The dangers of smart phone 'computing'

One of the best self sponsored surveillance devices is the mobile phone.

Previously your location via tower triangulation was contained within the telecommunications company where at least officially a warrant was needed for other government actors to access this information.

With the advent of smart phones a new level of surveillance and location accuracy can be obtained with the addition of cameras and GPS chips and other sensors within the consumer grade device.

This data has now become easily harvested from the device with the help of apps or programs.

The respective app stores by Apple and Google have been around for over a decade, where programs contain 'malicious' code detrimental to the user's privacy and security, but only just recently this is being addressed.

Governments are promoting their services via Android / Google app only choices therefore putting the user's privacy / security at risk, where the more cost effective solution would be a device independent browser based service.

Since the agenda of governments is to monitor and control the movements of the serf population, more data can be easily harvested by a government controlled app, like the whereabouts of a Centrelink 'customer' claiming unemployment benefits from a holiday resort via their smartphone app, than from a more secure platform on a personal computer, with anonymising software and no inserted GPS chip.

An example of obtaining location information is highlighted within the screen capture of an article from the UK's dailymail where a paedophile police officer used this data to rape a young girl.

If a member from the administration (i.e. a judge, MP,  police officer, etc) had the same done to their child there would not doubt be an expedited overhaul of the law.

The problem is that the general population has been conned into relying on their (deliberately insecure) consumer grade smart phones, 'enticed' into putting their entire lives 'online' leaving 'breadcrumbs' in their wake for other to use.

Since most on social media are using their smart phones to log in, it seems that this will not change at least in the very near future anyway, as privacy / security does not really seem to be a concern for the serfs.

We do not recommend to log in to any services from your smart phone.

Lawyer X / Informer 3838 where the others include

The recent publicly exposed scandal of 'Lawyer X / Informer 3838' shows the general population the dodgy state of the police force as well as the legal profession, not limited within the state of Victoria but rather in Australia as a whole.

Without any elaboration with regards to the corruption of Australia's judicature in cahoots with the police force, we'll get straight into the 'others' but not necessarily the only ones, who are involved in the current scandal that has made its way into the public's eye.

A source has named the following people, excluding Nicola Gobbo;

• Altman, Marita

• Brand, Anthony

• Casey, Scott

• Challinger, Michael

• Peady, Eleanor

• Perry, Kate

Police lied about tenure of Informer 3838 by 10 years

Victoria Police is one of the state's most corrupt organisations.

Unfortunately for the masses the courts actually do support the corruption of Victoria Police, but that rather voluminous topic is for another time.

See article from 6 Feb 2019 by The Age publication of the headline:

Informer 3838 explosive revelation: Police registered informer 10 years earlier than they admitted, commissioner resigns

Explosive information has come to light revealing the defence barrister at the centre of the Informer 3838 scandal was registered as a police informer 10 years earlier than Victoria Police previously admitted.

It has also been revealed that more lawyers have acted as police informers, in a profound breach of confidentiality that will be investigated by the royal commission.

But Attorney-General Jill Hennessy has not said whether any lawyers are currently acting as police informers.

Informer 3838 was registered as a police informer 10 years earlier than previously thought.Credit:Artists

Informer 3838, whose name cannot be published, is a Victorian defence barrister who has represented a who’s who of Melbourne’s underworld, including major drug traffickers, murderers and Mafia figures.

Victoria Police has previously admitted that the woman — also known as Lawyer X — began providing them information in mid-2003 and was a registered informer from 2005 to 2009. The woman handed on information about criminal associates and clients, some of whom she was simultaneously representing in plea deals and court proceedings.

However, the Andrews government revealed on Wednesday that Informer 3838 was registered as a police informer in 1995.

She was admitted to the bar in 1998.

Some of the men on the lawyer's client list were among the biggest names in Australia's underworld, including murdered gangster Carl Williams, and jailed drug lord Tony Mokbel and his associate, drug trafficker Rob Karam.

