Your pension was a grant

When it comes to the actions of the people in charge of this colony we call Australia, you can bet your grandmother’s pension that there is a whole lot of corruption involved.

The ‘trouble’ didn’t start in 1865, but rather that's when the imperial government had enough of the feral colonialists in government and reminded them to ‘behave’ with the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865.

Mind you, that Act didn’t stop them from misbehaving, as they still didn’t take notice, but rather kept it a bit more on the quiet side, still not following imperial law as mandated.

Fast forward a bit to the mid 1980’s where the colonialists in government didn’t have a clue about the authority or rather legality of an Act they were try to pass through that they initiated two different versions, one from the motherland and one local in order to screw over the tax slaves.

The motherland at the time was rolling on the floor laughing (without the acronym), at what sort of legal basket case Australia is, but once again that's a digression.

Similarly, a lot of dodgy deals have been done with regards to the ‘worker’s’ pensions.

Once upon a time, your pension was handed out by a department called the Department of Social Security, where it was stated that your pension was a grant.

Now whether or not this was legitimately in play is not the purpose of this post.

In more modern times, your pension came from a place called Centrelink, under  a government called the ‘Australian Government’ or ‘Government of Australia’, but now it comes under ‘Services Australia’, no longer a 'grant'?

Confused? 

Well you should be, because that’s the way it was designed.

You may or may not find answers in the ‘Constitution Act’, and no silly it’s not a red or even the ‘unlawful’ green book, that many imbeciles peddle on social media.

Like pre-1865, today we STILL have feral colonialists in government, where it seems that they are untouchable.

Okay, okay, Section 44 gave the boot to a few, meh!

Google can still use Bluetooth to track your Android phone when Bluetooth is turned off

When it comes to tracking the precise location of an Android user’s phone, Google appears to use every means available—including Bluetooth-based location information transmitted to the company when the user might think they have Bluetooth turned off entirely.

A Quartz investigation found that a user can turn Bluetooth off on their smartphone running Google’s Android software, and the phone will continue to use Bluetooth to collect location-related data and transmit that data to Google. It does this by sending Google, among other things, the unique identifier codes of Bluetooth broadcasting devices it encounters. Such devices, known as beacons, are often used in stores, museums, and other public places to help phones ascertain their locations within buildings. Alphabet-owned Google does the tracking in part so advertisers can target “more useful” digital ads to users, but Quartz discovered that the company taps into an array of signals that can yield an individual’s whereabouts even when the user thinks they’ve disabled such tracking.

How it works

Google’s Bluetooth tracking is a confluence of three features: Location History, which activates Google’s location-tracking; Bluetooth; and Bluetooth scanning, an option buried deep in the Android settings menu. When Location History is activated, Android phones try to send a plethora of nuanced information back to Google (we reported on that here), including nearby Bluetooth devices.

When either Bluetooth or Bluetooth scanning is enabled, a report containing a list of nearby Bluetooth beacons is sent to Google any time an app refreshes Android location services. The only way to prevent Google’s Location History from sending this data back to Google, Quartz found, is to turn off both Bluetooth and Bluetooth scanning—eliminating access to Bluetooth devices—or to turn off Location History, crippling certain features of Android and Google apps. In a world of wireless headphones and hyper-customization, that’s an increasingly difficult proposition—especially when the tools to manage personal privacy are this blunt.

A spokesperson for Google confirmed that turning off Location History would stop a phone’s reporting of nearby Bluetooth beacons.

A third option on Android called “Device only” location allows a user to utilize only GPS to determine location, rather than “High accuracy,” which uses GPS, wifi, Bluetooth, and cellular signals. But even when a phone is in Device-only mode, beacon information is sent to Google when Bluetooth is off (though not when scanning is also disabled). If Location is turned off entirely, and then re-enabled, the phone resets to the High accuracy mode, making the setting hard to rely on.

Quartz was able to capture Bluetooth data transmissions on three phones from different manufacturers, running various recent versions of Android. To accomplish this, we created a portable internet-connected wifi network that could eavesdrop and forward all of the transmissions the devices connected to it broadcast and received.1 None of the devices had SIM cards inserted. We walked around urban areas; shopping centers; and into stores, restaurants, and bars. The rig recorded every relevant network request2 made by the Google Pixel 2, Samsung Galaxy S8 and Moto Z Droid, we were carrying.




Understanding Bluetooth beacons

In a world of wireless headphones and hyper-customization, that’s an increasingly difficult proposition.

