian leaders of days past could only have dreamed
about having access to information as private and pervasive as metadata and the vast amounts of personal information contained in our mobile phones and other devices.
The use of CCTV cameras in public places has been well-established in this country for decades now. And soon, these cameras are set to be linked
to a national database containing all Australian driver licence and
passport photos, enabling almost-instantaneous biometric matching.
The 2013 Snowden leaks revealed just how far-reaching government
digital surveillance has become, along with its deep encroachment upon
people’s privacy. The documents revealed that the NSA, along with other Five Eyes nations, were involved in colossal global surveillance programs on their own people.
It doesn’t bother me
Many in the community simply shrug off the ever-increasing whittling
away of the basic right to privacy, as it’s supposedly being carried out
in the name of protecting us against terrorists. “If you’ve got nothing
to hide,” they assert, “then you’ve got nothing to fear.”
But these people may want to think again, as the removal of a basic
right is incremental, and, once it’s gone, the legislation and policies
that withdrew it can be very hard to knock down.
Distorting the discussion
Chair of the Electronic Frontiers Australia
policy team Angus Murray said the nothing to hide argument is a
“fundamentally dangerous” proposition, as it creates the premise that
“privacy is only invoked where criminals are involved.”
“Unfortunately, the nothing to hide rhetoric has created a situation
where this fundamental right has been somewhat distorted,” Mr Murray
told Sydney Criminal Lawyers®.
According to him, the starting point to the argument should not be
grounded in “criminality or the criminal justice system,” but “rather it
should be about a fundamental human right not to be subject to
arbitrary interference in private life.”
“This is particularly pervasive in the context of mass surveillance,”
he continued, “wherein law-abiding citizens have their private life,
often unknowingly, interfered with on the pretence that this is in their
best interest, or more correctly, it’s not in their worst interest.”
And the digital rights advocate should know. Electronic Frontiers
Australia has been at the frontline of monitoring the encroachment upon
the rights of Australians in the digital environment since 1994.
The Australian right to privacy
Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
enshrines the right to privacy in international law. Being a signatory
to the agreement, Australia has committed to uphold the rights contained
in the document at the international level.
But, at the domestic level, Australia doesn’t have a bill
guaranteeing citizens’ basic rights under the law, and therefore there
is no general recognition of privacy being a fundamental right. Indeed,
Australia is the only democratic nation in the world without a national bill of rights.
The federal Privacy Act 1988
is the principle piece of legislation protecting Australians’ personal
information, although, it’s long been criticised for providing
inadequate protections against data breaches.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is the body responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Act. It announced last month
that the federal Department of Health had breached privacy laws after
it published de-identified health records of 2.5 million Australians
online.
It was subsequently found the data could be re-identified. And the commissioner made the announcement a year and a half on.
Your life’s in a databank at ASIO
The federal Coalition government has been implementing policies that
have grave implications for citizens’ privacy. Its mandatory data
retention regime, which requires all telcos and ISPs to store their
customers’ metadata for the period of two years, came into effect on October 13 2015.
The metadata that is stored relates to the time and date of calls,
emails, text messages and internet sessions. It reveals who an
individual has been in contact with, and their location at the time. And
privacy experts warn that a lot can be ascertained about a person via
this information.
Currently, warrantless access to this data is reserved to 21 law enforcement agencies led by ASIO.
Mass surveillance
On October 5 last year, all state and territory leaders signed off on
the Turnbull government’s National Facial Biometric Matching
Capability, which is a database that will store all Australians’ drivers
licence and passport photos.
This mass hoarding of most of the population’s images will then be
linked up through an exchange, so that it can be instantaneously
macheted to identify people captured on CCTV cameras in public places.
The legislation to enact this system was introduced into parliament last month, and is currently under the review of the joint parliamentary committee on intelligence and security. When the program was announced, the prime minister claimed it had nothing to do with mass surveillance.
And in July last year, Turnbull said his government was proposing
new laws that would require social media and technology companies, such
as Facebook and Google, to allow Australian security agencies access to
people’s encrypted messages.
