Google sued using your data to spy on you, Australia still does nothing

On the land we call Australia people in positions of authority love data collection on the serfs.

Telecommunications ‘authorities’, road ‘authorities’, financial ‘authorities’, health ‘authorities’, local government authorities oops sorry they have no real authority where they are just a law making wannabe unconstitutional business, but that’s another story.

After all living in a colony, penal colony policies apply, where data collection is used to whip the serfs into place, e.g. limiting of movement, denial of services and means to earn a living, etc etc.

In Canberra, in the ACT (Australian Criminal’s Territory), they even want the serfs to wear specific devices chained around their wrists so that apparently the ruling elite can remain ‘safe’, whatever that means.

In any event the institutions are really slow to act for the benefit of the serfs.

The ACCC is next to useless on so many ‘lack of action’ scenarios where the good people are getting screwed over by multinationals, as if it’s a deliberate lack of action.

Over the seas, in a place that is advertised as the ‘land of the free’ (that’s another false advertisement) Google has been taken to court for steathfully using your data (i.e. your money)  to spy on you.

See article by the register from 14 Nov 2020 of the title:

New lawsuit: Why do Android phones mysteriously exchange 260MB a month with Google via cellular data when they're not even in use?

Ad giant sued after mobile allowances eaten by hidden transfers

Google on Thursday was sued for allegedly stealing Android users' cellular data allowances through unapproved, undisclosed transmissions to the web giant's servers.

The lawsuit, Taylor et al v. Google [PDF], was filed in a US federal district court in San Jose on behalf of four plaintiffs based in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin in the hope the case will be certified by a judge as a class action.

The complaint contends that Google is using Android users' limited cellular data allowances without permission to transmit information about those individuals that's unrelated to their use of Google services.

Data sent over Wi-Fi is not at issue, nor is data sent over a cellular connection in the absence of Wi-Fi when an Android user has chosen to use a network-connected application. What concerns the plaintiffs is data sent to Google's servers that isn't the result of deliberate interaction with a mobile device – we're talking passive or background data transfers via cell network, here.

"Google designed and implemented its Android operating system and apps to extract and transmit large volumes of information between Plaintiffs’ cellular devices and Google using Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances," the complaint claims. "Google’s misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances through passive transfers occurs in the background, does not result from Plaintiffs’ direct engagement with Google’s apps and properties on their devices, and happens without Plaintiffs’ consent."

Android users have to accept four agreements to participate in the Google ecosystem: Terms of Service; the Privacy Policy; the Managed Google Play Agreement; and the Google Play Terms of Service. None of these, the court filing contends, disclose that Google spends users' cellular data allowances for these background transfers.

To support the allegations, the plaintiff's counsel tested a new Samsung Galaxy S7 phone running Android, with a signed-in Google Account and default setting, and found that when left idle, without a Wi-Fi connection, the phone "sent and received 8.88 MB/day of data, with 94 per cent of those communications occurring between Google and the device."

The device, stationary, with all apps closed, transferred data to Google about 16 times an hour, or about 389 times in 24 hours. Assuming even half of that data is outgoing, Google would receive about 4.4MB per day or 130MB per month in this manner per device subject to the same test conditions.

Putting worries of what could be in that data to one side, based on an average price of $8 per GB of data in the US, that 130MB works out to about $1 lost to Google data gathering per month – if the device is disconnected from Wi-Fi the entire time and does all its passive transmission over a cellular connection.

An iPhone with Apple's Safari browser open in the background transmits only about a tenth of that amount to Apple, according to the complaint.

Much of the transmitted data, it's claimed, are log files that record network availability, open apps, and operating system metrics. Google could have delayed transmitting these files until a Wi-Fi connection was available, but chose instead to spend users' cell data so it could gather data at all hours.

Vanderbilt University Professor Douglas C. Schmidt performed a similar study in 2018 – except that the Chrome browser was open – and found that Android devices made 900 passive transfers in 24 hours.

Under active use, Android devices transfer about 11.6MB of data to Google servers daily, or 350MB per month, it's claimed, which is about half the amount transferred by an iPhone.

The complaint charges that Google conducts these undisclosed data transfers to further its advertising business, sending "tokens" that identify users for targeted advertising and preload ads that generate revenue even if they're never displayed.

"Users often never view these pre-loaded ads, even though their cellular data was already consumed to download the ads from Google," the legal filing claims. "And because these pre-loads can count as ad impressions, Google is paid for transmitting the ads."