The convictions of Mokbel and Karam are now in doubt, along with countless others that could have been tainted by the lawyer.

Chief Commissioner goes to ground

 Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton would not answer questions on Wednesday, saying it would not be appropriate given the matter is before a royal commission.Credit:Simon Schluter

Victoria’s Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton has refused to take questions about the bombshell new information.

Mr Ashton is said to have instigated the push for an inquiry into the force’s handling of Informer 3838 in 2012, an inquiry that failed to disclose that the lawyer acted as a police informer as far back as 1995 - not 2005.

When asked to personally address his involvement in the scandal, his advisers on Wednesday said it was “inappropriate” for the force to comment any further as the matter remained subject to a royal commission inquiry.

Instead, a police spokesman said the delay in revealing the earlier timeline was due to "shortcomings in our record keeping practices" related to all informers in the mid-1990s.

"Victoria Police can confirm that in the course of its work preparing for the royal commission, it was established that the police informer identified as 3838 had previously been registered as an informer in 1995,” he said.

"These practices have since been comprehensively improved.”

The revelations have forced the resignation of Malcolm Hyde, a former Victorian police deputy commissioner and former South Australian police commissioner, who was set to chair the upcoming royal commission into the scandal.

The scope of the royal commission will be expanded to investigate the new admissions by police, but former Queensland Court of Appeal judge Margaret McMurdo, AC, will now act as sole commissioner.

Commissioner McMurdo said the new information had not caused a direct conflict of interest for Mr Hyde.

"He was concerned to avoid any adverse perceptions as to the impartiality of the Commission in light of his past

employment with Victoria Police and his subsequent professional associations with police officers
whose conduct may be examined by the Commission," she said.

She thanked him for his integrity.

More lawyers in the frame
 

Attorney-General Jill Hennessy, pictured in Parliament, said more lawyers had acted as police informers.Credit:Justin McManus

Ms Hennessy said Victoria Police had told the government it had identified other lawyers who acted as registered informers.

"There are other [informers] that have been disclosed to the royal commission as part of the inquiry and they will be investigated," Ms Hennessy said.

However, she did not say whether any lawyers were currently acting as police informers, or how many had been identified.

"I’m just not in a position to identify what their start and finish periods might be; they’re matters of evidence," Ms Hennessy said.

"At the moment the commission is gathering evidence and seeking disclosure from those with information."

The Victorian government announced the royal commission late last year after the publication of a series of court judgments found Victoria Police had engaged in "reprehensible conduct" by recruiting the lawyer as an intelligence source, sometimes against her own clients.

The statutory body responsible for regulating the legal profession in Victoria said it had "no way of knowing" how many other lawyers could be acting as police informers.

Fiona McLeay, the Legal Services Board chief executive and commissioner, said her organisation was "prepared to act" if evidence emerged that lawyers had engaged in conduct that breached their ethical or legal obligations.

Lawyers can legally act as police informers, but cannot snitch on their clients, whose instructions are privileged.

Convictions could be in doubt

The royal commission will examine whether Victoria Police's use of Informer 3838 had contaminated arrests and could lead to criminal convictions being overturned.

The initial reporting date for the inquiry, July 1, 2019 could also be called into question, although Ms Hennessy said the commission was eager to stick to that date.

"Should the commission come back to us and say they required more time we would obviously be very sympathetic to that, but it is the view of the commission that they want to continue with the existing timeframes," she said.

Mr Hyde was deputy commissioner of Victoria Police between 1994 and 1997, leading to a potential and perceived conflict of interest if he was to chair the inquiry.

He has resigned as one of the two commissioners who were appointed by the government in December, leaving Ms McMurdo to head the inquiry.

"I do wish to emphasise that Commissioner Hyde had no knowledge or involvement in this matter, but it is his view to put the impartiality of the royal commission beyond any form of doubt and he has stepped down," Ms Hennessy said.