Staring into the sun
Those who simply scoff at this encroachment upon our privacy,
declaring that they have nothing to hide, are missing the point. If you
mine any individual’s data in a thorough way, it’s sure that you’ll find
something that looks suspect.
The deniers are similar to climate change sceptics. Long-term changes
to weather are almost imperceptible on a daily basis, just like the
erosion of the right to privacy, so the benefits of new technologies are
easy to utilise, whilst refraining to consider the detrimental impact
they’re having.
Equating privacy with guilt
“Too many wrongly characterize the debate as security versus privacy,” US computer security expert Bruce Schneier explained.
“The real choice is liberty versus control.” And with a network of CCTV
cameras linked to facial recognition technology, the ability of
authorities to control will be overwhelming.
As far as Murray is concerned, the nothing to hide argument sets off
the debate around privacy on “an ill-founded footing,” as those who are
most vocal about the need for the right to privacy to be upheld are
somehow cast as suspects.
“A person does not require something to hide to care about their
privacy and the burden should not be reversed onto citizens to
demonstrate that they have nothing to hide,” Mr Murray concluded.
“This should be a matter for law enforcement in the course of lawfully obtaining a judicial warrant.”
In any event you can read the heavily redacted document that Australian taxpayers paid for:
See also a narrative on this document:
Keeping the serfs in the dark - another day in the colony.
The Australian government has new laws on the books to hack your
computer, your online accounts, and just about any piece of technology
and networks you come into contact with. It can happen without a warrant
and without you ever knowing. That’s just the start of it. Outraged?
Good.
Earlier in August, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) released a report on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020
recommending it be passed with significant changes. Most notably, they
recommended narrowing the scope of the new powers introduced by the
bill, by limiting the criteria for issuing new warrants, requiring
approval from a superior court judge and calling for stronger oversight
and review mechanisms.
The bill was passed
just over a week later by both houses. Needless to say, most of the
recommendations of the PJCIS report have gone ignored, similarly to the
concerns previously raised by us, Human Rights Law Center and several
others. So let’s dive right in and take a closer look at the powers the
legislation will grant to law enforcement. The three big powers given to
the Australian Federal Police (AFP) or the Australian Criminal
Intelligence Commission (ACIC) are:
Data Disruption Warrants
Account Takeover Warrants
Network Activity Warrants
A DATA DISRUPTION WARRANT enables the agencies to
“add, copy, delete or alter” data on devices. And while it’s called a
warrant, there is an emergency authorisation process for cases when it
is “not practicable” to get a warrant. So a data disruption “warrant”
can be issued under something referred to as an emergency authorisation;
a new power which the PJCIS insisted in their report should be reserved
for a superior court judge. This was ignored and so emergency
authorisations remain — which means that Australia now has a warrantless surveillance regime on the books.
A couple of additional notes on data disruption “warrants” is that
they: can be issued on devices even if the individual’s identity is not
known, if the device is “likely connected” to a suspected offence, or if
the information could “assist” in an investigation. It should also be
noted that in the final text an emergency authorisation can also be used
to simply get “access to data held in a computer.” To do this, the
final text allows them to use a computer, a telecommunications facility,
any other electronic equipment or a data storage device.
AN ACCOUNT TAKEOVER WARRANT enables the law
enforcement agencies to take control of an account, and even lock the
account holder out of it. This can be done covertly and without consent,
so the individual wouldn’t necessarily know what is going on until or
if they are ever charged. It includes removing two-factor authentication
and using one account to gain access to others (directly contradicting
cyber security best practices for staying safe and secure online). The
warrant is applicable for a maximum of 90 days (though extensions are
possible) — so that is the length of time a law enforcement officer can
impersonate you or use your accounts to monitor your activity and gather
information. The emergency authorisation, overseen by a magistrate, is
also available under this power.
NETWORK ACTIVITY WARRANTS allow access to networks
where there is suspicion of serious online offences, although what
qualifies as “serious” has a variety of definitions in the legislation.
