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"
The sole purpose that corporations exist for is not to create a product or service but rather to generate profit for the owners/stakeholders from this product or service.
In a fair few instances health of the consumers is not on the cards, with food-like products from corporations like McDonald's, Wendy's, Donut King, et al.
A global 'big pharma' giant has recently put together a drug that allegedly stops people from smoking.
So what they need to do now is to spruik their 'wares' to medical practitioners, where kickbacks are given for every prescription handed out the patient 'customer'/consumer.
That's all very nice, BUT the problem is that a confidential industry insider stated that the drug doesn't work, where the company that produced it, knows that.
Sounds familiar?
A few years ago the same corporation put out a drug that was forced or maybe 'enticed' onto the people, where it did not confer immunity therefore it was falsely labelled as a 'vaccine'.
Naturally it would a good idea to seek a professional medial opinion on this drug from a medical practitioner that has no vested interest in the product.
The question is very simple, where how much does it cost for a pharmaceutical corpoation to make their 'trial' drug that is only distributed via Emergency Use Authorisation, where it is advertised by the Australian authorities as "safe and effective"
The spreadsheet above lists the three 'big pharma' corporations and how much each of them has paid to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia.
Moderna has paid a total of $3,314,869.50
Pfizer pad a total of $28,250,549.99
AstraZeneca paid a total of $13,582,028.62
A small brabe of each of them to reap in huge profits frm the sales of their drugs, which were forced on the general population, where the judiciary and others were exempt.
It's not the first nor the last bribe the TGA has taken, where as a result it cannot be trusted, but as always no one goes to prison over such large scale corruption in this colony.
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.
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.
MediSecure
has identified a cyber security incident impacting the personal and
health information of individuals. We have taken immediate steps to
mitigate any potential impact on our systems.
While
we continue to gather more information, early indicators suggest the
incident originated from one of our third-party vendors.
MediSecure
takes its legal and ethical obligations seriously and appreciate this
information will be of concern. MediSecure is actively assisting the the
National Cyber Security Coordinator to manage the impacts of the
incident. MediSecure has also notified the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner and other key regulators.
MediSecure
understands the importance of transparency and will provide further
updates via our website as soon as more information becomes available.
We appreciate your patience and understanding during this time.
It does not seem that at the time of this post the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has informed the public, as seen by this screen capture:
Also,
Australia's Cyber Security Coordinator says the large-scale ransomware
data breach of e-script provider MediSecure was an "isolated" attack,
though she warns cyber criminals are likely to target the health
industry again.
- Another health industry corporation Medibank, was breached in 2022, hardly an "isolated" action.
- Monash Health, May 2024, was also breached, an "isolated" action too?
- Ambulance Victoria, April 2024, yet again "isolated" right?
- Diabetes WA, another health organisation breached in April 2024.
- RACOGP (Royal Australian College of General Practitioners) in March 2024, no doubt "isolated" too.
The above are only some of the data breaches that have been reported in 2024 regarding the health industry.
THEREFORE, we call this out as a BS statement by the Australian Cyber Security Coordinator, in order not to scare the public that no 'online' personal information is safe from hackers.
In simple terms: more government lies, about the severity of the situation.
Does this 'Lieutenant General', Michelle McGuiness not recall other health industry breaches, or even know about them irrespective of that fact that there were other health industry breaches before her tenure, if so then she is not fit for the role, another useless bureaucrat?
Is she truly qualified for the job, or is this another 'money for mates' position, like most of them are within the governments of this colony called Australia.
'Lieutenant General', aye? Seems that we're in the defence force or at least occupied/governed by one.
Since Australia is full steam ahead to cashless and all records are going digital, e.g. land titles, etc for easier administration of the serfs/plebs, there WILL be more data breaches, period.
The government is in full 'propaganda' mode to lull the plebs into a false sense of security, with this latest breach.
Australia also 'outsources' a LOT of domestic information into the hands of unskilled labour in order to keep the costs down.
People offshore that have access to 'our' private and confidential information can then pass it on to known criminals, where Aussies will be clueless.
The reality is that it's through the people in governments' mismanagement that we will see more and more data breaches, where they will even lie about how much data was compromised.
MediSecure, the company which facilitates electronic prescriptions and their dispensing, did not reveal how many Australians were affected.
HUGE fines should be imposed on the companies where data breaches occur, where as a follow up, the I.T. staff or the outsourced 'monkeys behind the keyboards' should be made redundant, effective immediately.
BUT, the people in government don't care as it's not 'their' private and confidential data that is leaked.
Maybe if Daniel Andrews' or Bill Shorten's home addresses where 'leaked' then they WOULD do something more to keep data safe?
"Former federal health minister Greg Hunt has taken a swipe at Victoria and other states for overarching during the pandemic and making orders that were not backed by medical advice."
The AstraZeneca drug is erroneously or rather deliberately falsely advertised as a vaccine, which it is not, as it does not confer immunity.
So, now this drug can no longer be used in the European Union.
Will the colony called Australia follow?
See article:
In any event the authorities have lied about the death rates from the jab, and are much more than officially claimed.
'Big Pharma' knew that their product was dangerous to humans, but governments and corporations still pushed it on the serf population.
