13 January 2024

Officers charged with perjury after botched intercept of army reservist

Two detectives have been charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice after they attempted to prosecute an army reservist who fled a police road stop he thought was a late-night carjacking.

Victoria Police alleged in a statement on Wednesday that the detective senior constables made false statements about an attempted intercept in Longwarry, south-east of Melbourne, in June 2020.


The charges follow inquiries from The Age about the conduct of the officers. Last April, this masthead revealed the pair were arrested over allegations they maliciously prosecuted a man after he was charged with endangering an officer’s safety at a regional service station.

Following questions from The Age about the officers’ account that the man had driven off with a policeman’s arm and torso still inside his car, properties connected to the two officers were raided.

Tony, whose name has been changed for privacy reasons, told The Age he intended to sue the force over the incident after CCTV challenged the officers’ stories and did not show police inside his vehicle.

Police said a 32-year-old detective had now been charged with misconduct in public office, attempting to pervert the course of justice and six counts of perjury.

The other detective, also aged 32, has been charged with three counts of misconduct in public office, perjury and one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Tony said last year that he was travelling along the Princes Highway between Drouin and Longwarry when he noticed headlights approaching from behind at 3.30am.

As the Drouin man pulled over near a service station, where he intended to buy cigarettes, two senior constables out on patrol in a marked divisional van pulled up alongside his right rear taillight.

Unaware the headlights belonged to a police car, Tony said he locked eyes with a man in a dark-coloured beanie before driving away, fearing he was about to be carjacked.

Tony*, who asked for his real name to be withheld, says he’s been shattered by the police case against him

After he fled, Tony crashed into a ditch and said he walked and then hitchhiked home to get help to recover his vehicle, but when he returned the vehicle was gone.

The following day, Tony, aged in his 40s, called the local police station in an attempt to track down the white 1998 B-Class Mercedes.

Court documents show that hours later, he was arrested and charged with risking the safety of an emergency service worker.

In their signed statements and brief of evidence submitted to court in 2020, the two officers alleged that as the driver of the white Mercedes pulled into the service station, they activated their lights and sirens before one of the officers – who was wearing a beanie at the time – jumped from their divisional van.

The officers alleged one of them then opened the door of the Mercedes and leant inside to remove the driver’s keys. Tony, they alleged, then drove off with the officer’s arm and torso still inside.

The officer signed a statement that alleged he feared for his life during the brief encounter.

But serious discrepancies in the officers’ account emerged from service station CCTV footage.

“I just didn’t get the door quite open,” one officer is heard saying on CCTV captured inside the service station after the incident. “He didn’t know we were there.”

In his police interview seen by The Age, and conducted by the two officers involved in the incident, Tony maintained he was unaware the other vehicle was a police car and did not see red and blue police lights flashing. He also denied hearing any verbal commands to pull over or that the door of his Mercedes was opened.

While the more serious charges laid against Tony were later dropped in court, the army reservist of 20 years pleaded guilty to careless driving and hitchhiking – which occurred soon after his interaction with the police – and was fined $500 without conviction.

Tony said he’d always respected law enforcement and was working alongside police on a 24-hour roster as part of the state’s COVID-19 response when his arrest occurred. But he said he now feared police.

Both officers will appear before court at a later date.

10 January 2024

Apple begins paying out after claims it 'deliberately slowed down iPhones'

Apple is a dishonest corporation, where it acts against the consumer/ their customers, and this is just one example:


Apple doesn't admit wrongdoing in the $500 million lawsuit.

Apple has started making payments in a class action lawsuit over claims it deliberately slowed down certain iPhones in the US.

X users have posted about the payments, which look to work out to around $92 (£72) per person.

This is all part of a $500m (£394m) settlement, after Apple admitted back in 2017 it was slowing down phone performance in older models to avoid unexpected shutdowns related to battery fatigue.


After admitting it was slowing down older phones, Apple started offering discounted battery replacements at $29 (£23) - but many people claimed they had already spent hundreds of dollars to buy new phones. Some claimants said if they knew they could just buy new batteries, they might not have bought a new handset.