The desire to “overcome security features like encryption” on this scale
should have us all extremely concerned. In their submission to the
PJCIS, the Human Rights Law Centre raised alarm at
the definitions used under this power, which are so dangerously
overbroad they would enable widespread surveillance across social media
and messaging platforms. Yes, that means if someone is suspected of
using Whatsapp (for instance) for criminal purposes, the power would
allow the AFP and ACIC access to all of Whatsapp. They are subject to
the same secrecy and time limitation (90 days with a possible extension)
as account takeover warrants. Unlike the other powers, evidence
gathered this way cannot be used in court, but it can inform further
warrants and inform officials where to look — this warrant allows for
mass network surveillance.
And we can also note that while there are some restrictions on the
extraterritorial application of these warrants, mostly that a consenting
official from another country is required in order to proceed with such
an investigation, the judge is allowed to authorize network activity
warrants for other jurisdictions if the location of the data is unknown
or cannot be reasonably determined.
The PJCIS report also insisted on increased powers of reporting for
the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM). In fact,
setting the egregious scope of these new warrants aside for a moment, there are fundamental shifts that happen in these laws about how surveillance power is distributed and overseen in Australia.
The distinction between a superior court and the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal (AAT) is huge, and most of TOLA is now subject to the
oversight of the AAT (see below section on ‘context’ for more
information). All these bodies are equipped and resourced in completely
different ways. The rules of evidence are different, just as the
decision-makers are different; only recently there was a scandal that
Christian Porter was appointing underqualified people to the AAT.
The INSLM can in fact provide independence in their review, but it is
not immune from politics, and reports from the office can certainly be
completely ignored at the discretion of the government.
In the final text of Identify and Disrupt, the AAT is given a massive
task when evaluating the merits of any application. Among countless
other things, it is up to them to determine whether:
There may be any privacy implications “to the extent known.”
The
execution of the warrant is likely to cause a person to “suffer a
temporary loss of: money, digital currency, or property (other than
data).”
The public interest outweighs the importance of protecting a journalist and/or their sources.
There are alternative ways to access the data or otherwise proceed with the investigation.
On the last point, it is not the responsibility of the officers to
present that to the tribunal members, just as it is not up to them to
run a full privacy impact assessment, or consult software developers or
engineers before compromising a piece of equipment. Ultimately, the
tribunal members of the AAT who are overseeing these overbroad hacking
powers are expected to have a level of technical expertise which many
actual subject experts, let alone judges, would struggle to be certain
of.
One of the recommendations by the PJCIS was to introduce a public
interest advocate in the decisions regarding these warrants, which was
also ignored across the board. A public interest candidate is someone
who would argue on behalf of the affected individual in the room where
right now only a police officer and a judge get to play judge and jury.
The PJCIS foresaw using this only in certain instances, but we have
suggested a similar mechanism for other surveillance operations. As it
stands, the Australian government remains uninterested in allowing
individuals to defend their rights: there is no one to argue on your behalf, and there is never any notification to the individual (even after the fact) so you will never know if you were subject to any of these powers.
The context of Australia’s expanding surveillance regime
There was an international uproar when the Australian government
passed the Assistance and Access Act, also known as TOLA. Introduced in
2018, it contains some of the broadest powers for law enforcement to
intercept and monitor encrypted communications. Its only international
parallel is the UK’s equally infamous Investigatory Powers Act, which is
under ongoing challenges in the UK Courts over its infringement on
privacy — an avenue for challenge that remains unavailable to
Australians where the right to privacy continues to be ignored by the
federal government (and thus out of reach for such court challenges).
But TOLA, which gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies the
power to infiltrate and compromise encrypted communication channels, has
been deemed to be not quite enough. It should be said that TOLAremains under review
for its incompatibility with human rights and the right to privacy and
freedom of expression, and is still waiting for amendments as suggested
by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) in June
2020. In spite of that, the Australian government went on to add two
new pieces of legislation to expand its mass surveillance mandate:
International Productions Order (IPO) Bill — even though it
passed in Australia, the powers will need to be approved by the US
Congress before taking effect.
Identify and Disrupt Bill.
We can refer to both now as acts because — in what is an increasing
trend in the Australian Parliament — the bills flew through both houses
in a single day.
