The privacy of ordinary Australians is under serious threat

ntelligence representatives offered to share the confidential data of law-abiding Australians with international partners. In this Orwellian climate, who will guard the guardians?

 

Canadian eavesdroppers drew the line at sharing bulk metadata. Australian ones didn't. Photograph: Getty

The latest Snowden document, revealed by Guardian Australia today, increases concern that the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) is operating outside its legal mandate. The minutes of a policy meeting in Britain in 2008, with their US, Canadian, UK and New Zealand counterparts, reveal DSD representatives claiming that they were entitled to share the confidential data of Australians with these partners, and were even considering disclosing them to “non-intelligence agencies” without first obtaining a warrant.

This would be a breach of sections 8 and 12 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001. Snowden’s evidence that that DSD ignored this law (or was ignorant of its correct interpretation) raises the prospect that law-abiding Australians have had their personal data wrongfully collected and transmitted to bodies which may use it to damage them.

The Intelligence Services Act sets strict limits on any DSD (now ASD) activity “likely to have a direct effect on an Australian person or produce intelligence on an Australian person”. In such cases, ministerial authorisation is required (section 8) and before giving it, the minister must be satisfied that the Australian is “a person of interest” – ie involved in terrorism or espionage or serious crime. This is a vital safeguard and any unauthorised or unnecessary surveillance of an Australian is in breach of the Act (section 12).

The Snowden leak, however, suggests that in some circumstances DSD believes it can circumvent this safeguard and even offer up the fruit of its warrantless interceptions to foreign agencies.

The meeting of the five national electronic spying representatives was called in 2008 to consider whether and how to share the remarkably intimate intelligence that can be gathered from “metadata” – the log of electronic signals sent and received by individuals. “Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life” says the NSA’s general counsel. It told, for example, that General Petraeus was having an affair with his biographer, so he could not, in puritan America, remain head of the CIA. There are doubtless quite a few Australians whom metadata tales might dob in (think Bob Hawke and Blanche d’Alpuget) without any suggestion that they have been involved in crime. It is this prospect that makes it important to ensure that DSD operates scrupulously within the law.

The minutes of the policy convention show DSD representatives insouciant about sharing metadata on Australians – so long as it had been hoovered up “unintentionally” they were happy to store and to disclose it without obtaining a warrant. This is a misinterpretation of section 8. If it has been collected unintentionally it must be destroyed. Significantly, the Canadian eavesdroppers drew the line at sharing this “bulk metadata” precisely because of Canada’s privacy laws.

There are other disquieting details in the minutes of this spooks’ convention. The parties all agreed that as a result of electronic spying breakthroughs they appear to be now collecting “medical, legal and religious, or restricted business information, which may be regarded as an intrusion of privacy (my italics)”. But there is no “may” about it – obtaining details of personal medical history counts as an invasion of privacy under every human rights treaty, whilst theft of professionally privileged legal advice is contrary to the common law. These minutes are further evidence we are slipping into an Orwellian world where the state can scoop up any electronic communication, and in which DSD thinks it can lawfully tittle-tattle on Australians to foreign agencies and is even considering disclosure to “non-intelligence agencies” – police, professional associations, employers and perhaps even to newspapers.

Snowden’s earlier revelations, in Guardian Australia and the ABC, that DSD had in 2009 targeted the mobile phones of top Indonesians, including the president’s wife, raise the question of whether it had exceeded its powers to gather information of relevance to national security, as distinct from gossip and intimate personal data. His latest revelations are more serious, raising the question of whether DSD has, since 2008, been exceeding its powers in relation to disclosing data collected on Australian citizens who are not suspected of crime. It calls for an answer to the Quis Custodiet question: who guards the guardians?

In Australia there is a parliamentary committee on intelligence and security. But it can only review matters referred by a minister or by the houses of parliament – it cannot act on its own initiative to ensure that DSD is operating within the law. There is however an inspector general of intelligence and security, a position established by special legislation in 1986 who may of her own initiative “inquire into any matter that relates to the compliance by (DSD) with the laws of the Commonwealth … or the propriety of particular activities of the agency… or a practice of that agency that is or may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right”.

The guardian who must now guard the DSD is the current inspector general Dr Vivienne Thom, a legal academic. So far she has remained silent on the Snowden revelations and as far as the public is aware, she has not investigated the organisation for privacy invasion or excess of power in respect of those allegations. If she hasn't, she must do so urgently and immediately, or her office will not live up to its statutory duty. The answer to the Quis Custodiet question, in Australia, will be Nemo – nobody.

• Geoffrey Robertson QC is the author of Dreaming too Loud – Reflections on a Race Apart, published this month by Random House

theguardian.com 2 Dec 2013

All part of the agenda of the rulers which no one can realistically stop.

Australia the Prison Island - Violation of laws

For those who are in the delusional state or are blinded by the corporate media lies, or government propaganda agents that promote Australia as 'free country' or 'lucky country' or even a democracy, the real truth is a bit more harsh.

An understanding of the legal system is of paramount importance in order to ascertain one's so called 'freedom'.