Apple did not admit wrongdoing. As part of the settlement, the company agreed to pay $310 million (£240 million) to $500 million (£400 million), including about $93 million (£73 million) to lawyers representing consumers.

And it would seem like the payments have started to happen. When the settlement was announced, it was reported that affected iPhone owners could get $25 (£20) - but it seems like that number has gone up to $92 (£72).


Consumer champion Justin Gutmann has brought a similar case to the UK courts. He filed a claim with the Competition Appeal Tribunal in 2022, seeking damages of approximately £768 million for up to 25 million UK owners of a range of older iPhone models.

The claim alleges that Apple misled users over the incident by pushing them to download software updates it said would improve the performance of some devices but, in fact, slowed them down.

It relates to the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus and iPhone X models.

Gutmann told the BBC he was pleased about the payments starting to be made in the US, but indicated it doesn't impact the UK case.

"It doesn't advance our position here, they haven't admitted anything - they've settled," he told the BBC.

"It's a moral victory but not much use to me. I've got to plough on and pursue the case in the UK jurisdiction."

In a statement, Apple said: “We have never, and would never, do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades.

“Our goal has always been to create products that our customers love, and making iPhones last as long as possible is an important part of that.”

Source:uniladtech


09 January 2024

Whistleblower Zach Vorhies on Google's Censorship


Amidst heavy censorship of 9/11 Truth related topics by Google, and off the heels of discovering that comments are disappearing from AE911Truth's YouTube videos9/11 Free Fall host, Andy Steele is joined this week by Google whistleblower, Zach Vorhies.

In this episode, Vorhies shares his story. He also discusses the power of Google and how its censorship program works. In particular, how it impacts search engine results, along with YouTube views and comments, and how certain information is ranked and blacklisted.  
 
In 2019, Vorhies delivered 950 pages of documents outlining Google's program of censorship to the US Department of Justice. His story was made famous when it was spotlighted by Project Veritas and his book,Google Leaks: A Whistleblower's Exposé of Big Tech Censorship relates the harrowing ordeal he went through as a result of coming forward.


See the Google Leaks within the zip file:

within the site ZachVorchies.com/google_leaks/


07 January 2024

Court Services Victoria – Cyber Incident


Statement from the Chief Executive Officer of Court Services Victoria, Louise Anderson:

On Thursday 21 December 2023, Court Services Victoria (CSV) was alerted to a cyber security incident impacting Victoria's courts and tribunals.  

The cyber incident led to unauthorised access leading to the disruption of the audio visual in-court technology network, impacting video recordings, audio recordings and transcription services.

CSV took immediate action to isolate and disable the affected network and to put in place arrangements to ensure continued operations across the courts. As a result, hearings in January will be proceeding. 

Recordings of some hearings in courts between 1 November and 21 December 2023 may have been accessed. It is possible some hearings before 1 November are also affected. The potential access is confined to recordings stored on the network. Further details for each court are found below.

No other court systems or records, including employee or financial data, were accessed. 

Maintaining security for court users is our highest priority. Our current efforts are focused on ensuring our systems are safe and making sure we notify people in hearings where recordings may have been accessed. 

We understand this will be unsettling for those who have been part of a hearing. We recognise and apologise for the distress that this may cause people. CSV has established a Contact Centre with dedicated staff which is available to those seeking further information or assistance. This includes support from IDCARE, Australia's national identity and cyber support community service. The Centre can be contacted from today via telephone or email:   

We are working closely with the cyber security experts in the Victorian Department of Government Services. All relevant authorities have been notified of the incident and are assisting with the investigation and response. 

All courts have put in place arrangements so that they can continue to safely and securely hear matters while CSV re-establishes the affected network. We appreciate the cooperation of court users during this period. 

The work on the restoration of systems includes works to strengthen security across the broader court and tribunal-wide technology environment.

With limited exceptions, court and tribunal hearings are held in public and are not confidential. The unauthorised use of recordings of hearings is not permitted. 

The table below sets out which recordings of hearings may have been accessed. 


Frequently asked questions

What is the cyber incident that's happened?

Court Services Victoria (CSV) became aware on Thursday 21 December of a cyber incident that impacted in-court audio and video (AV) systems.

During the incident, there was unauthorised access to CSV's audio visual in-court technology network.