The best place to read about the internal documents that prove that these corporations knew about the dangers is through whistleblowers and data leaks.
Actions by governments and corporations in this matter, i.e. 'forcing' the drug on people, are criminal in nature.
Australia's mainstream media was very quick to inform the general population of how Victoria Police officers have been reprimanded/stood down for not participating in the Covid-19 jab, whereas the judiciary was exempt.
Well what about the follow up? As there is a followup!
On the 13th of March, there was a court hearing, in not just any court, but the Supreme Court of Victoria.
No 'court reporters' on such a monumental matter? All is silent on the western front!
The jab has maimed many, in a life shortening venture by the government and health authorities, where Peter Simon Shearer was successful against the charges laid against him, that being an alleged breach of discipline for failing to comply with vaccination* requirements for the Victoria Police manual.
See SHEARER v CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2024] VSC 181
as filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria:
* Please note that the Covid-19 'jab' cannot be legally referred to as a vaccine, as it does not confer immunity.
Mutiny In China - Youth is giving up on life "Let it Rot", CCP worried
Governments truly do not care about the general population/serfs, especially the ones that officially flourish on slave labour, dictatorships like China or Nth Korea as an example, where it is seen that life is cheap, quite literally.
All governments are about is their 'economy', GDP and other metrics that define how hard the slaves work.
The Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, single-handedly destroyed his nation's economy with controversial actions and policies.
The Chinese youth were astute enough to act en masse, against the policies that are aimed at them, their health and well-being and their future.
On a side-note, a chart from 2016 that shows the most unaffordable home prices of 17 cities, Australian cities occupy 3 positions indicating that Australia is also under a similar (deliberate) 'failure of government'.
The Australian government is already showing signs of China's 9-9-6 (9am-9pm, 6 days a week) work policy, with the extension of twilight work hours in Melbourne.
It's a pity Chairman Dan (Andrews) didn't see this while in office.
Meta also censors this video on its Facebook asset, meaning it censors documentaries exposing corrupt governments and the truth.
The Chinese government, welded apartment complexes' exit doors, not allowing people to get food, breaching the Human Rights of residents BUT the world did nothing about it.
Apple is another global corporation that supports China's slave labour policy, in fact Apple banks on it.
See 2hr documentary:
ANY chance of the Australian youth waking up? NOPE!
The tyrants in Australia's governments are safe for quite some time.
Australian private health insurance
giant Medibank is set to face additional proceedings, with a global law
firm bringing a shareholder action for alleged breach of continuous
disclosure obligations pertaining to purported non-disclosures about
deficiencies in the company’s cyber security defences.
This afternoon (Wednesday, 29 March),
Medibank (ASX: MPL) announced to the market that it was served with
class action proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, months after
one of the biggest data privacy breaches in Australia’s history.
The proceedings are on behalf of
shareholders who acquired interests in the health insurance provider
between 1 July 2019 and 19 October 2022 and are being brought by global
plaintiff firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
On the website set up by the firm for
shareholders to register for the class action, Quinn Emanuel outlined
that its claim against the health insurance provider arises from the
breach of “substantial volumes of data” from Medibank’s network,
including the personal and health claims data of customers being
accessed by one or more hackers.
“The stolen data was later publicly released via the dark web,” the firm noted.
“Briefly and in broad terms”, the firm
is alleging that, prior to the breach late last year, “Medibank was
‘aware’ of information concerning deficiencies in its cyber security
systems, [and] by failing to disclose that information to the Australian
Securities Exchange, Medibank breached the continuous disclosure
obligations imposed on it by provisions of the Corporations Act”.
Moreover, Quinn Emanuel continued, “the
failure to disclose the information caused the market price of Medibank
shares to be inflated so that investors purchased those shares at a
price which was greater than what they would otherwise have paid”.
Medibank noted that it intends to defend the proceedings.
The news follows the filing of a class action against Medibank by fellow global law firm Baker McKenzie, in conjunction with litigation funder Omni Bridgeway, in February.
It also follows the decision by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Bannister Law Class Actions, and Centennial Lawyers to join forces on an action to secure compensation for consumers in mid-January.
The joint proceedings followed the launching of an investigation by Maurice Blackburn in mid-November (which became an officially launched proceeding in December) and by Bannister Law and Centennial Lawyers in early November.
The cyber breach late last year involved
highly personal information of millions of Medibank customers,
including names, dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, some
Medicare and passport numbers and in some cases, sensitive healthcare
information, including codes associated with diagnosis and medical
procedures.
“Health claims data for around 160,000
Medibank customers, around 300,000 ahm customers, and around 20,000
international customers [were accessed]. This includes service provider
name and location, where customers received certain medical services,
and codes associated with diagnosis and procedures administered,” the
provider said at the time.
“Additionally, around 5,200 My Home
Hospital (MHH) patients have had some personal and health claims data
accessed, and around 2,900 next of kin of these patients have had some
contact details accessed.”
From 2020 soon after the declaration of a global pandemic, Australia's police forces have disregarded Human Rights legislation of every state, despite there not being any lawful override of the state's Act, where if a person should seek a remedy it may be given in court or not.
.jpg)