A list has been compiled of the laws that are being violated in Australia by the 'authorities'.

These are as follows:

• Common law  
• Due process of law 1354
• Due process of law 1368  
• bill of rights 1688
• magna carta 1215
• magna carta 1216 
• magna carta 1217 
• magna carta 1225
• magna carta 1297
• petition of right 1627
• habeas corpus act 1640 
• Criminal & Civil Justice Act 1351 
• Free Access to Courts Act 1400 
• Imperial Acts Application Act 1984 
• an act to constitute the commonwealth of Australia section 80 
• an act to constitute the commonwealth of Australia section 109
• an act to constitute the commonwealth of Australia section 117 
• an act to constitute the commonwealth of Australia section 118
• an act to constitute the commonwealth of Australia Clause 5
• CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 section 268 part 10 COMMONWEALTH CONSOLIDATED ACTS. SLAVERY 
• CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 section 64B part 2 COMMONWEALTH CONSOLIDATED ACTS. NO JURISDICTION 
• AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 division 2 subdivision 12CA, 12CB, 12CC COMMONWEALTH CONSOLIDATED ACTS. UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT 
• CRIMES ACT 1914 section 43 COMMONWEALTH CONSOLIDATED ACTS. PERVERT JUSTICE 
• CRIMES ACT 1914 section 87 COMMONWEALTH CONSOLIDATED ACTS. FALSE CERTIFICATES 
• UCC / UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE Article § 1-111 and § 2-302 UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT 
• UCC / UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE Article § 1-308 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 
• UN / UNITED NATIONS Chapter of Laws ARTICLE 19 Section 2 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 
• DECLARATION OF HELSINKI, Nuremberg Code Sixth revision section 1 UN-VOLUNTURY CONSENT 
• DECLARATION OF HELSINKI, Nuremberg Code Sixth revision section 4 UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL AND MENTAL SUFFERING, IMPLEMENTING STRESS, BRAINWASHING, MANIPULATION, DISINFORMATION ETC 
• THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Article 17 section 2. NO ONE SHALL BE ABITRARILY DEPRIVED OF HIS PROPERTY. 
• THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Article 20 section 2. NO ONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO BELONG TO AN ASSOCIATION
• THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Article 30. THE RIGHT TO NOT ENGAGE IN ANY ACTIVITY OR TO PERFORM IN ANY ACT AIMED AT THE DESTRUCTION OF ANY OF THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS SET FORTH HEREIN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person 
• Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No. 2) 2010 section 21 (1) UCONSCIOUBLE CONDUCT. 
• Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No. 2) 2010 section 34 MISLEADING CONDUCT AS TO THE NATURE ETC. OF SERVICES 
• Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No. 2) 2010 section 50 HARASSMENT AND COERCION 
• Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No. 2) 2010 section 151 FALSE OR MISLEADING And; REPRESENTATION ABOUT GOODS OR SERVICES
• Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No. 2) 2010 section 45. ENGAGING IN A PYRMID SCHEME 
• CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 section 80.1 part 1 COMMONWEALTH CONSOLIDATED ACTS. CAUSING HARM TO THE SOVEREIGN 
• TRADE MARKS ACT 1995- SECT 42 COMMONWEALTH CONSOLIDATED ACTS. 
• TRADE MARK SCANDALOUS OR ITS USE TO CONTRARY TO LAW 
• TRADE MARKS ACT 1995- SECT 43 COMMONWEALTH CONSOLIDATED ACTS. 
• TRADE MARK LIKELY TO DECEIVE OR CAUSE CONFUSION 
• CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 section 142.2 part 1&2 COMMONWEALTH CONSOLIDATED ACTS. ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE 
• INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS PART 1 ARTICLE 1 All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. 
• INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS PART 2 ARTICLE 1 Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,
• WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 2011 - SECT 108, New South Wales Consolidated Acts ENFORCED by Section 118 of An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia. Prohibition of coercion or inducement,
• Commonwealth Consolidated Acts -CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 28 Interfering with political liberty,
• Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct : Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, e International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations Convention against Corruption, Rule of Law. is being violated
• Harare Declaration
• Haugue Convention
• Geneva Proctocol 1925
• the Yamashita protocols - also called the Medina Standard
• Papal Bull issued by Pope Francis on june the 11th 2013
• The charter of the commonwealth 2013
• Your Unalienable rights
• Your Inalienable rights

the biggest one of them all...

•  RULE OF LAW 

 Author: Conscious Entity

The $1 trillion F-35 tries to be all things, but succeeds at few

The $1 trillion F-35 tries to be all things, but succeeds at few, say critics. But is Australia’s new weapon now too big to fail?

Take a look at the F-35 fighter jet. Courtesy Lockheed Martin

AUSTRALIA has committed its biggest defence outlay ever on an unfinished combat jet critics insist can’t fight, can’t run and can’t hide. Is the F-35 a flop? 

Angst has been boiling about the F-35 Lightning II (otherwise known as the Joint Strike Fighter) since its inception. Now, five years overdue and six years away from its revised delivery date, that angst has exploded into furore.

