Melton City Council EXPOSED! Corruption, Drugs, Wages Fraud, OH&S Issues

The inhabitants of this colony are one of the most over-governed people on this planet, where if you so desire you can research this topic on your own as this is beyond the scope of this article.

City Councils are one of the more fraudulent businesses around.

In Victoria, paperwork submitted to the courts in 2018 explicitly shows that the businesses called ‘City Councils’ are not lawfully enacted, as opposed to legally enacted, which they are.

Information from the other side of Melbourne to Melton, has been obtained by credible sources that management at the Melton City Council has gone feral.

Obviously the source requires to be anonymous for fear of retribution, as is always the case, when people expose corruption either from powerful corporations or government.

A while ago Brimbank City Council was exposed to be corrupt and the entire staff was removed, where that should also occur with the Melton council, says the source.

From what is understood, the top level staff are involved in hard hard drugs use, even during business hours, taking time off being unreachable, while rate payers are paying for their time to be on the job.

Managers are also harassing their underlings, but people are too afraid to launch an inquiry as they are certain that they will lose their job, as they are fully dependant on their wages, where some have even moved to Melton in order to be closer to work, even though they have stated that the council is a “shit hole” and one of the worst they have ever worked at.

When it comes to tenders, staff also give work to their mates and ‘cook the books’ in order for their mates/family to defraud ratepayers.

Wage theft is also prevalent across the council, where staff are deliberately put on a lower band instead of the one they should be, example being on a Band 5 instead of Band 6, where if they question the so called ‘authority’ they are met with hostility and gas-lighting.  

Managers also deliberately dismiss staff’s medical issues, therefore making unqualified medical assertions/advice, where instead of lodging the necessary paperwork, the staff are bullied into compliance.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg”, with regards to what’s really going on at the Melton City Council from what the source has mentioned.

Australia is a corrupt to the core (penal) colony, as at law it’s still a colony, albeit a self governing one.

Yep, that's right, what a great idea to give criminals free reign without the Imperial government’s oversight.

Mass Surveillance under false pretexts - All men are F*CKED. It's OVER...

Since Australia is part of the Five Eyes global 'Anglo-sphere' surveillance network, whatever policies apply abroad are brought into this colony too.

See approx 16min video by The Hated One:

The Corruption of the Supreme Court of Victoria

Australia is inherently a corrupt to the core nation, period.

It's been corrupt from the very beginning, but more importantly after 40 years of Martial Law when some sort of legal framework was established in under the Australian Courts Act of 1828.

It was so corrupt that the Imperial authorities had to step in and enact the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.

In reality that did not stop the corruption, but rather only established some sort of 'Kangaroo Court' paperwork.

With that legal history out of the way, until today corruption is rife and quite simply put, the people that run this colony do so with impunity, where there is no end in sight.

They are literally above the law, where it is difficult for a member of the serf pool to get them physically into the court room.

The 'gatekeepers' called the registrars are also part of this corruption.

MANY refer to Australia's court system as a 'Kangaroo Court', basically meaning its actions are either hastily improvised, irregularly conducted but most importantly characterised by dishonesty or incompetence, something to keep in mind on further articles on Australia's judiciary.

The focus of this article is on the Supreme Court of Victoria.

• The corporatising of the Victorian Courts

Upon retirement 16 long years ago Justice John D. Phillips provided the following concerning words on the corporatising out the Victorian Court system, consistent with our previous posts on the subject of the concept of courts as trading corporations. There is much evidence for those to see with the eyes to see it of the spiralling level of corruption the State of Victoria now hides. When the Supreme, County and Magistrates Court are now trading corporations with the same Australian Business number as the Prostitution Committee one can only assume corruption is at play.

 

March 24, 2005 — 11.00am

In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the court's independence.

For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to bite my tongue.

I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody will listen.

As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.

One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.

Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.

That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.

This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.

Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as "Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.

This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.

And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.

Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.

Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not to be subverted.

The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be, impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government. Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is fixed independently of the executive.

You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when, in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.

There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial and so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of bias.

In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded of the appointee.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL QUESTIONS ONE CAN ASK ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA IS:

- HAS IT BEEN VALIDLY ESTABLISHED?

The Victorian Supreme Court was established in 1852 after the Colony of Victoria was officially created in 1851. Section 28 of "An Act for the better Government of Her Majesty's Australian Colonies" (the Australian' Constitutions Act)" initially provided for the establishment of the Supreme Court of Victoria:

 XXVIII. And whereas under an Act of the Governor and Council of New South Wales passed in the Fourth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty, intituled An Act to provide for the more effectual Administration of Justice in New South Wales and its Dependencies, the Number of the Judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales constituted under the said Act of the Ninth Year of King George the Fourth has been increased to Five, and One of such Judges is resident, and has such Power, Jurisdiction, and Authority within the District of Port Phillip, subject to such Appeal to the said Supreme Court as by the said Act of the Governor and Council of New South Wales is provided : Be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to erect and appoint a Court of Judicature in the said Colony of Victoria, which shall be styled “The Supreme Court of the Colony of Victoria ;” and such Court shall be holden by One or more Judge or Judges, and shall have such ministerial and other Officers as shall be necessary for the Administration of Justice in the said Court, and for the Execution of the Judgments, Decrees, Orders and Process thereof ; and all the Provisions of the said Act of the Ninth Year of the Reign of King George the Fourth, concerning the Appointment and Removal of Judges and Officers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and for the appointing Persons to act in the Place and Stead of Judges being absent, resigning, dying, or becoming incapable to act, and concerning Appeals to Her Majesty in Council from Judgments, Decrees, Orders, or Sentences of such Court, shall apply to the said Supreme Court to be erected in the said Colony of Victoria, but so that the Powers of the Governor of New South Wales in relation to the Matters aforesaid shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony of Victoria ; and from such Time as shall be mentioned in such Letters Patent all the Authorities, Powers, and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and of any Judge thereof, over or to be exercised within or in relation to the said Colony of Victoria, including all Admiralty Jurisdiction exercisable within the Limits thereof, shall cease to be had and exercised by such last-mentioned Supreme Court and Judge respectively, and shall thenceforth be vested in and exercisable by the Supreme Court erected by such Letters Patent ; provided that in the meantime the said Authorities, Powers, and Jurisdiction of the said Supreme Court of New South Wales and of the Judges thereof, within and in respect of the said Colony of Victoria shall remain as if this Act had not been passed, unless or until the same shall be varied by Act of the Governor and Council of the said Colony of Victoria.

However, no such letters patent has ever been received in Victoria... THE 1855 Constitution for Victoria was also silent on the nature and scope of Judicial Power within the newly established Colony. It was not until the 1975 Victorian Constitution the power of the Supreme Court was consolidated into statute, but under what power?

See the Act:

Sources:supplied

Google deliberately sabotaging Pixel/Android security. GrapheneOS the answer?

Is there a reason Google dropped its motto 'Don't be evil' from its Code of Conduct? 

So that it could be 'evil'?

Google is quite simply deliberately leaving Pixel and even Android users (from other manufacturers) vulnerable to security attacks.

Google’s Pixel smartphones are specifically taken care of, in terms of security updates via

Pixel Update Bulletins, e.g. for September 2026, in the following listing:

https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/pixel/2026/2026-09-01

Other Android users, e.g. Samsung, Sony, Motorola, etc obtain their security patches according to the listings within a link called Android Security Bulletins, in this case for September 2026 under the address:

https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2026/2026-09-01

Currently THE privacy and security gold standard smartphone operating system is GrapheneOS, which is only available for Pixel smartphones at this moment, where it will be also available initially on the 2027 Signature Series flagship Motorola phone at some point in time in the future.

Information has been leaked, that Cellebrite’s (smartphone hacking) hardware cannot obtain data from an up to date GrapheneOS supported Pixel phone in a BFU (Before First Unlock) state, that is encrypted and with a strong passcode.

Cellebrite leak posted on GrapheneOS Discussion Forum

A key component of the security of the smartphone is something called MTE (Memory Tagging Extension), where it was concluded that Google did not incorporate or disabled this hardware function in the new Pixel 11 series smartphone. 

Therefore it can be deduced that Google is ‘deliberately’ weakening the security of their smartphones, in order for the 5 Eyes authorities (and Israel) to gain access to the phones (?), where after all, it is subservient within the domain of the 5 Eyes ‘Anglo Sphere’ global surveillance network.

In order to further weaken the security of Android, Google does not release security patches in a timely manner as it did once before.

‘Luckily’ for GrapheneOS users, the small developer team can produce better security patches than a multi-billion dollar corporation.

People running corporations in this manner know full well that the law takes a while to catch up to their ‘shenanigans’ and exploit this fact.

See GrapheneOS' post in relation to this problem

within the link:

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/42511-grapheneos-has-fixed-the-massive-android-17-qpr1-kernel-performance-regression

How a US law can reach Australia's shore: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702

FISA Section 702

A One Page Overview

In 2008, Congress enacted Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a critical intelligence collection authority that enables the Intelligence Community (IC) to collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats. Section 702 authorizes targeted intelligence collection of specific types of foreign intelligence information—such as information concerning international terrorism or the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction—identified by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Section 702 only permits the targeting of non-United States persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. United States persons and anyone in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702. Section 702 also prohibits “reverse targeting”—the IC may not target a non-U.S. person located outside the U.S. if the purpose of the collection is to collect information about a United States person or anyone located in the United States.

Section 702 is not a bulk collection program; it is a substantial and important targeted intelligence collection program. Every Section 702 targeting decision is individualized and documented, approved pursuant to a multi-step process embodied in specific targeting procedures, and reviewed by an independent oversight team.

Although all Section 702 targets must be non-United States persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, Congress has always recognized that such targets may send an email or have a phone call with a United States person. For this reason, Section 702 requires specific procedures to minimize the acquisition, retention, and sharing of any information concerning United States persons. “Minimize,” however, does not always mean “eliminate” – if, for example, a foreign terrorist indicated that a United States person was a key member of an ongoing terrorist plot, this information would be appropriately shared to allow the FBI to take further investigative steps. Congress also amended Section 702 to require specific procedures to ensure the querying of any Section 702-acquired information is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The Section 702 program is subject to extensive oversight. The Attorney General must approve the targeting, minimization, and querying procedures, each of which are annually reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for consistency with the FISA statute and the Fourth Amendment. Each of the IC elements involved in the Section 702 program has developed internal oversight processes and programs to ensure compliance with these procedures. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct extensive, regular, and independent reviews of Section 702 activities. Any identified compliance errors are remedied and reported to the FISC and Congress.