The commission may now use “expert advisers” in order to maintain appropriate policing expertise given the loss of Mr Hyde, who was also a South Australian police commissioner.

The revelations also raise new questions about whether Victoria Police could have misled the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the Supreme Court of Victoria.

IBAC began an investigation into the recruiting and use of Informer 3838 in 2014, headed by Murray Kellam, QC.

The report has never been released, but excerpts published in court documents relating to the suppression of Informer 3838’s identity show the investigation found the barrister was a "registered human source" between September 16, 2005 and January 12, 2009.

That initial recruitment date in 2005 has also been cited in repeated submissions made by police in legal proceedings in the Supreme Court.

Royal commission a 'dog's breakfast': opposition

Shadow attorney-general Edward O’Donohue said the royal commission had become a “dog’s breakfast” just two months after it was announced by the Andrews government.

He accused the government of failing to do the necessary work to establish the royal commission properly.

Mr O’Donohue said the government should have ruled out anyone who had lived in Victoria to serve as a commissioner.

However, he declined to criticise the Victorian police force.

“For Jill Hennessy simply to handball this issue to Victoria Police as she has sought to do today is simply not good enough. These are the questions she should have asked of Victoria Police prior to this royal commission having been established.”

He said the opposition had confidence in Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton, but insisted there were “serious questions to be answered”, including how the latest information was only just coming to light.

Corrupt police falsifying court documents

The problem of police falsifying evidence for or in court is much greater than the mainstream media would have the general population believe.

Regarding the Silk-Miller murder, for now this is what has made it out into the public justice system:

Australian Government's dodgy tax advertisements in response to social media?

People should be aware that the medium we call television is an advertising medium, where the messages in between 'programming' are messages to entice you (the 'consumer') to commit to a purchase.

When Australia's federal or state governments resort to television advertisements your instinct should tell you that the products are dodgy.

Not too long ago, a huge advertising campaign that was put on Australian television, was one that asked people to conduct a business transaction with the Australian Bureau of Statistics in providing that business with your private and personal data, where what you were not told about was that the data you provided previously was sold for $41 million by the ABS.

With the government controlled communications medium we now call the internet succumbing to commercialisation and with the advent of 'social media', everyday people (whatever that means), the average Joe or the serfs are now able to publish content in a raw and unedited format which may have previously been stopped by the manipulators of society called media moguls in order to suppress the truth that may not have been so flattering for governments.

The video of the title Collateral Murder by Wikileaks is just one example of exposing government corruption, with this instance being on the war in Iraq, where also Google was trying to cover up this video on Youtube, by modifying its search logarithm so that users could not find it.

Social media platforms have helped spread information (let's put misinformation aside for now), where people would go further than the mainstream media, by supplying documentation which shows, proves or alleges misbehaviour or corruption or criminal activity by persons in various government departments. 

With regards to taxation in Australia, there are many references by the mainstream media and persons on social media that point to corporations paying zero or minuscule amounts of tax, operating in tax havens which are supported by those in governments, and even blatantly practicing tax avoidance procedures.

So in order to dumb down the general population, the Australian government has gone on a 'spending spree' to tell the herd population that all is well and only now (from 2018) they're going to implement a 'fairer' tax system, which states that 95% of Australians will pay less income tax under the changes made in 2018.

Companies have been around for quite some time, (e.g. East India Company, 1600) and they've been screwing people over since their inception, where this could be difficult for the average Joe to comprehend, but that is an entirely different topic no doubt worth a few volumes.

MANY multinationals, the likes of Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft (and that's just in the IT sector)  have been screwing the hard working Aussie 'mums and dads' of their tax dollars, as they are the ones who have to make up the deficiency, where only now that Australian Government has implemented a 'fairer' tax system.

Broadly speaking with regards to the law and economics, you can be certain for sure that as time goes on, the Australian Government does very little to be 'fairer' to the Australian people. 