The United States, and by virtual default all its key allies, have pinned their hopes on this single project.
In the US it’s been priced at over $1 trillion. Australia is spending around $15 billion.

Advocates insist its is the most advanced killing machine in history — a flying supercomputer pumping an unprecedented level of information into a $500,000 helmet that allows pilots to “see” through the floor of their own aircraft.

Whatever the case, the F-35 was supposed to be an affordable alternative to the far more capable F22 Raptor interceptor fighter.

Now, it’s so expensive — in fact it’s the most costly defence project in history at $1 trillion — it is being seen as “far too big to fail”.

While builder Lockheed Martin may yet succeed in rolling the aircraft off the production line, there are grave doubts in the aircraft’s ability to do the jobs demanded of it.

Critics point to what they call a fundamental flaw in its design: As a cost-savings exercise, it’s supposed to be all things to all people.

For the US Navy, it’s supposed to be an F14 Tomcat interceptor and F/A18 Hornet strike fighter combined.
For the US air force, it’s supposed to do the jobs of the F-16 strike fighter and A10 ground-attack aircraft.
For the US Marines, it’s supposed to be a replacement for their iconic “Jump Jet” Harriers.

The result, critics say, is a cascading series of compromises that has produced an aircraft inadequate to meet any of its functions.

Here’s a look at the causes of the controversy.

CAN THIS FIGHTER FIGHT?

It’s supposed to clear the skies to keep valuable assets and troops safe.

It’s supposed to sneak past enemy air defences with ease, and deliver its (limited) ordinance with pinpoint accuracy.

It’s supposed to go in rough and dirty to support embattled ground troops — anywhere, anytime.

But defence industry critics are now loudly shouting it isn’t up to any of these tasks. Not mean enough. Not stealthy enough. Especially when put up against its new Russian and Chinese competitors.

It’s underarmed with just two air-to-air missiles and two large bombs, they say.

Advocates insist it can carry an enormous array of modern weapons — and that its speed and manoeuvrability handicaps are negated by its extreme stealth characteristics. You cannot shoot what you cannot see, they argue.

Detractors argue that strapping bombs under the F-35 wings is like putting up a huge neon “shoot me” sign in modern battlefield radar environments. And given that the F-35 is inherently slower and less manoeuvrable than its opponents, it can only carry more than its hidden, but highly limited, internal load at its own risk.

It’s a point the F-35’s competitors have highlighted, using test combat results to try to convince Australia to buy their Russian-based technology instead.

Advocates present the aircraft’s incredibly enhanced battlefield electronics as their trump card. But these Top Secret systems that sound as though they are straight out of a science fiction movie are yet to become fully operational.

Imposing presence ... Prime Minister Tony Abbott with a mock-up of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter at RAAF base Fairbairn, in Canberra. 

Australia has committed to buying more than 70 of the controversial aircraft. Source: News Corp Australia

 

Look at me ... current-generation Sukhoi SU-35 fighters are being marketed as a proven alternative to the F-35. Indonesia is proving to be increasingly interested. Source: AFP

 

FLAWED FUNDAMENTALS?

It may not be sexy, but commonality is the key word: It’s in all the F-35 advertising. It is supposed to do everything from dogfighting to dropping bombs, carrier landings to vertical landings.

Problem is, each has some pretty specific — and strict — requirements. Commonality is not always compatible with capability.

But, commonality sounds good to budget-minded politicians.

It sounds so good Australia is now reassessing its recent purchase of two helicopter-carrying assault ships. Originally designed to operate the AV8 Harrier aircraft for the Spanish navy, the Royal Australian Navy bought a downgraded version optimised for helicopter use only.

The Abbott Government is now considering including 12 of the short takeoff, vertical-landing versions of the JSF, designated the F-35B, among its 72 aircraft order. This would involve a major — and costly — rebuild of the two ships, back up to the original Spanish specifications.

It is this attempt to incorporate the famous Harrier “Jump Jet” capability into the F-35B that has caused many of the aircraft’s problems.

The air force model (F35A) and naval version (F35C) of the fighter have paid a huge price to keep the US Marines happy. Aerodynamically and structurally, compromises had to be made in order to fit such a complex vertical lift mechanism.

“Commonality” decrees that even those versions not carrying the heavy, fuel-hungry and unbalancing engine pointing downwards behind the pilot still have to have the huge hole to accommodate it.

The air force cops a double-whammy: They also don’t need the strong — but heavy — structural reinforcements that a fighter needs to be captured by an aircraft carrier’s arrester hooks, or be catapulted off the deck.

The end result?

All F35s are slower, less manoeuvrable and with less range and lighter payload than machines built to purpose.

The next generation Russian T-50 PAK-FA and the Chinese J20 have proven startlingly sophisticated.

It’s a performance gap reportedly emphasised in simulated combat tests between the F-35 and Russia’s already-in-service Su-35: The Russians repeatedly won. Defence officials have emphatically denied the relevance of this test comparison.

So, are the Marines happy with their super-Harrier that has hobbled the other services so much?
Hopefully. They now have a theoretically capable stealth aircraft that can fly off small flight decks and shattered airfields and sneak behind enemy lines. But Marines are all about slugging it out mano-et-mano in “hot” combat zones, not this “quietly-quietly” stealth business. Would they be bringing a mask to a knife-fight?