Further Reading FISA Resource Library

Download the PDF from: https://www.intel.gov/assets/documents/fisa/FISA_Section_702_FISA_Resource_Library.pdf

Australians don’t have the legal right to ‘their’ data held by corporations?

In today’s online world, it’s all about a fascist state, or as it’s colloquially known, ‘big data'.

It’s all about subservience to online corporations, where the ‘product’ has little to zero so called ‘rights’.

In order to appease the online slaves, so that there is no ‘revolt’ like in England in 1381, the corporate whores called ‘lawmakers’ in the US and EU have allegedly given the products some rights to access ‘their’ data, or rather data regarding their ‘person’.

Even when a person does obtain a file on themselves from the corporation in question, 

- what guarantee does that person have that the information obtained is in it’s entirety and not modified in any manner?

None, there is no guarantee, where it’s concerning as (people) in corporations lie to the general population every single day.

In any event, want to see what low quality food products manufacturer ‘McChuck’s’ has on your person in Australia?

“FAT’ CHANCE"! (pun intended)

See YouTube video by The Hate One of the title:

I was WARNING you about this...

IF you obtain all your tech/information technology, advice from the Australian mainstream media, you are truly doing yourself a disservice!

 

Victorian Government Involved In Driver Licencing Fraud

MANY people from the general population pool may be of the assumption that ‘persons’ in government are ‘honourable’, as they advertise on their ‘government’ [read: tax payer sponsored] websites referring to that person as ‘The Honourable’ wherever the person’s name is, in whatever particular position, where the reality is far from the advertised propaganda.

People may also be of the erroneous belief that the colony’s police forces are unequivocally ‘against’ crime without discrimination, but again that is not true.

They act under dictation from persons unknown to the general population.

A reality is that Australia’s governments (federal and state), need crime, for various reasons, which is a topic that is way beyond the scope of this article.

The federal government’s agenda is an over-immigration policy, on the good people of Australia, where the cause and effect is passed on to the states and territories, in particular to those on the east coast, at great distress to the public, e.g. 'housing crisis'.

The Victorian Government also advertised for a ZERO road deaths policy, knowing full well that it is no achievable.

With the above information in mind, many immigrants that have landed on our shores do not have the skill set to be in charge of a motor vehicle, either driving or parking it.

So what is the Victorian Government doing about it?

Well, information has been obtained from a source within the industry that requires to be anonymous, that Vicroads has been given direction to pass as many future drivers as possible, in the name of ‘the economy’.

“The people in government do not care about road safety, but rather the revenue drivers raise for the governments”, said the source.    

The Victorian Government’s driver licencing corporation ‘Vicroads’, which incidentally is not operating ‘lawfully’ (as opposed to ‘legally’, which it is), is the business responsible for issuing persons permission to drive on the roads not just in Victoria, but the whole of Australia.

There is a reason why Victoria or rather Melbourne has the nation’s lowest quality drivers, that being the immigrant’s countrymen have occupied positions that test prospective drivers for competency, and give them that piece of paper (also under bribes), when they should not have it, where Vicroads is seen as that nation’s most corrupt driver testing so called ‘authority’.

Sydney is not far behind in the ‘per capita’ stakes.

The word is to come to Victori, to get your driver licence easily, especially if you may not have the required co-ordination or skill set.

This information is not new and has been going on for decades, and it’s rarely exposed by government or mainstream media, in any decade.

Therefore is this kind of fraud, going to stop?

MOST DEFINITELY NOT!

The ‘economy’ depends on it! 

You know the automotive, insurance industries, auto repair centres, et al, are all depending on low quality drivers that are on the road, where realistically they should not be.

But hey, that’s life in a (penal) colony.

‘September 11' - The beginning of the next level of the Orwellian Agenda

Briefly,

A generation (25 years) ago, one of the largest PsyOp was enacted on the good people of the world, under a so called (alleged) ‘anti-terrorist’ agenda.

The laws were already drafted up before the turning point event to be put into place immediately after.

From an alleged plane crash into the US Pentagon, which looked more like a missile strike to the controlled demolition of Building 7, where Silverstein confirmed this, which take weeks to put into action, the US government (successfully) pulled of a huge con-job, where world governments accepts this, as it suits their agendas.

See video in his own words:

Larry 'Liar' Silverstein - WTC 7 "We Had To Pull It"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9D9RHZK9lI

Further information can be obtain from a 10 DVD series called ‘Open Your Eyes’ which 

The Money Masters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOk3wBuQNcE

AND

Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQXsPU25B60

is a part of.

Security Alert: Bendigo Bank useless against cybercriminals/scammers!

Quite simply put the message is very clear: 

- IF you want to keep your money that’s their bank, take it OUT of Bendigo Bank!