The Identify and Disrupt Act grapples with the same issue that TOLA
did — the need for law enforcement to see and intercept what we do
online. However, Identify and Disrupt goes much further and where it was
not completely true to call TOLA an attempt at mass surveillance,
Identify and Disrupt now provides that capability and overreach for both
AFP and ACIC.
In the INSLM report on TOLA, Dr James Renwick, who was serving as the
INSLM at the time, recommended that the powers under TOLA be extended
to a federal level Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) —
this was a calculated decision to pressure politicians to consider what
this power means when it extends to investigations of corruption at the
federal level. Alas, we will continue holding our breath and waiting for
the politicians to hold themselves equally accountable to the
surveillance regime they’ve built for the rest of us.
Finally, it should be noted that Australia’s electronic surveillance
regime will be overhauled in the years ahead following the
recommendations of the Richardson Review into the National Intelligence
Community, made public last year. So if you are frustrated with the
system, gear up and join us for an end to mass surveillance and a fair
system in Australia.
What we recommend…
If you want to have a private confidential conversation, and you
have thought about the likelihood you may be subject to surveillance,
have it in person with no devices around. We know this is a challenge,
particularly in COVID times, but especially for groups in climate
activism and those attending protests, this is key.
If it is
possible, break your work and life across multiple devices, operating
systems, and accounts so that it becomes more difficult for you to be
thoroughly compromised.
Digital security! Update your passwords
regularly (use a password manager), check that you have 2FA enabled
wherever possible, and keep an eye out for any suspicious activity (on
your account or those of your friends and network). Always call the
person or reach out over text/a second channel if you are unsure about a
link/attachment/message that was sent to you. Governments are intent on
compromising our digital security for their own purposes, so do your
best to limit your exposure to the risks they have created for us.
Write
to your MPs to voice your concern about the lack of individual’s rights
in this legislation. You can use this post to illustrate your concerns.
Ask for the legislation to be referred to INSLM for a human rights impact assessment. There
will be a 5 year sunset for the powers in this legislation — meaning
that they will need to be revisited and reapproved by Parliament. We can
turn the tides on this!
Sign the petition! The more signatures, the louder we will echo through the halls of Parliament.
Support
our Work! You can become a member of Digital Rights Watch and/or sign
up to our updates. This way you will know once there are further actions
for you to take! You can also help by donating to support our work, following us on social media, and sharing our work far and wide!
MANY nations around the world that are alleged democracies, have transitioned to a modern era of 'slavery' and rule over the general population taking the best out of some of the following terms like; fascism, totalitarian/authoritarian state, oligarchical rule, nepotism, corporatocracy, et al.
This has been accelerated with the advent of the best self-sponsored mass surveillance tool invented thus far, that being quite simply the smartphone.
The general population or 'herd' as commonly referred to the ignorant masses, transfers its ignorance to the world of smartphones.
Together with blatant lies by corporations with regards to the 'consumers' privacy, the herd ignorantly and without scrutiny accepts their lies generating more data than ever before in history.
The best part about all this is that this data is used against the people and not (truly) for their alleged 'benefit'.
Before if telecommunications data was needed for 'legal' purposes, then this would be given under the issue of a warrant.
Today this is not the case, where telecommunications data is collected without any so called warrant.
Governments also set up shell corporations as so called 'advertising' companies in order to obtain the necessary metadata.
In the colony called Australia, in many legal cases warrants are required, but are not produced in their correct format, as required by law.
MANY police in Victoria deceive 'the accused' by showing for example a spreadsheet format document, or even a partially blank generic form, which the officer then claims to be a warrant.
Australia's courts are involved in a conspiracy against the people.
The alleged sheriff of Victoria or any other person claiming to be a deputy or 'from' the Sheriff's Office, cannot produce, a lawfully issued warrant, arising from unpaid road traffic offences, partly because there is no lawfully appointed sheriff in the state of Victoria at least since 1984.
There are plenty examples of this under the "The corruption of - Sheriff's Office"label on this site.
In many cases repossessions of domestic dwellings are not supported by a legal instrument that being a possession warrant, meaning those premises are stolen by force and deception.
No outcry in the mainstream media?