Jack of all trades, master of none? ... a prototype F-35 Lightning II fighter jet at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. The US military on 22 February 2013 grounded all flights by its F-35 jets after a crack was found in the engine of one of the planes. Source: AP

 

EXPLODING COSTS

Delivering the dream machine that is all things to all people is proving more difficult than anticipated.
“It is the biggest challenge in the history of military innovation, with a price-tag to match,” one of the projects greatest advocates, Forbes, concedes.

The upshot: Last year the Pentagon Inspector General identified 719 specific problems with the aircraft — ranging from minor through to mission-critical.

Fixing them costs hard cash. Even then, the F-35 fundamental design can only be “fixed” so far.

The F-35 program was initially supposed to be a bargain: A multi-role combat aircraft for everybody at the low, low development price of $US233 billion.

Now, that development price has tipped $US400 billion — and is still rising.

The cost of an individual aircraft was originally touted as being $US75 million. That’s now floating beneath $US150 million each.

Giant challenge ... Russia’s next-generation T-50 stealth fighter poses a serious challenge to the supremacy of the United States Air Force. Source: Supplied

Advocates argue this figure is no more in inflation-adjusted terms than the F-16 fighter of the 1970s.

And they point out that the estimated total project cost has fallen from a feared $US1.5 trillion in 2012 to $US1.1 trillion in 2013, and now $US857 billion

Initially promised to be delivered within 10 years, the program’s delivery date is now slipping past 20 years.
Early production aircraft — which are being rolled off the assembly lines before testing is complete — will need more than $US8 billion more in updates and fixes to enable them to fire missiles, navigate and identify the enemy.

 

New boy on the block ... China has made a huge leap into the realm of stealth aircraft with its J-20 prototypes. Source: Supplied

 

COMPROMISED CORE?

After all is said and done, the stealthy — secret — jet may not be so secret after all. A US-Iranian citizen was arrested earlier this year attempting to smuggle thousands of Top Secret blueprints, specifications and technical documents relating to the program out of the country.

The F-35 is also high among the list US Federal agencies are investigating as being compromised by Chinese hackers.

Then there is its ability to do the job.

Problems with its abilities to sneak about unobserved are a closely guarded secret, though there are reports of issues including flaking radar-absorbent paints.

There’s the supercomputer: ALIS. The “artificial intelligence” of 24 million lines of code has reportedly proven to be something of a tyrant — refusing to accept everything from spare parts to weapons without “her” specific approval.

Even its core stealth characteristics have already been downgraded. This year the US Navy reduced its order for the new stealth fighter and instead sought to buy more electronic warfare aircraft to “jam” hostile radars.

This may follow reports that new radars being fitted to Chinese and Russian warships and defence installations have been tailored specifically to spot the supposedly stealthy fighter.

This follows a 2006 downgrade in the F-35’s projected stealth rating from “very low observable” to “low observable”.

What this all means for export buyers who will get a downgraded version of the F-35 is no doubt Top Secret, but hopefully not “observable”.

Controversially, Australia was promised by its US ambassador back in 2000 that it would get “the stealthiest aeroplane that anybody outside the United States can acquire”.

But will that be enough given that the aircraft is so inferior to its opponents without its optimal stealth abilities?
The US ambassador again:

“Having said that, the aeroplane will not be exactly the same aeroplane as the United States will have. But it will be a stealth fighter; it will have stealth capabilities; and it will be at the highest level that anyone in the world has outside the United States.”

In case of emergency ... Prime Minister Tony Abbott inside the cockpit of an F-35 mock-up. There are mounting calls around the world for various governments to abandon the behind schedule, over-budget and allegedly underperforming F-35. Source: News Corp Australia

 

TOO BIG TO FAIL?

Lockheed Martin has been lobbying hard to keep its flawed program alive for years. A 2013 report reveals it has spent $US159 million on lobbying US politicians alone since 2000. The true figure would be much higher when the governments and officials of a host of nations — including Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada — are taken into account.

And not all press has been against the project: Business news groups such as Forbes have been persistently reporting that all has been progressing positively in Lockheed Martin’s labs.

So will Australia get value for money?

Perhaps.

Australia initially expressed interest in buying 100 examples of this multirole fighter to replace its ageing F/A-18 and F-111 fleet. As prices rose, the number being purchased fell.

The total buy order now stands at a little over 70 F-35s.

But advocates continue to call baloney on critics fears.

They point out that the F-35 program has been delivering test-flight results ahead of its (revised) schedule for the past four years and that production is “ramping up”. 

Dr Mark Thomson, analyst at the government-funded Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told news.com.au that Australia’s choice of fighters from the international market was limited.

“The alternative to the F35, is a previous generation aircraft designed 15 or 20 years before the F35,” he said. “If Australia wants an up-to-date aircraft that would see it through the next two decades, it was the only choice, but yes, it does cost a lot of money.”

Dr Thomson said there was some people critical of the aircraft’s performance but this was up to the United States to resolve.