This article is not going to have pages of attached PDFs explaining situations or how cybercriminals or scammers work.

While other banks work around the clock to protect ‘their’ cash that you gave them to be part of billion dollar profits for them, Bendigo Bank doesn’t have any (automated) systems that detect fraudulent activity, until their business day starts, that being at 9am.

So, how can you trust them with your hard earned cash, e.g. superannuation, pension etc.

The answer is - You can’t!

To make matters worse it was not even the Bendigo Bank that detected fraud, but rather the ANZ, which occurred at 3am, so they did NOTHING until it was too late!

Maybe they even outsourced their I.T. infrastructure to the scammer capital of the world, that being India?

From what is understood there are many victims of fraud from the Bendigo Bank, where realistically a class action lawsuit should occur against the bank, where Australia’s corrupt judicial system should not only make orders for compensation, but also the legal fees being fully remunerated .

Let’s see how this gross negligence by the Bendigo Bank fans out.

Bendigo Bank FAILED their customers, and the only way they can’t fail you is if you withdraw all YOUR cash from their premises.

Biggest data breach ever? (IDScan.net) Governments Outsourcing Liability

"Never trust the government, it is NEVER for the children!!"

"This is all on purpose to take away our privacy and give big brother control over everything."

FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

A new identity theft service launched on the dark web this week is selling digital scans of more than 153 million drivers licenses from people in the United States and Canada. Based on interviews with individuals whose licenses are available for purchase on this service, it appears to be siphoning images collected by a widely-used identity verification company based in Louisiana. KrebsOnSecurity also has learned that the New Orleans field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) today launched an official inquiry into the source of the images.

A record available at this identity theft service that includes the drivers license for U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, one of several high-ranking U.S. government officials whose drivers licenses can be found for sale.

On Monday, Aug. 31, a source alerted KrebsOnSecurity to a service advertised by a new user on the Russian cybercrime forum Exploit, offering access to digital scans of identity documents on more than 170 million people in North America. The source brought it to my attention because the proprietor of this identity theft service offered my Virginia drivers license as a free sample in their initial sales thread on Exploit.

The service, dubbed Nexus, claims to have more than 153 million drivers licenses for people in the United States and Canada, as well as more than 10 million identification cards; more than three million travel documents and/or international IDs; and at least 579,000 medical cards.

A quick look around Nexus finds they are likely not exaggerating about that 153 million number: Running a blank search in Nexus (with no search parameters entered) returns approximately 11.5 million pages of results, with roughly 15 results displayed per page. It includes documents from people in both Canada and the United States, but the bulk of these records are on Americans: searching for just Canadian drivers licenses returns approximately 1.1 million results, with the largest concentration from Ontario (473,673 records).

Curiously, the identity records include not only drivers licenses but also marijuana dispensary cards. Some of the records list their “source” as “CDL,” presumably short for “commercial drivers license.” Other records carry the source notation of “CAC,” which may refer to Common Access Cards, government issued identity cards that grant physical access to government buildings and secure rooms.

The people behind Nexus claim the license images are coming from an active breach at “a major identity verification company” whose customers include multiple Fortune 500 companies.

The record totals listed by the Nexus identity theft service. The number of drivers
license records increased by nearly 400,000 in the span of just 24 hours.

“We have been continuously exfiltrating new data for over a year into our private database,” the service enthused in its introductory post on Exploit. “Records are available to preview before purchase with pertinent information redacted. Customer photos are displayed if available.”

Indeed, over the past 24 hours, the number of drivers license records listed as available in Nexus has increased by nearly 400,000, suggesting that freshly stolen license data is being harvested and uploaded to this service on a semi-regular basis.

The record featuring my drivers license includes six image files: three pairs of photos of the license’s front and back, a basic image scan, as well as infrared and ultraviolet versions of the same images. A date and timestamp is appended to each image file, and the timestamp on my license scan corresponds to a date in June 2025 when I took a flight to the midwest United States to attend a family funeral.

Some of the 153 million+ license scans — including mine — feature six image files with date and timestamps appended to the filenames. Not all records include photos, and some that do feature photos do not display the associated filenames.

Intent on discovering the source of this data, KrebsOnSecurity asked more than a dozen friends and family members for permission to search for their licenses in this service. Each person whose license could be found (nine of them) confirmed having traveled on or very close to the dates in the timestamps attached to their images. It is unclear what timezone these timestamps are in, but from reviewing car rental records shared by several people who helped with this research, it appears the timezone is set to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

At first, I thought the source of the data might have something to do with airports. However, that theory went out the window when it became apparent there were no passports in this data set. Also, only some of those who helped with this research said they showed their drivers license at the airport on the day of their travel. One person whose license was in Nexus hadn’t flown at all recently, but was renting a car from Hertz for several months around the date of their timestamp.

Two of those who agreed to help are federal employees who said they shared other forms of government identification when passing through airport security. However, those individuals each said they shared their state-issued drivers licenses later that day when renting vehicles at their respective destinations, and that both rented their cars from Hertz.