The Register asked Google to respond to the lawsuit's allegations. It declined to comment.

We also asked Marc Goldberg, Chief Revenue Officer at ad analytics biz Method Media Intelligence whether preloaded ads ever get counted as billable events when not shown.

"Yes they could be," Goldberg said in an email to The Register. "It is important for advertisers to understand their billable event. What are they paying for? Auction won? Ads Served? Ads rendered? These simple questions need to be asked and understood."

The lawsuit seeks to recover the fair market value of the co-opted cellular data and the "reasonable value of the cellular data used by Google to extract and deliver information that benefited Google," dating back years to whenever this practice began. ®

Dictatorial state of the internet held in the hands of a few

Briefly,

Something that resembled ‘free speech’ may have been around on the internet when it got commericalised, but those days have been over for quite some time, where now the finishing touches with a nail in the coffin have been put in.

The alleged holy grail of democracy something called free speech only existed for a short time in the virtual world, where in the 2000’s the authorities clamped down on what the serfs could publish.

With the advent of ‘social media’ the technocrats control the narrative and the words of the general population.

They are the true 'influencers' and not some stupid corporate whore showing off her ass on social media.

In a coordinated effort by U.S corporation’s with the prohibiting certain people from posting online, it seems that the First Amendment has been thrown under a bus.

So, where is the action by the so called authorities on this breach?

AS we know silence is acquiescence, so they obviously support this muzzling of people.

Once could also quite easily say about the actions of the corporations is that they are inciting violence, as the stifling of people can be a precursor to protests that can get violent with only a few strategically placed government operatives.

SO there’s no action on that too?

Members of the serf population in the police state of Victoria, Australia had their homes broken into for (alleged) posts that authorities consider incitement.

The serfs have too much ‘freedom’ in posting whatever they want or even documenting government frauds and exposing corruption within governments worldwide (e.g. Collateral Murder, Julian Assange) where this does not sit well with the overlords.

And you thought Minority Report (with Tom Cruise) was fiction?

How to stop apps from obtaining data from your smart phone’s sensors

It’s not enough that authorities (also corporations and now 'persons' in non government organisations) have access to a fairly accurate measurement of your location from a few technologies like Assisted GPS, plain old GPS, and now via Bluetooth and WiFi scanning, where now they are obtaining data from your phone’s sensors like the light sensor, accelerometer, magnetic field for monitoring purposes under the terrorist(?) excuse.

So they need to know if you’re taking an (ASCII) dump, while having your phone tilted 43.7 degrees from your face, in a dark room facing North West (also the name of a human being from the result of Kim Kardashian fornicating) for the safety of the nation?

Modern day smart phones can have up to 26 sensors that generate data 24/7 where now this is being collected.

How is this being collected?

Via apps.

They can put the data collection code into apps that they ‘mandate’ you to download, e.g. contact tracing, or a government essential service app, e.g. social security and corporations and ‘private’ developers can do the same with e.g. a ‘news’ app.

You do not need a news app to view that corporations 'news' service, but they need you to have that news app, so they can obtain more information from you.

The least closed source / proprietary apps you have on your phone the better for you.

Apple and Google’s smart phone operating systems (the most popular in the world) are specifically designed data collection points for governments and corporations.

When it comes to an iPhone you cannot ‘reformat’ it and put another operating system on it.

But when it comes to Google’s version of Android, with regards to certain manufactures you can blow away Google’s spyware infested version of Android, a term called ‘de-Googling’ with regards to several hardware manufacturers including Huawei, Motorola, Samsung Sony just to name a few.

The best ironic part of it is that you can de-Google a Google phone too, by installing a privacy conscious version of AOSP (Android Open Source Project, the unaltered by Google version of Android) called Graphene.

If you have Android version 10 on a Google or de-Googled phone you can disable the sensors from instructions within the video by Rob Braxman of the title:

Cool Android Hacks for Privacy! Kill Switch, Contact Tracing off, Non-Useful features and more

MAGA suite of corporations mega data collectors

Corporation’s business models have changed over the years where data collection is the priority, and their whatever product comes second.

A blatant example of this is Meghan (born Rachel) and Harry's website.

They have no product, only data collection of your person.

DO NOT VISIT their (useless) website!

So, which corporations are these?

Well, we’ve put together a few with the same acronym as some other useless political movement marketed to pacify the herd, where in this case it’s Microsoft Apple Google Amazon, where there are a fair few other corporations that Joe Average has not heard of.