While the sharing of locations derived from GPS and similar signals may be acceptable to some users of Google Location—its accuracy limited by buildings, trees, and other obstructions—Bluetooth low-energy beacons are used to pinpoint a device to a more specific locale. Museums use them to give guided audio tours, restaurants use them to deliver food to the proper table, airports use them to guide passengers around terminals, and retailers use them to track and advertise to customers in their stores. A beacon does not collect information on nearby devices—like a television station, its signal is a one-way broadcast—but when an Android phone sends Google a unique Bluetooth identifier, the company can not only track you around town, but also into a mall, through a store, and up to a specific rack of clothes.

In its investigation, Quartz browsed a Macy’s in Palo Alto, California, that appeared to contain dozens of Bluetooth beacons, seemingly contained in transparent white domes mounted on the ceilings above racks, escalators, and display cases. In a Bloomingdales in the same shopping center (both stores are owned by Macy’s Inc), only one beacon was detected, above the store’s entry.


No signals were detected in a Nike Store in the same shopping center, but many signals were received while perusing nearby traditional menswear retailer, Jos. A. Bank. The 15,000-square-foot Apple Store (1,400 square-m) one block away was also full of signals from about a dozen different beacons.

Bluetooth-beacon information can be collected in such a way that it’s hard to avoid being geographically tracked. Even if a beacon’s location has not been proactively registered into a public database by whomever installed it, all it takes for Google—or any other company—to determine a beacon’s geographic location is a single nearby phone with loose privacy settings. The location of a device with tighter privacy settings can then be determined using the information collected by the first.



Understanding Bluetooth scanning

While turning off Bluetooth is easy enough, “Bluetooth scanning” is buried in a secondary settings menu. Descriptions of its function are unclear, and the option to turn it off doesn’t work as any reasonable person would expect.


Of the three phones tested by Quartz, only one somewhat accurately describes the scanning functionality on the screen where it can be manipulated. The Samsung Galaxy S8 running Android 7.0 notes that Bluetooth scanning will cause the phone to connect to nearby devices “even while Bluetooth is turned off.”

The Pixel 2 running Android 8.1—the latest version of the operating system—and Moto Z Droid running Android 7.1.1, by contrast, only specify that Bluetooth scanning will allow the system to “detect Bluetooth devices at any time,” leaving it unclear if that means any time Bluetooth is enabled, any time the phone is on, or any and all times the phone exists in the world. The messages displayed on all three devices are also the equivalent of digital fine print, utilizing smaller font sizes and lighter colors that make them easy to ignore or dismiss as ancillary.

For an Android user who doesn’t want her phone to connect to her car while someone else is driving it (Bluetooth), but still wants more precise location services (Bluetooth scanning), the counterintuitive “off means off sometimes” setting may be preferred. Conversely, the user who wants his phone to connect to his car but doesn’t want his phone to use Bluetooth to locate him will need to adjust additional settings.

The messages are the equivalent of digital fine print, utilizing smaller font sizes and lighter colors that make them easy to ignore or dismiss as ancillary.

Other Bluetooth settings messages are conditional and buried many menus deep, where most users may not see the warning. There are no fewer than six ways to toggle Bluetooth on newer Android phones, and only one of them—the hardest to get to—displays a message about how Bluetooth scanning is still active when Bluetooth is turned off.

That menu is accessed by continually drilling down to deeper and deeper menus until there are no deeper Bluetooth menus to go to. Toggling from the quick settings, the default Google voice assistant,3 and higher-up settings menus provides no explanation that some Bluetooth functionality remains active when the option is disabled.


Where to find Bluetooth scanning on your phone

Making it harder for a Android user to adjust these settings, the labeling and location in the settings varies from device to device.

On the S8 scanning is located under

Settings >
  Connections >
    Location >
      Improve accuracy

On the Moto Z Droid it’s

Settings >
  Location > 
    [three-dot menu in the top-right corner] >
      Scanning

On the Pixel 2 it’s

Settings >
  Security & location >
    Location >
      Scanning

Individually searching for terms like “scanning” and “Bluetooth” from the main settings screen only provided a shortcut to the Bluetooth scanning setting on the Pixel 2 and Moto Z Droid. The only search we could find that revealed Bluetooth scanning on the S8 was “improve accuracy.”


