What information do you give away for free when you upload photos

MANY people do not comprehend how much information they give away for free, which then corporations make huge profits from.

Each year billions of photos from smartphones make it up to various social media platforms where the information (called EXIF data) is stored and then profited from, where not one single milli-cent (you know, one thousandth of a cent) is  given to the producer of the photo.

From the photos that you upload, even if they do not contain your face, you (personally) can be identified.

This with the addition of other data such as your device fingerprint and browser fingerprint which leads to your entire internet browsing history, locations where you’ve been including your online purchase history and much more is available to various corporations and of course overseas governments.

You give away all this information for FREE, well not for ‘free’ entirely, as it technically costs you money to give your information away that you generate.

Corporations make billions of dollars annually from the information people give away.

Is the behaviour going to stop?

Of course not!

Next (financial) year, the corporations are going to make even more money from you.

So how much information do you give away from a seemingly ‘innocent’ picture taken from your smart phone uploaded to your favourite social media platform?

Please note that if you download the above photo, in the EXIF data, under Program name, Google inserted its name.

The screen captures of the information within the photo taken above have been blacked out to preserve privacy.

 

Why are the ‘authorities’ pushing you to use smart phones in conjunction with apps?

So that you give away all this (and more) information at your cost.

The majority of Australians are using social media /news / government services platforms from their smart phone, and to make it worse with the platform’s app, which gives away more data than personal computer browser only oriented access.

So why are Aussies STILL doing this in today’s age of surveillance capitalism?

Because. the giving away of data from your mobile phone seems innocuous given the fact that there are no immediately visible consequences.

If someone gave you a black eye every time you logged into Facebook via a smartphone app, would you do it twice or keep doing it indefinitely?

Authorities/Corporations:1, Plebs:0

No news on ex PM in court over oath & ‘Queen of Australia’?

Many average (or below average) Australians may not know that Australia’s 29^th Prime Minister and ‘bankster’ Malcolm Bligh Turnbull was taken to court.

One would think that it would be the job of the mainstream media to report this, but then again what one would think to be logical or normal or even make a slither of ‘biological sense’ is not the case in the colony called Australia.

While the media may have covered the case of Clive Palmer v Turnbull, it seems that it covered up another little known matter against Turnbull.

The legal world is fully aware that there can be no (lawful) action unless the correct oath is taken.

You (the serf) may have experienced this in dealings with a JP, or even your court matter, no oath no go.

Tasmanian magistrates have issued unlawful orders as a result of not being sworn in correctly for over 30 years, causing harm, where zero class action has been taken thus far.

Although if you know what you’re looking for you will find it, where a little known case against Turnbull regarding his oath of office (note Gillard also did not swear the correct oath) and the ‘Queen of Australia did not make a mention in the eagle eye of the mainstream media.

The ‘Queen of Australia’ is the Achilles heel of the colony’s legal system, where you must ‘get it right’ in your ‘question of law’ regarding your matter.

Source: supplied

See reference to the Supreme Court of Queensland matter:

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2017/QSC17-275.pdf

We have seen paperwork that exposes the fraud of Australia’s legal system regarding the Queen of Australia (and other 'issues'), paperwork that obtains a reaction from judicial registrars, magistrates and judges, who are aware of this fraud.

As we should be aware, but it would be asking too much, that the mainstream media should have reported the matter of the 'persons':‘ROSS-JAMES v MALCOLM BLIGH TURNBULL’, given the fact that the applicant was ridiculed, but that’s not how it goes in this colony.

The ridiculing of Ross-James would only give attention to the topic, and that’s not on the agenda of those in charge.

Just like it’s not beneficial for the Tasmanian government for the people to wake up and start a class action for the unlawful orders issued that caused many 'persons' harm.

In any event how can the serfs trust a judiciary that hides women abusers and paedophiles in its 'brotherhood'.

See screen capture from today's The Age publication:

Commie Dan rolls out the army in Dictatoria (nee Victoria)

BREAKING NEWS:

Commie Dan rolls out Martial Law the army in Dictatoria (nee Victoria)


Under the false pretense of an elderly (83 year old) person dying allegedly from the novel Coronavirus, Victoria's premier Daniel Andrews has deployed 300 army personnel.

So, if you ever thought of the media's attention focusing on his personal involvement in the branch stacking fraud will occur, those days are now gone as this will be the new focus.

Don't forget this is for YOUR (the serfs) benefit / health.

Remember how the government cares for you:

"Do not overload our (the government's) health system."

Was the army 'lawfully' deployed in Victoria?