In economic terms your Australian dollar is losing value every single year, and the so called great Australian 'dream' of owning your home is becoming more distant every year from becoming a reality.

Austerity has been hitting the Australian people harder since World War II, but too many are asleep or ignorant to notice this, where this is compounded by the Australian Government sending out false messages over the years culminating in the pinnacle of false information in television commercials regarding a 'fairer' tax system.

Remember the Australian Government hid the truth from you (the constituents) regarding the secret talks between Whitlam and the U.K. Monarch.

Are those the actions of an honest government?

Victoria Police falsify records regarding evidence

So here's what you (the general population) are allowed to know:

Google abused an Apple backdoor to collect user data

 

 

In the wake of the Facebook VPN scandal, it was recently revealed that Google has also been abusing the same Apple backdoor to collect data from users as young as thirteen. Similar to the Facebook Research app, Google's Screenwise Meter has been using Apple's Enterprise Certificate, which is meant for distributing employee-only apps, to circumvent the App Store and tap into a wealthy reserve of user data.

Upon downloading the app, users complete a survey and are then sent a special code that allows them to download the Enterprise Certificate-based VPN app that is then used to track all of their app and Internet use. In order to entice people to go through with it, Screenwise lets users earn gift cards in return for their data. The app was first launched in 2012, though, as TechCrunch points out, it was later rebranded as part of the broader Cross Media Panel and Google Opinion Rewards programs.

Similarly to Facebook's now-defunct Research app, Screenwise Meter was also initially available to people as young as thirteen, though Google later changed the age requirement to eighteen or older. However, minors could still partake in the program in the same household as other testers that met the age requirement.

 

 

 

If nothing else, Google has at least been a bit more transparent than Facebook when it came to explaining what it does with its VPN tracker. Following TechCrunch's investigation, Google has announced that it will be shutting down the Screenwise Meter app for iOS:

"The Screenwise Meter iOS app should not have operated under Apple’s developer enterprise program — this was a mistake, and we apologize. We have disabled this app on iOS devices. This app is completely voluntary and always has been. We’ve been upfront with users about the way we use their data in this app, we have no access to encrypted data in apps and on devices, and users can opt out of the program at any time."

Following the Facebook VPN fiasco, Apple swiftly invalidated all certifications for Facebook employee-only apps. It is yet unclear if the same punishment will be issued to Google. If it is, this will be highly damaging to Google's workflow, not to mention the detrimental effects it will have on the public's opinion on the company (which Google won't be able to track via an app).

 

Source: phonearena.com

 

 

Heir to the throne a tax cheat concealing wealth?

It's always good to get inside information, where bonus points are given when it comes from a source close to the subject or in this case the 'heir and successor' (as defined in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act) to the throne.

So how does one get the source to blab? 

Getting one to squeal is a tricky ordeal, where throughout the ages many methods have been used to extract valuable information, such as the rack, bamboo under the fingernails trick, sleep deprivation progressing to more modern methods like Justin Bieber songs in a cell for days on end.

Since the advent of modern medicine, sodium thiopental comes along to rewire the brain in order to spill the beans, but can one really beat the medicine of the ancients?

The cat among the pigeons, the source of the leak, was not given an exotic cocktail of scopolamine, 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, flunitrazepam or some other combination of letters that apparently have some meaning to neuroscientists.

Nope she was 'just' given some good ol' fashion alcohol (packaged up in a very expensive format) and set loose.

It's bad enough that ol' prince Charles is a tax dodger, where Camilla let the cat out of the bag on that one too?

You see, at a palace birthday bash, Camilla sang like a canary with regards to the royal family's hidden off-shore accounts, when she got sloshed, no doubt concealing ill gotten gains which have not yet surfaced into the public news media.

How can you really trust a corrupt monarchy?

As long as the serfs in the colonies are paying their taxes that enslave them, all is good.

Without breaking out into in pictorial meme:

Why do tax havens exist? Because governments want them to.

Photos of text: New Idea