Apple may claim that they have ‘exposed’ Facebook’s data collection policy in order to deflect the spotlight from them?

Smart phones and apps are most detrimental to your privacy, and governments push people to use these as means of doing business.

Google may have started out as a search ‘engine’ where it morphed to a data collection treasure trove for ‘advertising’ corporations.

Many people may not know that the setup of businesses like Google and Facebook may seem to be the brainchild of random persons but the setup funds or steering of the businesses is by the three letter agencies.

Google is one the world’s largest copyright breacher, untouchable at law.

Yet if you download a song or use it in videos, you are sent legal notices.

Facebook operates illegally under Australian law, but there is no action there.

Yet if you post something that may unify people, Victoria Police will come crashing through your doors.

These corporations are supported by people in government worldwide, as the agenda is real-time  surveillance of every person on the planet.

You are a slave to corporations and governments worldwide and treated as such.

The days of in your face slavery are gone, as this proved to be too volatile for the overlords.

Can’t get a home loan? Too many Uber Eats!

As time goes by more and more data is collected on you, where at a later point it is used against you.

One of the best data emitting devices around at the moment is your trusty smart phone, where authorities and corporations want you to be glued to it.

In New South Wales, apparently it's mandatory to have a mobile phone.

Under which Act this was put into 'force' is another question.

Data gathered from smart watches and fitness trackers will also be used against you with a much more detailed look into your life.

Corporations want you to use your smart phone for everything, from payments, social security transactions to travel, booking eateries and other services for their benefit and not yours packaging all this up as ‘convenience’ and not it’s true purpose that being data collection for allegedly a ‘better user experience’ or some other utter garbage marketing term.

Banks are the largest corporations committing criminal offences in Australia, apart from probably the governments (federal and state) themselves, where they are still allowed to operate in this colony.

With the advent of the royal commission into banking, the people have not been left better off but rather put deeper into slavery but this time under a more powerful microscope, another step closer to China’s perfected social monitoring and scoring system, which Australia already implemented a derivative of this quite some time ago.

So, now that banks have been given more access to your data, they can peer into your life with a greater fine tooth comb, where home buyers reaching out for a loan have been rejected for having too many Uber Eats in a week.

So, many would have scoffed at the ‘can’t get a home loan, blame it on the smashed avo’ touted not that long ago.

The more you pay for your almond milk weak decaf latte (also known as a ‘why bother’) or your two cigarettes by smart phone/card, the more you are supporting the corporate slavery agenda doing yourself and (more importantly) the community harm.

In order to stay ‘relevant’, health insurance companies will now be given access to the data you have created, where if you’re a regular at McChucks you might not be able to obtain heart attack/diabetes insurance, where if you bought those food like items for cash you might have ‘gotten away’ with it.

Through human's ignorance and laziness, card transactions over the past four years have gone up from 40% to 80%, obviously signifying that they are quite content with the slavery they're in.

The sheeple's actions have spoken, the problem there is that they're taking down a lot of other good people with them.

Corporations:1, Sheeple:0

Google supports false advertising - cardieo.com

The internet is littered with companies that conduct business under an illegal practice called false advertising.

The problem with that is that Google supports these companies by airing their false advertisements.

Another problem is that Google also forces you to watch these false advertisements before your desired video is played.

In this instance the company is the business behind cardieo.com

Their product is exactly what the advertisement say's it's not i.e. cheap crap.

See the breakdown of the false advertisement by cardieo.com in the video by Ken:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXjlOswxcfo

Mobile phones mandatory in Australia. WTF?

Since Australia is a colony the people in government rule in the appropriate manner, with the mentality from 1788, i.e. keeping the convicts locked up on this prison isle.

Australians do not live in a democracy as 'advertised' but rather in a totalitarian, fascist or authoritarian state depending on your point of view.

The people in the Australian Government are 'human rights' abusers where they get away with a lot with the world just accepting this.

Forcing someone to do something is against a few laws that the people in the Australian Government put in the round file.

As an example, one cannot be forced to use a data collection service for COVID reasons, namely an app.

This is against a Commonwealth law called the Privacy Act of 1988, under Section 94H, which states the following:

PRIVACY ACT 1988 – SECT 94H

Requiring the use of COVIDSafe

             (1)  A person commits an offence if the person requires another person to:

                     (a)  download COVIDSafe to a communication device; or

                     (b)  have COVIDSafe in operation on a communication device; or

                     (c)  consent to uploading COVID app data from a communication device to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.