After finding a note in my calendar for the day of my June 2025 flight reminding me to bring my passport, I remembered that I also never actually shared my drivers license when I went through security at Reagan National Airport on that day because I did not yet have a Real ID, a security-enhanced drivers license that is now required by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for all domestic travel. Instead, I showed the TSA agent my government-issued U.S. passport.

Here’s where it gets interesting: I was able to find my mother’s drivers license in this service as well, and the timestamps for her images are just a few seconds apart from mine. That’s notable because we both handed our licenses to the Hertz rental car representative at the same time.

According to my mom, the only place she gave her drivers license to that day was the rental car company, and if memory serves that is also true for me. I don’t recall if the rental car representative inserted our licenses into any kind of machine, but I remember they held onto them for several minutes behind the counter while we were signing various forms. KrebsOnSecurity sought comment from Hertz and will update this story in the event they reply.

Zach Edwards is a well-known security and privacy researcher who recently launched a service called DecryptAds to help people better understand how online advertisers are tracking them. A scan of Edwards’s drivers license is available for purchase on this identity theft service, and Edwards said the timestamp on his record corresponds to the middle of a trip last month to Las Vegas for the annual DEFCON security conference.

Edwards told KrebsOnSecurity that although he did not rent a car in Vegas, he did hand over his license at the TSA checkpoint, at a marijuana dispensary in Vegas, and at his hotel (the Aria). But he said the only one of those three that for sure scanned his ID in some kind of device was the dispensary.

To enter Planet13’s weed dispensary in Las Vegas, one must pass through a red telephone booth. Image: Zach Edwards.

Edwards said the dispensary he visited that day was Planet13, a multi-state chain with stores in California, Florida, Illinois and Nevada. In 2022, the New Orleans-based identity provider idscan.net published a press release announcing an exclusive identity verification agreement with Planet13’s dispensaries nationally. IDScan says it processes ID verification for more than 1,000 marijuana dispensaries in 19 U.S. states.

The “trust” page of idscan.net states that the company provides identity verification services for numerous big brands, including Hertz, Target, Fedex, Motorola Solutions, the financial services giant Jack Henry, and Caesars Entertainment. And as idscan.net’s own documentation states, the technology scans IDs with both infrared and ultraviolet light. Idscan.net says the company’s systems and technology perform more than 21 million verifications monthly, at more than 20,000 locations around the world.

Image: idscan.net.

Contacted by KrebsOnSecurity, idscan.net said it was investigating the matter, but the company has not yet shared an official statement or a substantive reply to specific questions sent via email.

“At this point I’m not able to share any additional information, but the updates you have provided have been welcome, and helpful to our team’s investigation,” wrote Jillian Kossman, a marketing and operations leader at idscan.net.

During the course of my research for this story, word got around to the FBI that I was poking at the apparent source of this new identity theft service’s data. Probably they were tipped off when I shared with a trusted source that Nexus also is selling the drivers license information for the assistant director of the FBI (I did not find FBI Director Kash Patel’s license in Nexus).

Earlier this afternoon, I was added to a conference call with a half-dozen FBI agents, including senior leaders from the agency’s cyber division. During that call, the FBI shared that earlier today their New Orleans field office opened an official investigation into an apparent breach involving idscan.net.

Edwards said that as more in-person and online experiences require sharing drivers licenses, vendors who collect this sensitive data need to be held to a higher standard.

“This episode should further strengthen the resolve for people who are fighting back against online ID schemes which are requiring countless providers to ask for drivers licenses in order to access services under the guise of protecting kids,” Edwards told KrebsOnSecurity. “These systems are putting sensitive data into more and more 3rd party vendors, and we don’t have nearly the oversight to ensure they are safe.”

Larry Baldwin is principal intelligence researcher at the cybersecurity firm Cybera. Baldwin said a front and back scan of his drivers license available at Nexus contains timestamps that correspond to the date of a car rental from Hertz on a recent vacation.

Baldwin said the Nexus identity theft service presents multiple serious security and privacy threats, noting that state-issued drivers licenses are commonly used as proof of one’s identity when opening new lines of credit. Baldwin said the service could also dangerously expose many people who do not wish to be found but who cannot meaningfully change their appearance (or at least not enough to fool today’s AI-based image matching tools).

This category of people, he said, includes those fleeing domestic violence, and even people who have been assigned a whole new life and identity as part of the federal government’s witness protection program, which is generally reserved for criminal defendants in racketeering and conspiracy investigations who agree to cooperate with federal authorities.

“Just when it seems like we’re making some headway in improving authentication controls through drivers license verification systems, this happens and the very thing those improvements are dependent on are compromised,” Baldwin said.

Update, Sept. 2, 6:05 p.m. ET: A spokesperson for Caesars Entertainment said Caesars has not been a client of IDScan.net and has not used VeriScan since February 2025, despite IDScan.net listing them as a client on their website. That person said Caesars had no active VeriScan accounts at the time of the incident and did not authorize IDScan.net to retain data from its accounts, and that IDScan.net said the incident should have no impact on Caesars Entertainment.

Update, 8:56 p.m. ET: Shortly after this story was published, the Nexus identity theft service website vanished from the darkweb, replacing its login page with a plain text message that reads, “This service is no longer available.”

This is a potentially fast-moving story. Any changes or updates will be noted here along with a timestamp.