People distracted from government fraud with covid lockdown

In a brilliant move with the help of the mainstream media, the criminal actions of Victoria’s premier and that of his co-workers in office has been put on the backburner where the news of Victoria’s tightening of movement restrictions are the main topic now

The blame according to the Vic government is because of families not adhering to social distancing.

Those families that stayed home and washed their hands, are to blame for an alleged spike in novel Coronavirus infections. 

"That doesn’t make biological sense."

There can be zero doubt that Mr. Andrews will not face prosecution nor any court time regarding the branch stacking fraud he is involved in, as we should know that the ‘brotherhood’ takes care of its own.

The false classification of the ‘pandemic’?

According to whatever authorities, there is a classification of an alleged virus to be at a ‘pandemic’ level.

From an official mainstream media source, the current stated infection rate in Australia is at 7436 cases, with a death rate of 102.

This equates to one death in 72.9 cases.

So, let’s see how the numbers stack up against the Australian Bureau of Statistics results for a virus called influenza (maybe in combination with pneumonia).

Source: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2017~Main%20Features~Deaths%20due%20to%20influenza~5

From the link above, there is also one other statistic that the government uses and we’ll compare the novel Coronavirus to this.

DEATHS DUE TO INFLUENZA, 2017

In 2017 there were 1,255 deaths due to influenza, recording a standardised death rate of 3.9 per 100,000 persons. This is a significant increase from 2016 where 464 influenza deaths were recorded. An individual dying from influenza in 2017 was most likely to be female, aged over 75 years, have multiple co-morbidities and living in the eastern states of Australia.

According to the ABS we have 25.2 million people at the end of 2018.

According to worldometers.info, we have 25.5 million now.

Let’s just say that we have 25 million people where the official figures is that 102 died from novel Coronavirus, at the half year mark.

That means we have a death rate of 1 person per 245,098 persons 

or as the government puts it a standardised death rate of 0.408 per 100,000 persons.

It seems that the flu/pneumonia are more of a ‘pandemic’ (in Australia) than the alleged novel Coronavirus.

Note, we totally omitted the 4269 deaths for 2017 and 3336 deaths for 2016 due to influenza and pneumonia, from the above screen capture.

So, why did the 'Australian Government' really halt the nation?

Attending a protest - Privacy suggestions not always accurate

It can be difficult to obtain factual information with regards to many topics, where currently people's privacy, with regards to smartphone use should be a huge topic of concern for EVERY user.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is just one organisation that provides information about digital privacy, free speech and legal aspects of privacy being US centric.

Now whether people have (factually) had enough or there are agent provocateurs in relation to organised protests, the use of smartphones during these activities could be to your detriment.

A piece of advice given to safeguard your privacy, when attending a protest is to:
".. take a screenshot of the photo on your mobile device to remove the metadata.."

 We know for a fact that the above suggestion may not hide your metadata, as described in the above article, where the amount of data given is dependent on the operating system and its version also depending on the smartphone manufacturer's decision to include whatever data they choose within the operating system's interface which is in charge of the screenshot data.

In this experiment we took a photo which was then screen captured, were only a portion of that screen capture is published as seen in the attachment below:

The metadata contained from this screen capture above contains the following identifying fields which have been blacked out:

Remembering that ALL metadata is used to identify you/your device, the more concerning pieces of information in this screen capture are the Camera maker and Camera model, which have been blacked out for the poster's privacy.

So, it is still not a good idea to post a screen capture of a picture to upload to social media without actually stripping the EXIF data first.

There are smartphone apps available for this purpose.

Cafés requiring your details lawful? Privacy guaranteed?

If the Australian Government did not obtain your private and personal information during the so called pandemic, then you are required to provide your name and number and of those with you during more relaxed times, but is this lawful and what assurances are there of privacy and ‘punishment’ if there was a breach?

Now that the apparent pandemic is on its tail end according to the authorities of many states and territories of Australia, people’s movements are met with less restrictions but there is one aspect (of many) that still does not make sense and that is more data collection.

Apparently  when you now decide to conduct business inside a café, eatery they ‘require’ your details e.g name and phone number.  

So, now let’s be very clear about this. If you are required to take an action it MUST be defined in a law i.e. an Act.

In your response to this post, can you point us to a lawfully enacted Act that states this, as we have not seen such an Act?

Secondly, what are the privacy guarantees, given the fact that we have seen people put their details on a clip board where the details of others were visible?

What are the guarantees that the business will comply with privacy law, given the fact that the above example already occurred?

- What is the punishment for the business for such a privacy breach?

- Will you be notified of this breach?

(Let’s take an educated guess, and say no)

- What financial compensation will you receive for such a breach?

(Let’s go out on a limb here, and say none)

Just another scam the people are blindly following.