“One way or another they are going to have to make this aircraft work,” he said, adding a rebuke to critics second-guessing the F-35 program on limited information.

“It’s an incredible assertion that somehow they got it catastrophically wrong.”

Despite the cacophony of criticism, new nations such as South Korea, Canada and Israel keep lining up in the queue to purchase their own examples.

Is the F-35 flawed beyond redemption?

It can’t be.

All of the Western world’s eggs are in one basket.

If it fails, it will cost the United States the military and technological superiority it has proudly asserted ever since the victory over Germany and Japan in 1945.

*Additional reporting by Charis Chang

 

Twilight, or a new dawn? ... An F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant undertakes night flying tests. The troubled fighter has a huge number of hurdles to pass yet before entering active service. Source: Supplied

news.com.au  11 June 2014

Australian politicians buying a White Elephant from a war mongering nation with tax paying servant's monies.

It can even be suggested that the politicians that made the decision to purchase the 'fighter's are (deliberately?) putting Australians at risk, given the fact that it is well known in military circles that the fighter is a flop.

Another money for mates deal?

How can Australia, being subservient to 'Big Brother' buy a better alternative Russia's Sukhoi SU-35?

A real accolade in Australia's history. 

Domain Name Group Fraud

Scams, fraud and ponzi schemes come in all shapes and forms which can be delivered via many ways including email or (postal service) mail.

A scam that has been going on for quite a few years consists of a company writing out a piece of paper that looks like an invoice, to the unsuspecting victim, that leads them to believe that their domain name is up for registration. 

The unsuspecting customer’s real domain name may contain .com.au, whereas the fraudulent invoice is for .net.au. 

This invoice contains an account number that the unsuspecting victim has allegedly opened with that company in order to pay for the domain name that they (allegedly) have purchased which the customer may associate as being up for renewal.

The actions of that company are purely fraudulent, and illegal as they are obtaining financial gain by deception.

In this instance the company committing fraud is:

Domain Name Group Pty Ltd (ACN: 135 462 305)

Level 1, 530 Little Collins St.

Melbourne VIC 3000

Phone: 1300 255 144

Fax: 03 9011 6104

Email: info@domainnamegroup.com.au

Another company involved in fraud where the so called 'authorities' are slow to act in the interest of the consumer.

Pensioners lose savings in government cash grab

UNCLAIMED MONEY

More than half of the $700 million seized from 'inactive' bank accounts since 1959 was taken in the past year.


The federal government has bagged an unprecedented $360 million from household bank accounts since a controversial change to unclaimed money laws, figures from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show.

Pensioners and others saving for a rainy day have reported trying to access their savings only to discover their money had been seized by the government because it had been dormant for three years or more.
The government has collected more money from inactive bank accounts under the three-year rule than the total amount captured in the past five decades combined.

Nearly $360 million from 80,000 accounts was funnelled into government coffers in the year to May after Labor lowered the threshold, eclipsing the $330 million netted between 1959 and 2012, during which time idle accounts could only be touched after seven years.

The Treasury now looks poised to raise the threshold in the face of fierce lobbying from the banking industry, with Finance Minister Mathias Cormann releasing a discussion paper on changing the definition of inactivity from three years to five. Such a change would halve the number of inactive accounts taken by the government each year, he said.

"These changes caused substantial disruption to account holders … and to industry, with businesses forced to rapidly implement new and costly systems. We want to reduce the regulatory burden of these laws."

"We have grandparents who put money aside for their grandkids' future ... but it was transferred to the government": Steven Munchenberg. Photo: Justin McManus

Australian Bankers' Association chief executive Steven Munchenberg said the legislation was a "rushed" budget-boosting exercise that angered customers whose accounts were in fact not lost or forgotten. "We have grandparents who put money aside for their grandkids' future … and farmers who have set aside money for a rainy day, but it was transferred to the government," he said.

He dismissed suggestions the banks wanted to reduce the flow of money to shore up their revenue. "To you or I, hundreds of millions of dollars might be a lot of money, but when you're looking at the funding level of banks, it's all trivial."

But consumer group Choice said it supported the three-year provision because high bank fees could "eat away" at inactive accounts.

"Extending the period of time unclaimed money could remain in an inactive account … is not in a consumer's best interests. Missing money shouldn't be whittled away by industry through penalties and fees," said spokesman Tom Godfrey.

ASIC said the chief purpose of the laws was to reunite people with lost accounts before funds were eroded by fees, charges and inflation. It refused to detail how much had been successfully claimed in the past year, but in 2012 ASIC returned $62 million, of which $33 million was from inactive bank accounts.

Kim Taylor, a marketing consultant from Randwick, deposited a few thousand dollars into an ING account with the intention of leaving it aside and letting it accumulate interest. Now the balance sits at zero.

''I wanted the money to sit there as a maternity leave thing. I left it there thinking that's my little luxury nest egg. I have four children under the age of nine, and I work full-time; getting the paperwork sorted to get the money back has been painful.''