Source:KrebsonSecurity.

See also short explanation by Matt Johansen on this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRbDaQQwWlY

SO, WHEN WILL THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT COMPENSATE YOU WHEN (NOT 'IF') YOUR PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION GET BREACHED?

AFTER IT'S 'THEIR' LAWS.

SORRY? THEY'RE NOT GOING TO OFFER YOU A REMEDY, AT LAW?

National Face Database - Why New South Wales is Scanning Every Driver's Face

See (11m28s) video by Tech Win Cyber of the title:

Why New South Wales Is Scanning Every Driver's Face

The next stage of the Orwellian dystopia is upon us.

Enjoy your freedom to breathe air, for now.

That's life in the FiveEyes (penal) colony.

Retailer’s con job for tying your phone number to warranty.

Today we live in world that revolves around big data, as it’s more valuable than gold.

One of the problems that many people are ignorant of is; how is that data handled, where does it go, and how is it secured?

Because eventually [meaning when and not if] your data will be compromised, where your personal details will make it on the deep web.

Retailers like Harvey Norman and JB Hi-Fi, con you into giving them your phone number for ‘warranty purposes’.

That implies that if you do not hand over your phone number you will not receive a warranty on the product.

Name, phone number and email address are important parameters in order to dox your person.

They will tell you that they ‘require’ those details, but you do not have to provide them with those details, where in fact there is no such subsection in Australia’s Consumer law directing you to do so.

It is through the general population’s ignorance and compliance to corporate lies, that is paving way to a dystopian society.

Pretty close to every single cashier at every transaction at HN or JB will ask for your phone number.

For more information, see Business Reform's Stop Giving Everyone Your Real Phone Number :

or Naomi Brockwell's : They Asked for My Cell Number. I Don’t Have One.

Australia’s governments LOVE criminals (and most importantly - repeat offenders)

The colonialists are (still) in charge of this dumpster fire called Australia.

Some people may be of the opinion that the authorities want to stamp out crime, but that’s not actually correct, as actions speak louder than words.

The federal government’s immigration policy is that it imports criminals into the colony, where they continue to commit criminal activity on this land, where it’s all about the ‘economy’.

Keeping in mind that what's good for the economy, may not be good for the people.

The more criminals, the better for the judicature, i.e. the administration of so called ‘justice’, but that may be not so good for the victims of those criminal activities.

IF or when you go to court, you are a ‘customer’, period.

And that is true even if you do not hire a lawyer.

Let’s just say that if you’ve got a shoe shop, where you’re open 7 days a week, and you have 5 customers per day you may not be making enough profit to stay open from 35 customers per week.

If conditions changed, where you’re guaranteed 70,000 customers for a whole year, then you’d be ‘raking’ it in.

The same goes for the courts and their ‘officers of the court’, that being the lawyer that you hired to represent you.

It is unclear of what the intention of the article was whether is was supposed to make the reader feel sorry for the system or whether it was a brag.

In any event it is not good for the community to have that many (alleged) criminalsin one state, unless they’re all speeding 3km/h over some arbitrary speed limit which changes depending on what some ignorant bureaucrat sees fit the speed limit to be.

The low quality people in Australia’s governments do what serves them the best and not the community at large.

IF the colony’s governments where truly serious about having a low crime rate, then there are a fair few nations on this planet that have perfectly functioning society with very low crime rates, which the colonialists could have modelled this nations laws on, where this action would have been done generations ago.

The judiciary wants/needs repeat ‘customers’ where their court orders reflect this.

Australia has become a low quality low value society, as a result of federal and state government's actions.

Australia, the shithouse colony, "run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise."

Migration Tracker - A City Larger Than Hobart EVERY YEAR

In the United States of America a study was done into a city the (population) side of what Melbourne was a couple of decades ago where it was found that an importation of people more than 700 per week was unsustainable, from an infrastructure/resources point of view.

In Australia, at that time the authorities were allowing immigration from abroad to the tune of approx. 2,500 corporate fodder into Melbourne, alone.

 See: https://www.reviveaus.com/tracker

The authorities have caused austerity on the good people of Australia, by over populating the colony with low quality humans that are of little benefit to Australian society in general, where as a result crime has exponentially risen due to the low quality imports.

 Source:supplied

Dave Hughes UNLOADS on former Premier Dan Andrews

It's been established a long time ago what Australia is, and it's only gotten worse since it was first inked.

In the 1960's, author Donald Horne put pen to paper in his book "The Lucky Country" published in 1964, referring to Australia as the "lucky country".

There are a few problems with this.

First and foremost, the book  "The Lucky Country" was never meant to be a complement about Australia, but rather a dig at the low lives running the place.

His sentence describing Australia, was deliberately misquoted and popularised into pop culture, as an alleged complement about this sun burnt land. 

The full quote is as follows:

“Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people’s ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.”

It's also quite clear that Mr. Horne did not have a quick peruse at the Constitution, which brings up the next point.

Another 'small' technicality, yet quite a significant legal one is that on the second page of the 'original' Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), it is stated that:

"... the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purpose of that Act"

This was the case in 1964 and still is so today, meaning the Imperial Act has not been repealed.