  

             (2)  A person commits an offence if the person:

                     (a)  refuses to enter into, or continue, a contract or arrangement with another person (including a contract of employment); or

                     (b)  takes adverse action (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 ) against another person; or

                     (c)  refuses to allow another person to enter:

                              (i)  premises that are otherwise accessible to the public; or

                             (ii)  premises that the other person has a right to enter; or

                     (d)  refuses to allow another person to participate in an activity; or

                     (e)  refuses to receive goods or services from another person, or insists on providing less monetary consideration for the goods or services; or

                      (f)  refuses to provide goods or services to another person, or insists on receiving more monetary consideration for the goods or services;

on the ground that, or on grounds that include the ground that, the other person:

                     (g)  has not downloaded COVIDSafe to a communication device; or

                     (h)  does not have COVIDSafe in operation on a communication device; or

                      (i)  has not consented to uploading COVID app data from a communication device to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.

 

              (3)  To avoid doubt:

                     (a)  subsection (2) is a workplace law for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009 ; and

                     (b)  the benefit that the other person derives because of an obligation of the person under subsection (2) is a workplace right within the meaning of Part 3-1 of that Act.

 _________________________

So, on the land where Australia's first police force was made up of criminals (and still is to this day) the authorities have conjured up an idea that mobile phones are mandatory for its residents for the purpose of data collection for COVID reasons.

So summing it up, NSW residents are forced to be owners of a mobile phone in order for the government to monitor their every move, as this is done via A-GPS (Assisted GPS, i.e. mobile phone tower triangulation) and GPS and now WiFi/Bluetooth scanning embedded in the phone's operating system by Apple and Google, actions which are out of your control, and also 'forcing' you to login to premises you have visited.

Source: https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/covid-safe/customer-record-keeping/qr-codes

Meanwhile, those in government, do not abide by the law, flaunt the 'rules' and travel unrestricted.

Did you know that the Imperial government had enough of the lawlessness with regards to the people in power of the colonies, that they installed the Colonial Laws Validity Act in 1865 to remind the colonists of the rule of law.

This is still true today, where the people in power pretty much do whatever they please, with little to no consequences if caught, but the serfs do not have the so called protection of the motherland anymore.

All deliberate by design.

Can Victoria Police fine you for not wearing a mask?

NEVER pay a 'covid' fine, contest it.

Source: https://www.humanrights.vic.gov.au/static/18aee6b5e0013f3df6dfe7555cf0ae77/Resource-FAQ_face_masks-Updated-Dec-2020.pdf

Why you need a COVID vaccine

if the following occurs:

EFF to Ninth Circuit: Don’t Grant Immunity to Notorious Spyware Company

EFF filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of WhatsApp’s lawsuit against notorious Israeli spyware company NSO Group. WhatsApp discovered last year that NSO Group had breached its systems and enabled NSO Group’s government clients to hack into the mobile phones of approximately 1,400 users in April and May 2019. A federal judge allowed the case to move forward earlier this year and NSO Group appealed.

NSO Group sells its “Pegasus” spyware, which enables surreptitious digital surveillance of mobile devices, exclusively to government agencies across the globe. The company is arguing that it should therefore be granted “foreign sovereign immunity,” a longstanding legal doctrine that says that foreign governments should generally have immunity from suit in U.S. courts for reasons that focus on preserving stability in international relations, also called “comity.”

EFF supports WhatsApp’s arguments that foreign sovereign immunity is inappropriate for private corporations, and submitted our brief to further argue that no corporation, whether foreign or American, should be granted immunity for contracting with foreign governments, especially when those governments use a company’s powerful surveillance technology to violate human rights.

We explained that surreptitious surveillance tools not only invade privacy and chill freedom of speech and association, they can also facilitate physical harm—from unlawful arrest to summary execution.

EFF’s brief provided examples of how NSO Group, via the WhatsApp hack, helped its client governments target members of civil society, including Rwandan political dissidents and a journalist critical of Saudi Arabia. We also highlighted other examples of NSO Group’s complicity in human rights abuses, including many perpetrated by the Mexican government against journalists and the wife of a murdered journalist.

Corporate complicity in human rights abuses is a widespread and ongoing problem, and the Ninth Circuit should not expand the ability of technology companies like NSO Group to avoid accountability for facilitating human rights abuses by foreign governments.

Source: eff.org