Asking Google Assistant to “turn off Bluetooth scanning” by voice led the Pixel 2 to turn off Bluetooth and leave Bluetooth scanning enabled.4 On other phones the same request returned a web page with instructions. Location History cannot be turned on or off through the voice assistant.


For a person casually setting up a new Android phone—that is to say, someone who agrees to every default prompt during setup—Bluetooth scanning will be enabled on some.





1:
We used software called SSLSplit on a laptop which accessed the internet through an additional mobile phone connected with a USB cable. The laptop was set up to share that phone's internet connection over the computer's wifi. Any device that connected to the password-protected wifi network was subject to what is known as a man-in-the-middle attack.

2:
We captured requests on ports 80, 443, 465, 993, 587, 5222, 5228, and 8443 while allowing requests on other ports to be transmitted without diversion.

3:
Samsung’s Bixby assistant does not suffer from the same issue because it brings a phone user to the Bluetooth-settings page rather than manipulating the setting without leaving the voice assistant interface.

4:
Conversely, Samsung's Bixby assistant is able to turn off Bluetooth scanning from a voice command.


Source: qz.com

On the topic of oaths

It is very ’thoughtful’ of the mainstream media to mention oaths, but once again the aim is a little off kilter.

Is the Australian people’s focus on a royal ‘oaf’ to their benefit?

Why the big deal about oaths anyway?

For starters, without saying the (correct) oath your truth/declaration/authority cannot proceed.

Try and not acknowledge the oath with regards to your affidavit/statement/declaration with your local J.P. and see how far you get.

Or better still, get the oath wrong in your court proceeding and see if you can continue.

That’s the law right? Well for the serfs anyway.

Magistrates in Tasmania were not sworn in correctly, meaning their orders are not ‘legal’, but that’s something that is pushed aside.

So, let’s look at a very important oath some Australians must adhere to.

Has the mainstream media bothered to inform the commoners one of the most important oaths in the colony?

No, it's not the serf 'citizenship' thing, which is unlawful anyways, but that's another post.

(Not difficult to know that legal 'experts' are already up in arms over the above line)

It’s the oath the MPs MUST say if they are to hold office lawfully.

It’s the oath from the ‘Constitution’ (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)).

Text: 

Schedule  

OATH

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.
SO HELP ME GOD!

AFFIRMATION

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

(NOTE:   The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)

 - So which MPs have not said the correct oath, oops sorry the question should be: 

"Which MPs have said the correct oath", as the list would be shorter for you?

- Is there anyone going to do anything about it (rhetorical question as we really know the answer to that one)?

- Can of worms? Going to sweep this one under the carpet? Too many other distractions?

Source: https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/scan-sid-109.html

Reject Shop to say open if infection occurs

We’ve posted a bit of information with regards to the Reject Shop, where in reality it is a dodgy company, that treats its employees like crap, with the addition of an over abundance of ‘bad management’.

To make matters worse during the Coronavirus pandemic, the management have shown how little regards they have for their staff and the safety of the ‘public’ putting profits in first place.

An internal email stated that if a person tests positive to the Coronavirus, they are to self isolate and it’s basically ‘business as usual’, for the staff where the (effected) store will not close down  and undoubtedly the public will not be made aware of the infectious case.

Would you risk your life purchasing their junk, so the bosses can have fatter pay cheques?

A breed of parents (deliberately) overlooked

The mainstream media has classified 8 breeds of parenting as described within the article below, but realistically it has missed out on one important section of the community.

It is a very important section of the community, as the actions of these humans has implications that travel far and wide.

It’s a section of the community commonly referred to as ‘trailer park trash’ or as the Hindus call them the untouchable class, the Dalit.

This 'special' sub-class of trailer trash humans are the ones that are of low ‘value’ to society. 

Low moral values and low ‘financial’ value compared to the rest of the civilised space that is around them.

These humans are the ones who have zero intentions of leading a ‘law abiding’ life, where causing pain and misery via the actions of theft and assault is at the forefront of their limited cranial space.

As we are well aware, every animal has the capacity to breed, in many instances of the trailer park species, propagating the defective gene pool may not be of benefit for the rest of society.

The ol' saying comes into play: Just because you can [breed], doesn't mean you should.

Australia is very well equipped in producing its own Dalit, where we do not need to dump other nation’s garbage in order for it to breed and cause harm to the ‘good’ people that live here, but unfortunately (for the good people) the Australian Government does not share the same sentiment.

Australia has plenty of land to dump other nation’s trash...

After all, as Tony Abbott once said: "Australia is Open for Business"