Now that the technicalities are out of the way... or maybe not there is still one more important aspect the general population may not be aware, that being that 'faceless men' run this nation.

The so called 'elected' leaders, meaning "We the people" did not elect, e.g. Mr. Daniel Michael Andrews as a premier of Victoria, nor the current puppet Mr. Benjamin Alan Carroll, but rather the 'faceless men' put the clowns in a 'Punch & Judy' clown show on display.

So here's what Dave Hughes had to say about the hit and run driver which Victoria Police support:

SO, Google censors our posts on YouTube and Google Reviews on corporations.

Let us know in the comments if you cannot see this response:

Census fine about as ‘lawful’ as a Covid fine?

Australia’s authorities are corrupt to the core.

During a normal business day they practice deception, coercion, intimidation, fear of incarceration, but most importantly pressure you, the serfs into submission, or rather ‘consent’.

Australia’s governments, federal state/territorial are also human rights abusers, where they truly do not care unless it becomes public knowledge headed for the courts, but that topic is for another day.

So, during ‘Covid’, across Australia the authorities had no lawfully (as opposed to ‘legally') enacted ‘instrument’ to issue a covid related fine, but they still did anyway, preying on the ignorance of the general population.

Heavily monitoring social media during this time, once the authorities figured out that people were aware how to successfully challenge the lawfulness (under Section 78B, of the Judiciary Act 1903), they started to drop or withdraw the person’s fine.

SO, now as similarly with the Covid situation, the mainstream media is reporting that failure to comply with the Census will result in a 'huge'* fine.

First and foremost, as with ANY 'fine' or rather allegation of wrongdoing/criminal activity, the burden of proof is on the accuser, period.

You, the plebs/serfs/general population are told that if you lie or skip the census, you ‘could’ face a fine of up to $3640 AND $364 per day it goes incomplete.

(Show us the 'lawfully' enacted instrument for the fine, as opposed to a legal statute).

Therefore such a ‘*cruel and unusual punishment’ MUST be challenged in the appropriate court under a ‘question of law’, that being a Section 78B, where the burden of proof is on this business called the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

An important aspect is also to consider, is that did your ‘person’ get lawfully notified?

Merely stating the the ABS is enacted under the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975 is zero proof of its lawfulness.

Subpoena the head of power for that Act, or even write an FOI to the government for this, and put your response on social media.

If it is stated that your ‘person’ is lying, how is this information obtained?

It must be proven that you 'lied', where just merely one ‘cannot remember’ like (Victorian premier Daniel) Andrews stated on the public record, is sufficient as in the Andrews example.

There are a few other intricacies that need to be dealt with, where is it advisable to obtain the ‘correct’ legal information prior to the matter being brought before the courts.

From the information that has been obtained, the federal government is not acting ‘lawfully’ for not only carrying out the census, but also implementing fines on those who do not participate.

What is certain also, that this is another con job by the government.

Keep in mid that they SOLD 'your' data in a previous census.

Can a department 'lawfully' sell your data for profit, and if so, where is this stated in a 'lawfully' enacted instrument?

In their 'spam' letter, to you, the ABS or rather Jenny Telford states that "The Census is compulsory*", where the asterisk points to a privacy website link, which the nothing to do with proving that it is "compulsory".

A typical gaslighting tactic by the governments of Australia.

Warning! Revolut wins Australian banking licence. Don't use it as it's not safe nor secure!

Just because a corporation is allowed to trade in Australia does not mean that it's good for the people.

It may be good for 'business' but not necessarily for the 'consumer' or corporate fodder.

Revolut is apparently Europe's largest private financial technology company started by Nik Storonsky and Vladimir Yatsenko.

Nik Storonsky is the chief executive of Revolut

From industry sources, it runs on Android 9 with no security patches since 2018, where this no way any sane person should do banking with their app.

Prior to conducting any banking on a mobile platform the system must be up to date with security patches in order to mitigate any threats or exploits.

For a few years, GrapheneOS has been the most secure Android mobile phone operating system, period.

So much so that the Israeli based Cellebrite phone hacking tool cannot penetrate an up to date GrapheneOS based phone in the BFU (Before First Unlock) state.

Revolut previously did run on GrapheneOS but has recently stopped its app from being run, citing security reasons, yet they allow it to run on a mobile phone operating system, where security updates stopped in 2018, or 8 years ago.

It's quite clear that this corporation does not have the best security practices in play, where they should not be trusted with you data or cash, irrespective of their previous financial performance.

Revolut is based in Lithuania, so when/if things go awry, then good luck getting your money out from within their app.

Buyer beware!

Edit:

See complaint from a user:

Good morning,

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding Revolut's apparent ongoing rollout of changes to its Android application which prevent, or will prevent, the app from operating on devices running GrapheneOS.

My understanding is that this change is currently being rolled out to only a proportion of users. It has not affected my account yet, but reports from other users indicate that Revolut is testing or progressively deploying this restriction. I am therefore raising this complaint now, before I am potentially locked out of access to my bank account.

I object to this decision in the strongest possible terms for several reasons.