Recordings of some hearings in courts and tribunals between 1 November and 21 December 2023 may have been accessed. It is possible some hearings before 1 November are also affected.

The potential access is confined to video and audio recordings stored on the network. Other court records are not impacted.

This table below sets out which hearings may have been impacted:


Have you contained the cyber incident?

Yes. CSV took immediate action to isolate and disable the affected network and to put in place arrangements to ensure continued operations across the courts.

The audio-visual network is separate to other CSV systems.

No other court systems or records were accessed or impacted.

What does this mean for people who attended court hearings during this period?

Court user audio only or audio and video recordings of what was said in a hearing may have been accessed.

Court and tribunal hearings are mostly public, and not confidential.

CSV has been working with justice system agencies, such as Victoria Police, Victoria Legal Aid and the Office of Public Prosecutions on areas where there may be particularly sensitive material.

Will I be contacted and how will I be contacted?

Where possible, courts are notifying parties whose hearing may have been affected.

Who can I talk to about my concerns?

CSV has established a Contact Centre with dedicated staff which is available to those seeking further information or assistance. This includes support from IDCARE, Australia's national identity and cyber support community service. The Centre can be contacted during business hours from Tuesday 2 January 2024 via telephone or email:  

Call: 03 9087 6116
Email: CSVData@courts.vic.gov.au

Will my upcoming court case be affected by this incident?

All courts have put in place plans so that they can continue to safely and securely hear matters.

Some changes to hearing arrangements are in place while the affected network remains disabled. Information about any changes can be obtained from the relevant court.

If you have a question about an upcoming court case and how this might be affected, please contact the relevant registry

What has been done to secure CSV's IT systems?

CSV took immediate action to isolate and disable the affected network and arrangements were put in place to ensure continued secure operations across the courts.

What are you doing to make sure this doesn't happen again?

The work on the restoration of systems includes works to strengthen security across the broader court and tribunal-wide technology environment.

Who is responsible for the breach?

We don't provide information or details on cyber threat actors.

How can I make a complaint about how this incident was handled?

Please email privacy@courts.vic.gov.au if you wish to raise any concerns.

Have financial records and employee data been accessed or otherwise impacted?

No. No other court systems or records, including employee or financial data, were accessed.

Have those responsible for the hack made any demands of Court Services Victoria? Have any threats been made to release the recordings? 

For security reasons, we will not comment on the specific details of our response to this cyber incident. 

Are police investigating and what assistance are the courts receiving from government security agencies? 

CSV has notified the relevant authorities, including Victoria Police whose cybercrime squad is investigating. 

We are working closely with the cyber security experts in the Victorian Department of Government Services. 

We have also secured support from IDCARE, Australia's national identity and cyber support community service. 

Why was a statement released on 2 January when the courts first became aware of the incident on 21 December? 

CSV took immediate action to disable the network and notify the relevant authorities. 

It was not immediately apparent which recordings and transcripts were affected. It has taken time to establish this. 

How were the courts alerted to the cyber security incident? 

Computers used to control audiovisual court hearings were disrupted. 

Some compromised recordings may involve people whose identities are protected by court orders or legislation. What is being done?  

CSV has been working with justice system agencies to identify sensitive matters. Courts are notifying parties whose hearings may have been affected and those parties can discuss any specific concerns at that time. CSV has also partnered with IDCARE, Australia's national identity and cyber support community service, to work with people to address their concerns.  

CSV is not currently aware of any recordings being released but will notify the relevant authorities should this occur. Maintaining security for court users is our highest priority and we recognise and apologise for the distress this incident may cause.  

Can you clarify when the incident occurred? 

While we became aware on 21 December, the incident occurred on 8 December. It was a breach of a single system that manages only audio-visual recordings for all courts and was contained to only that system. It is a single courts-wide solution managed centrally.

The system holds recordings for around 28 days, so the primary investigation period is 1 November to 21 December, which is when we identified the problem, and isolated and disabled the affected network.

Not all courts held hearings that were recorded on the impacted audio-visual network during the affected time frame.

This page was last updated: Thursday 4 January 2024 - 2:04pm

Source:Court Services Victoria