No 'investigative' journalism reporting into this?
The so called royal commission into banking, was nothing more than a money for mates job, a farce where no applicant (approx 10,000 persons) ever received a 'remedy'.
While the 72 page document below specifically refers to the United States, actions described within also pertain to Australia.
Meta’s ‘asset’ illegally, at least in Australia, promotes ponzi
schemes, gambling and phishing sites that will cause (financial)
harm to people who click on those links.
If you’re running
a dodgy business, wanting to defraud people of their hard earned
cash, all you have to do is pay Meta the relevant ‘advertising’
fee and they will promote your post.
This has been going
on for quite some time and the ‘Australian Government’ (Pty Ltd,
LLC, etc etc) has been doing nothing about it.
What's also concerning, is that Australia's governments (state and federal) have also used taxpayer funds to falsely promote a trial drug as a so called 'vaccine' for a few years on this advertising forum referred to as Facebook, is also swept under the rug.
So, Wesfarmers has breached theserfs people's privacy and there is no 'remedy' for those affected?
The OAIC has founded Bunnings to have invaded the privacy of what is
estimated to be hundreds of thousands of customers through the use of
“intrusive” facial recognition cameras at 63 stores across Victoria and
NSW. However, the retail giant has defended its use of the technology
and fired back at the OAIC’s determination, with its managing director
Mike Schneider.
Michael Schneider
Bunnings and many other retailers record your face, many BEFORE you even enter the store.
Keep in mind that the ability for a retailer to record a customer’s face and store that
information is a no go zone.
In Australia it is classified as 'sensitive
information', which is illegal to collect without the subject's consent.
The OAIC (Office of the Australian Information Commissioner) said Bunnings did
just that for a three-year period, invading the privacy of hundreds of
thousands of customers.
So will there be a class action law suite against Wesfarmers and OTHER corporations?
Will the corrupt Anglo-Masonic judiciary be honest in their actions?
Anne Twomey is considered an expert on the colony’s Constitution,
where her work is seen on her YouTube channel Constitutional Clarion.
So what happens to
this professor if someone calls out her
‘inaccurate’/false/(deliberately?) misleading information?
First and foremost
there is no such lawfully enacted entity as the ‘Queen of
Australia’, period.
It may appear in
legal documentation, but this is not proof that it is there
‘lawfully’.
The below Freedom of Information response shows a legal advice to the Prime Minister and Cabinets Office to update the Royal Style and Titles Act so as to create a new title for King Charles III to adopt in relation to Australia and its Territories. In a recent video of the Constitutional Clarion Professor Ann Twomey lays claim a title Act or amendment is not required for King Charles suggesting the King can effectively use the Queens title. The below advice clearly contradicts the video of Professor Twomey.
China, as in the Chinese people are not on the internet, but rather it's one of the worlds largest intranets, 'protecting' its people from the big bad WWW.
North Korea, another tech Mecca for the select few, keeps their luddites away from the outside world, but the outside world got sneak peek after North Korea's pathetic firewall structure got 'extinguished', see video:
And let's not forget how the Egyptian government shut down those pesky plebs from exercising their (human) right to 'free speech' by flicking the switch on the internet, in 2011, see article:
At law the place
called ‘Down Under’ in 2024, some 236 years after the inception
of a convict colony, is still a colony and therefore governed as one
by the colonialists.
People may believe
that this place functions as a democracy, but the reality is as far
as possible from that.
This colony is
literally a corporate criminal’s paradise, especially if one is
supported by the ‘brotherhood’.
It’s a fascist
state that functions under protectionism, where the current topic is the
telecommunications industry, where the serfs are the ones that are
victims of government fraud.
This 12.5 minute video by Hugh
Jeffreys explains this very well:
Will there be any fruitful inquiry into this? MOST DEFINITELY NOT!
“Australia is a lucky country...
a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck”
Still the same Trump? Does a leopard change its spots?
Cabinet documents reveal police warned NSW government about approving a
1986-87 plan to build city’s first casino in Darling Harbour
A bid by Donald Trump to build Sydney’s first casino was rejected 37 years ago after police expressed concerns about his links to the mafia.