1. GrapheneOS is not an insecure or compromised operating system

The restriction does not appear simply to be identifying genuinely insecure devices. GrapheneOS has specifically reported Revolut detecting and rejecting GrapheneOS devices.

This distinction matters.

GrapheneOS is a security- and privacy-focused Android operating system designed specifically for supported Google Pixel devices. It retains verified boot and supports a locked bootloader, while adding substantial security hardening beyond standard Android.

Blocking such a device merely because it does not run Google's stock operating system is not a meaningful assessment of whether that device is secure.

To use a simple analogy, it is rather like an insurance company refusing to insure a house because the customer's front-door lock is too secure.

If Revolut genuinely requires device integrity verification, GrapheneOS provides mechanisms by which applications can perform hardware-backed attestation and verify legitimate GrapheneOS installations. A blanket refusal to support the operating system is therefore neither the only nor, in my view, the most sensible security option available.

2. The policy produces an absurd security contradiction

Revolut currently supports Android versions going back many years.

This means that the Revolut application may operate on an old Android phone which is no longer receiving current operating-system security patches, while refusing to operate on a modern Google Pixel running an actively maintained, security-hardened version of Android.

It is very difficult to reconcile those two positions with an assertion that this restriction is necessary for customer security.

A modern Pixel running an up-to-date GrapheneOS installation with verified boot and a locked bootloader is clearly not inherently less secure simply because the operating system is not Google's stock Pixel firmware.

Security decisions should be based upon the actual security properties and integrity of a device, rather than an arbitrary list of approved operating-system vendors.

3. Revolut has apparently provided no viable alternative means of accessing my money

I have already contacted Revolut customer support regarding this issue.

I was advised that, should my device become unsupported, I could either use Revolut's web application or use another mobile phone.

Neither suggestion provides a reasonable solution.

Firstly, the web application itself requires authentication using the Revolut mobile application. If Revolut deliberately prevents that application from running on my device, telling me to use a website which requires approval from the application I can no longer use is circular and plainly does not solve the problem.

Secondly, I was effectively advised that I could obtain or borrow another person's phone, install Revolut on it, and log into my bank account there.

I find it extraordinary that this can seriously be proposed as the more secure alternative.

Revolut would apparently prefer me to enter my banking credentials and establish access to my account on a friend's device — a device over which I have no long-term control and whose security I cannot independently establish — rather than allow me to use my own modern Pixel with a locked bootloader and a security-focused operating system.

That appears directly contrary to the stated security objective of this change.

4. This risks depriving an existing customer of practical access to their bank account

This is not merely a question of whether Revolut chooses to support an optional feature on a particular platform.

I am an existing customer. I receive my salary into Revolut, use it as a significant part of my everyday banking arrangements, and pay for a Metal subscription.

Revolut has encouraged customers to treat its service as their bank. It is therefore entirely reasonable for customers to expect that Revolut will not deliberately remove their primary means of accessing their accounts without providing a genuinely functional alternative.

If Revolut introduces a technical restriction which it knows will prevent an existing customer from using the application, while its alternative web interface itself depends upon that application for authentication, that raises a much more serious question of effective access to the customer's financial services.

I should not be forced to purchase and carry a second mobile telephone solely because Revolut has chosen to reject a secure operating system which my existing hardware is perfectly capable of running.

Resolution requested

I would therefore like Revolut to:

confirm whether it intends to block, directly or indirectly, correctly installed GrapheneOS devices from accessing the Revolut application;

reconsider this policy and implement an appropriate method of supporting GrapheneOS, including hardware-backed device attestation where Revolut considers integrity verification necessary;

confirm that existing customers will not be deprived of access to their accounts solely because they use GrapheneOS on an otherwise supported device with a locked bootloader; and

if Revolut nevertheless intends to impose this restriction, provide a fully functional method of accessing and administering a Revolut account which does not itself require authorisation from the mobile application that Revolut has chosen to block.

I would also appreciate an explanation of the security rationale for permitting the application to operate on older Android devices which may no longer receive security updates while rejecting a current, supported Pixel running a hardened Android operating system.

Please treat this correspondence as a formal complaint, rather than general product feedback, and provide me with Revolut's formal written response.

If Revolut proceeds with this restriction without providing a reasonable means for affected customers to continue accessing their accounts, or if I do not receive a satisfactory response to this complaint, I intend to refer the matter to the Bank of Lithuania, as the competent out-of-court dispute resolution authority identified in Revolut Bank UAB's terms for Maltese customers. I will also consider seeking assistance through the Maltese Office of the Arbiter for Financial Services and the FIN-NET cross-border consumer complaints framework where appropriate.

I sincerely hope escalation will not be necessary. I have been a loyal Revolut customer for years and have been sufficiently satisfied with the service to entrust Revolut with my salary payments and pay for a Metal subscription. That makes it particularly disappointing to face the prospect of being arbitrarily excluded from my own banking application despite using a modern and demonstrably security-focused device.

I would much prefer Revolut to address the underlying technical issue properly rather than force otherwise satisfied customers to choose between replacing their operating system, purchasing an unnecessary second phone, or moving their banking elsewhere.

I look forward to your formal response.

Kind regards,

See response from Revolut:

     Source:supplied