Connie Franze, 68, and her son Vince, 45, are trying to reclaim their life savings of more than $12,000 that was taken by the government last June. ''I saved for 45 years … It was my carer's pension and his disability pension,'' said the retiree from Hurstville.

Ms Franze opened the Commonwealth Bank account 45 years ago, squirrelling away a small portion of her $50-a-week earnings from growing and selling plants. The pair were saving for a trip to Italy to visit her mother.

''She was 100 years old. I wanted to take money out. They wouldn't give me the money … [and then] my mother died this year. The last time I saw her was 20 years ago.''

Last Wednesday, Edward Manning, 62 of Oakdale, reclaimed a "substantial" sum that had been transferred to the government in March. The Citibank account held his inheritance. "For two months we had to draw back on our mortgage and the mortgage has increased … It was frustrating," he said.

The amounts seized from individual accounts range from a few cents to close to $2 million, although more than 90 per cent are worth less than $5000.

Nine accounts, all seized in June last year, were worth more than $1 million each. One woman from Caulfield, Victoria, has lost nearly $5 million across five different accounts.

The public can conduct quick, free searches for lost money on ASIC's MoneySmart website. It can scoop up records of unclaimed money from bank accounts, life insurance policies and company shares.

If you find money that is yours, approach the bank to have the claim verified. The bank will notify ASIC. Owners are paid interest on lost money based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, payable from July 1 last year. No tax has to be paid on the interest earned.

canberratimes.com.au 10 Jun 2014

Quite simply put, this kind of action by the 'government' is in your face theft, and is ILLEGAL.

 

Nothing less than a class action should follow.

 

The communists DID NOT steal moneis from ones bank account.

Julia Gillard’s buried story unearthed

Former prime minister Julia Gillard. Source: News Corp Australia

 

THE witness list for this week’s hearings of the royal commission into union corruption should shame the journalists who for so long protected Julia Gillard. 

It should especially shame the ABC, so quiet on the former prime minister’s links to the Australian Workers’ Union slush fund scandal.

The ABC used to sniff at claims that Gillard had a case to answer, even though she’d given legal advice as a solicitor to her then boyfriend, AWU official Bruce Wilson, in creating the slush fund then used to rip off bosses.

No, no, it insisted: nor was there any need to inquire into other claims — such as money from Wilson’s fund, deceptively named the Australian Workers’ Union Workplace Reform Association, not just going to buy him a house but to pay for renovations to Gillard’s.

“Every allegation ... has been aired, and dealt with publicly by Julia Gillard, multiple times,” the ABC’s Media Watch falsely claimed in 2011.

“It’s a house of cards,” agreed the ABC’s Jon Faine in 2012.

To viewers who asked why the ABC wouldn’t even say Victorian police were investigating, the ABC sent this letter in 2013: “Reporting that the prime minister of the nation is under police investigation is an enormously significant call to make. It cannot be made on supposition, on rumour, or on hearsay.”

To other viewers protesting at the blackout, it wrote: “To the extent that it may touch tangentially on a former role of the Prime Minister ... the ABC is unaware of any allegation in the public domain which goes to the Prime Minister’s integrity.”

True, Gillard has denied doing anything improper, and says she did not know what Wilson did with his fund after she’d advised on its creation.

She also denies benefiting from his alleged frauds and says she paid for her renovations herself.

But does that excuse the ABC — and other media outlets — from not asking further questions? For treating this scandal as “all dredged up and nowhere to go”, as the ABC asserted?

Victoria Police certainly doesn’t think the matter is dead. Victoria’s Chief Magistrate didn’t think so, either, and last December gave police access to documents seized from Slater & Gordon, ruling they were “prepared in furtherance of the commission of a fraud or an offence”.

Nor does the royal commission think there’s nothing left to learn, and its witness list this week suggests Gillard is a particular focus of its inquiries.

It includes the Fair Work Commissioner Ian Cambridge who, ever since he was an AWU national secretary in the 1990s, has demanded such an inquiry into the scandal he tried to uncover.

There’s also Olive Palmer, a paralegal working with Gillard at Slater & Gordon when Gillard advised on the slush fund, attended an auction of the house her boyfriend bought with the fund’s cash, and witnessed a power of attorney relating to the sale.

Then there’s Konstantinos Spyridis, the builder who worked on Gillard’s renovations.

There’s another tradesman, Athol James, who also worked on Gillard’s house and from whom, Gillard later told worried partners at Slater & Gordon, she couldn’t recall getting an invoice.

There’s Wayne Hem, the AWU official who told The Australian he’d paid $5000 from Wilson into Gillard’s bank account.

Of course, just because the royal commission is calling these witnesses does not mean allegations against Gillard have any substance. The witnesses may all clear her.

But it does suggest there is much still to find out — on oath — that so many journalists were strangely disinclined to learn.

It wasn’t just the ABC. Channel Nine’s Laurie Oakes declared Gillard had “answered every question” about the scandal. Michelle Grattan, the Fairfax veteran, claimed “her answers were credible”.

Sky News presenter Peter van Onselen told Gillard: “I believe you that you did nothing wrong.”

And this has been going on since 2007, when The Australian’s Glenn Milne became one of the rare journalists to mention the scandal.