News Corp revealed on Wednesday morning
minutes of the New South Wales cabinet that show police had warned the
state government against approving a 1986-87 bid by a Trump consortium
to build and operate a casino in Darling Harbour.
Trump,
in partnership with the Queensland construction company Kern, was one
of four groups vying for the lucrative project. The NSW government dumped it from the process on 5 May 1987, along with two other bidders.
At the time, the state treasurer, Ken Booth, said
he had received reports on the bids from the police board, the state’s
Treasury, the Darling Harbour Authority, and an independent financial
consultant.
“I wish to inform honourable
members that in light of these reports the government has decided to
eliminate three tenderers from further consideration,” Booth told the
state parliament. “These are the HKMS consortium, the Federal-Sabemo
consortium and the Kern-Trump consortium.”
The
public was not told the substance of the NSW government’s concerns.
Booth said the reports “contain confidential and commercially sensitive
material” and refused to make them public.
Now,
under rules that declassify NSW cabinet papers after 30 years,
summaries of the various reports on the Kern/Trump bid have come to
light.
The documents, obtained by News Corp,
show the Kern/Trump group was one of three deemed “dangerous” by the
police board. “Briefly stated, the Police Board considers that HKMS,
Federal/Resorts/Sabemo, Kern/Trump, are unacceptable,” the summary of
the police report said.
“Atlantic City would be a dubious model for Sydney
and in our judgment, the Trump mafia connections should exclude the
Kern/Trump consortium,” a summary of the police board’s report said.
The
cabinet papers also show there were doubts about the viability of the
Kern/Trump bid. A report prepared by the independent contractor, the
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, found the Kern/Trump bid was one of
two that were “not financially viable”.
The
report found that revenues for the casino were overstated. “The proposal
is financially viable on the basis that the projected financial
structure is reasonably based,” a summary said.
“However,
projected casino revenue estimates are not soundly based and the
quantum of the potential overstatement is so material that the tender is
not financially viable. Also, the tender is not financially viable on
the basis of expected returns to equity investors.”
The
Darling Harbour Authority, which assessed the design of Trump’s
proposed casino, was largely supportive. It described Kern/Trump casino
design as “rich, attractive and well-integrated” and said it would have
“strong public appeal”.
The casino control division also gave Kern/Trump “unqualified certification” for the running of a casino in NSW.
One
of the chief critics of the proposed casino at the time was the Rev
Fred Nile, who is still a sitting member of the NSW upper house.
When the government announced its rejection of
the Kern/Trump bid, Nile described the process as a “disaster” and
pushed for the NSW government to scrap the casino entirely.
Nile
told Guardian Australia he had raised concerns about possible organised
crime links with the planned casino. “We certainly wouldn’t have wanted
any connection with organised crime,” he said.
“We talked about that and there was always problems – casinos attract prostitution and other things.”
He
was also strongly opposed to it having poker machines. “Which upset
[Kerry] Packer, because you make a lot of money from the poker
machines,” he said. “We were able to get the government to pass the law
that there would be no poker machines in the Crown casino.”
Profits before
health, we’ll deal with the litigation IF it ever arises, (lol - at
the litigants) where we’ll even gaslight them if we must.
We’ll even scam
the consumer on an extended warranty, while we're at it!
SO, here’s the
deal.
A watch sold by JB
Hi-Fi, namely the NOTHING brand’s CMF Watch Pro 2 carries a couple of serious health
warnings.
On the back of the
original box, the warning states:
“CANCER AND
REPRODUCTIVE HARM-”
Source: TechSpurt
The watch also does not have WiFi or celluar connectivity, only Bluetooth and GPS.
Well, you can’t
argue that you weren’t told, right?
After it’s too
late and you bought the product, or you missed that warning?
BUT on cigarette
packaging the cancer warning is conspicuous, right?
Why?
Because of
liability, so you can't sue the corporations of billions of dollars in profits producing addictive poison, laced with chemicals that give you cancer?
Well, no health
warning from JB Hi-Fi on the product they’re selling, but they’ll
try so scam you extra for warranty that you already are privy to
under Australian consumer law.