Gillard told her biographer Jacqueline Kent: “Over the next two or three days, I received phone calls from many of the biggest names in the Canberra press gallery expressing absolute disbelief that such things were said (by Milne).

“Nobody followed up the story. It just died.”

And almost no journalists protested, either, when Milne was later dumped as an ABC commentator — and Michael Smith sacked as a Fairfax radio host — for trying to cover Gillard’s role again.

Well, now there are two scandals which need answers.

One centres on the slush fund. The other is that many senior journalists of the Left didn’t just ignore this story, but helped to nearly bury it.

heraldsun.com.au 9 Jun 2014

The ex prime minister's crimes are of major significance to such an extent that they are hushed by all involved including the policy enforcers (police).

Julia Gillard has committed enough offences to be charged with TREASON, but the authorities are doing NOTHING about it.

These actions show that the corruption is deep within the system, including Victoria Police.

Another win for the corrupt government at large, and fraudulently in power.

Missing Malaysia Airlines flight: Oil rig worker Mike McKay loses job after MH370 'fire in the sky' report

Reports from an oil rig worker who saw a fire in the sky on the night Malaysia Airlines flight 370 disappeared are being taken seriously, police sources have confirmed.

But New Zealander Mike McKay, 55, has lost his job in the ‘‘circus’’ that developed after his report to authorities was leaked.

Mr McKay had been working on the Songa Mercur oil rig in the South China Sea when he saw an ‘‘orange light’’ on an especially clear night.

The search for flight MH370 continues. Photo: Indonesian Air Force

The object was still in one piece and close to where MH370 first dropped off radar between Malaysia and Vietnam on March 8 with 239 people on board.

He emailed his employer and Vietnamese authorities about his sighting, but his statement was leaked, which included his full name, email, passport number, and full details of the company operating the rig.

In the ensuing media storm, Mr McKay said the Japanese-based petroleum company, Idemitsu, was flooded with emails and he was taken off the rig.

He is now unemployed and disappointed his efforts at reporting potentially vital information turned into such a circus.

‘‘I was only trying to privately help,’’ he told Fairfax Media during a series of interviews.

‘‘If it was the aeroplane I saw, then it must have been an external fire. How far would an aeroplane stay in the air after such a fire?’’

Mr McKay has worked in oil and gas exploration for more than 30 years, mostly in Southeast Asia, but returned to his native New Zealand while waiting for more work.

His initial statement described what he believed to be an aircraft on fire at a high altitude. The fire burned itself out in about 10 to 15 seconds and he gave an exact location based on his position on the oil rig platform.

‘‘There was no lateral movement, so it was either coming toward our location, stationary (falling) or going away from our location,’’ he wrote.

His sighting, however, appeared to be quickly discounted as one of the many hoaxes and false leads which have hampered the three-month international search effort.

Mr McKay’s reluctance to go public, and his complete lack of an internet presence, also raised doubts about the credibility of the report, which began on social media and gained traction largely through MH370 conspiracy theory websites.

But Fairfax Media tracked down the oil industry worker and confirmed with two police sources that he is being treated as a truthful and credible witness.

He was interviewed at length about his sighting at a police station near Auckland and his statement has since been forwarded to Malaysian authorities.

‘‘What he’s told you is effectively what he’s told us,’’ said a senior investigator involved in the case.

Mr McKay’s witness statement comes after a British sailor also reported seeing a burning object in the sky.

Katherine Tee, 41, was sailing from India to Thailand in early March when she spotted a plane surrounded by bright orange lights with a tail of black smoke.

The two sightings, however, are hundreds of kilometres apart.

Investigators have also moved on from searching the South China Sea and still believe MH370 went down somewhere in the Southern Indian Ocean.

While several underwater acoustic signals or ‘‘pings’’ have been ruled out as coming from the aircraft’s black boxes, satellite data still places it somewhere on a long arc in the large, southern search area.

Mr McKay said he hopes the plane is found in the Indian Ocean but he can’t explain how his sighting may fit in with what is known so far.

‘‘There are unanswered questions every step of the way,’’ he said.

‘‘I have no answers.’’

smh.com.au 9 June 2014

Another farce thrown into the face of the general public.

The real criminals are the authorities that know exactly where and when the flight went awry.

With (military) real time satellite surveillance, the general population are conned into believing a plane can 'vanish'.

An 'official' government version does not necessarily mean it is the truth.

Kim Kardashian doppelganger Claudia Ochoa Felix is the alleged leader of a Mexican hit squad

Not shy ... Claudia Ochoa Felix posts a selfie in her swimsuit. Picture: Twitter/Claudia Ochoa Felix Source: Twitter

 

SHE’S a doppelganger for Kim Kardashian — but Claudia Ochoa Felix now has the internet talking after being named as the alleged leader of an infamous Mexican hit squad. 

Felix, nicknamed “The Empress of Antrax”, and “Mexico’s Kim Kardashian” by her fans, is thought to be the new leader of the Los Antrax hit squad, used by the Sinaloa cartel which carries out brutal murders and revenge attacks among other criminal acts.

The mother of three was reportedly married to a Sinaloa drug trafficker known as ‘El Chavo’.

Mexican media reports have stated she allegedly took over Los Antrax after the gang leader, Jose Rodrigo Arechiga Gamboa, otherwise known as El Chino Antrax, was arrested in Amsterdam this year.

But unlike other drug cartel bosses who tend to stay out of sight, Felix has attracted more attention to herself than ever with her social media posts where she shows off her lavish lifestyle.

Loud and proud ... Claudia Ochoa Felix holds a gun while sitting down with a glass of wine near another man with a rifle. Picture: Supplied. Source: Supplied

 

The 27-year-old has been regularly posting photos on social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter and Instagram of herself with friends and associates.

But she is no tomboy-like G.I. Jane. She does it with the style of Kim Kardashian.

Living it up ... Claudia Ochoa Felix posts a photo showing off her sexy figure. Picture: Facbook/Claudia Ochoa Felix Source: Supplied

 

She takes selfies, promoting herself as a buxom Mexican beauty, showing off her curvaceous figure, designers clothes and more luxurious things.

She has posted photos of herself, which almost mirrors Kardashian’s own photos she has taken and posted on social media.

 

Sexy selfie ... Claudia Ochoa Felix, an alleged Mexican hit squad boss. Picture: Twitter/Claudia Ochoa Felix Source: Supplied

 

Very similar ... Kim Kardashian posts a selfie on Instagram. Picture: Instagram/Kim Kardashian Source: Supplied

 

In some photos, she is seen holding guns, including an AK-47.

“The Empress of Antrax” is usually seen accompanied by an AK-47 rifle, known colloquially as “cuerno de chivo” or “goat’s horn,” the Latin Times reports.

 

On target ... Claudia Ochoa Felix with her pink AK-47 assault rifle. Picture: Supplied  Source: Supplied

She has decorated hers with the colour pink with military-style camouflage.

 

Pretty in pink ... Claudia Ochoa Felix’s AK-47. Picture: Instagram/Claudia Ochoa Felix Source: Supplied

One photo she posted on Twitter even shows her son lying with hundreds of banknotes on his body.

 

Money man ... Claudia Ochoa Felix’s son covered in stacks of bank notes. Picture: Twitter/Claudia Ochoa Felix Source: Supplied

 

Since the Mexican media started to focus on Felix, she has disabled her Twitter account and made her Instagram posts private.

Felix has publicly denied having any connection to any criminal organisation in a tweet, the International Business Times reports, saying she was the victim of press sensationalism and describing claims about her as “cowardly lies and slander”.

 news.com.au 8 Jun 2014

The corporate media just would not be 'kosher' without articles 'glorifying' gangsters.

Australian readers really have no way of knowing whether the doppelganger is an attention 'whore', the event a publicity stunt or an actual criminal.

If in the case of the latter, then what are the authorities doing about it?

Vodafone reveals secret wires allow governments to tap phone calls on its global network

 

Revealed ... customers phone calls are monitored by secret wires on the Vodafone network. Source: AFP

 

GLOBAL telecommunications giant Vodafone admitted the existence of secret wires are allowing government agencies to listen in to conversations on its networks. 

The company said the tapping is widely used in some of the 29 countries in which it operates.

Revealing its cooperation with state agencies, Vodafone said in a 20-page report entitled “Law Enforcement Disclosure” that direct wires are connected to its network, allowing live conversations to be listened to and recorded.

The wires also allow agencies to verify the location of a user.

Vodafone admitted that as a global business it faced “constant tension” while enforcing the laws of different countries and the “expectations” of governments.

“Refusal to comply with a country’s laws is not an option,” it said.

Vodafone said that in about six countries where it operates, phone tapping is required by law, although it did not identify the countries.

Calls are tapped ... on the Vodafone global network. Source: AFP

 

Vodafone said it was publishing the information as its contribution to the debate on government surveillance systems.

“The need for governments to balance their duty to protect the state and its citizens against their duty to protect individual privacy is now the focus of a significant global public debate,” it said.

Privacy campaigners said Vodafone’s disclosure confirmed their worst fears.

Gus Hosein, executive director of Privacy International, said: “These are the nightmare scenarios that we were imagining.

He told the Guardian newspaper: “I never thought the telcos (telecommunications companies) would be so complicit.

“It’s a brave step by Vodafone (to admit it) and hopefully the other telcos will become more brave with disclosure, but what we need is for them to be braver about fighting back against the illegal requests and the laws themselves.”

news.com.au 6 June 2014

This news may be of significance to the 'average' lay person or for those who have little technical knowledge of the telecommunications industry.

Since the introduction of GSM (Global System for Mobile) communications, pre GPS (Global Positioning System) and 'smart phone' technology, user location was known to the 'authorities'.

Australia is a country that keeps user mobile telephone data stored at government locations.

Australian telecommunications companies also work together with AMDOCS, an Israeli company, with the telco's user data.

The standard 'terrorist' excuse is wearing a bit thin, whereas the hidden agenda is spying on the people, where the information collected is placed in ones 'file'.