Microsoft takes 5 years to fix Defender 'bug' should be in the courts

Microsoft not only should be in the courts for anti competitive behaviour but also fined for it.

Microsoft has (deliberately) not addressed a piece of code that was killing Firefox performance.

MANY people may have thought that Mozilla's Firefox product was inferior in quality to the alternative Microsoft product or that the programmers were lazy or incompetent.

The truth was that Microsoft was (deliberately) sabotaging Mozilla's product.

Too many calls to the Windows kernel were stealing Firefox's thunder.

Why it matters: Microsoft has released a crucial bug-fixing update to its Windows Defender antimalware application. Its arrival means that some unlucky Firefox users should now get a much smoother and better-performing experience while browsing the web.

Update (April 11): The Mozilla developer who worked on fixing this performance issue and reported it to Microsoft added the following on a Reddit thread, clarifying the nature of the bugfix:

"The impact of this fix is that on all computers that rely on Microsoft Defender's Real-time Protection feature (which is enabled by default in Windows), MsMpEng.exe will consume much less CPU than before when monitoring the dynamic behavior of any program through ETW (Event Tracing for Windows)."

"For Firefox this is particularly impactful because Firefox (not Defender!) relies a lot on VirtualProtect - which is monitored by MsMpEng.exe through ETW. We expect that on all these computers, MsMpEng.exe will consume around 75% less CPU than it did before when it is monitoring Firefox."

The original story follows below:

For more than five years, the security protection provided by Microsoft Defender was negatively affecting Firefox users during their web browsing sessions. The Antimalware Service Executable component of Defender (MsMpEng.exe) was acting strange, showing a high CPU usage when Firefox was running at the same time.

Users were complaining that Defender was stressing the CPU while the Mozilla browser became laggy and unresponsive. The issue was first reported 5 years ago, and it was seemingly a Firefox exclusive as it was sparing Edge and other third-party browsers like Chrome.

In March 2023, Mozilla developers were able to finally discover the source of the issue: Firefox relies and executes a very high number of calls to the OS kernel's VirtualProtect function while tracing Windows events (ETW). VirtualProtect is a function to change the "protection on a region of committed pages in the virtual address space of the calling process," Microsoft explains, and Defender was doing a lot of "useless computations" upon each event while Firefox was generating a lot of ETW events.

This was an "explosive" combination that was using five times the CPU power with Firefox compared to other browsers, the Mozilla developers said. The open-source foundation worked with Microsoft to solve the issue for good, and Redmond finally delivered with a recent update for Defender's antimalware engine (1.1.20200.2).

After testing the bugfix for a while, the solution was delivered to the stable channel with updated Defender anti-malware definitions on April 4 (mpengine.dll version 1.1.20200.4) and the bug was finally closed.

Mozilla developers said that the Defender update would provide a massive ~75% improvement in CPU usage from MsMpEng.exe while browsing the web with Firefox. With the fix, Defender's Real-time Protection feature - which is enabled by default in Windows - will consume less CPU than before when monitoring the dynamic behavior of any program through ETW.

Microsoft is also bringing the update to now obsolete Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 systems, as Firefox will keep supporting the two operating systems "at least" until 2024. Furthermore, Mozilla engineers said that the "latest discoveries" made while analyzing the weird Defender bug would help Firefox "go even further down in CPU usage," with all other antivirus software and not just Defender this time.

Alarm over number of 'sex pests' in police force

IBAC report finds sex pests remain a problem for the force

Victoria’s anti-corruption body has found predatory sexual behaviour is rife within police ranks, with victims of crimes among those most at risk.

New data released by IBAC reveals that 68 per cent of all complaints received in 2022 were related to Victoria Police, according to Sky News host Rowan Dean.

Victoria’s peak weak anti-corruption body has found predatory sexual behaviour is still a problem within police ranks.

The review, conducted by the independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC), assessed 27 Victoria Police internal investigations into alleged predatory behaviour between 2018 and 2022.

Its aim was to scrutinise the thoroughness of those investigations and whether appropriate sanctions were dealt.

But despite findings that Victoria Police handle most allegations of predatory behaviour well, with a “victim-centred” approach, IBAC has found evidence sex pests remain a problem for the force.

IBAC Deputy Commissioner Kylie Kilgour said predatory behaviour involves an officer misusing their position to begin, or attempt to begin, an emotional or sexual relationship with someone they meet in the course of their duties.

“It can also relate to the sexual assault, stalking, harassment or grooming of a person,” Ms Kilgour said.

“Despite efforts undertaken by Victoria Police over recent years, our review shows that predatory behaviour continues.

“We found women experiencing domestic or family violence were targets of predatory behaviour by police officers and more than half of all cases reviewed indicated a pattern of behaviour by the perpetrator against more than one person.”

Consensual relationships within Victoria Police can be considered predatory due to power imbalance or other circumstances.

Victoria Police, in 2014, set up Taskforce Salus, to investigate predatory behaviour within the force.

Police officers, to date, are not required to declare intimate relationships in the workplace.

More than half the cases reviewed indicated a level of tolerance for inappropriate behaviour or inaction by managers after an allegation is reported to them. 

However, IBAC found most Victoria Police investigations into predatory behaviour made findings based on the evidence.

Sanctions for predatory behaviour were consistent with public expectations, IBAC found, but in some cases investigators were receiving “problematic” advice from the forces Discipline Advisory Unit.

Recommendations given to Victoria Police to reduce predatory behaviour have been accepted.

The recommendations include:

•Improvements to Victoria Police’s employee training, complaint investigation reporting and record keeping

•Improvements to the advice provided by Victoria Police’s Legal Discipline Advisory Unit

•Clearer guidance for employees on the declaration and management of intimate or personal workplace relationships

•Increased monitoring of the ethical health of police officers who are subject to predatory behaviour allegations

IBAC will monitor their implementation.

White elephant $220million 1000-bed quarantine centre is given away for FREE after housing just 730 travellers - at a cost of $300,000 a person

• QLD Wellcamp Facility handed over to Wagner Coperation
• The $220m qurantine camp only held 730 over 14 months
• It was operated at a cost of $300,000 per unvaxxed person

A $220million quarantine centre has been handed over to a property magnate after housing just 730 tourists at the 1,000-bed facility over 14 months. 

The Wellcamp facility near Toowoomba, 127kms west of Brisbane, was gifted to the Wagner Corporation on Saturday after acting as a quarantine camp for unvaccinated tourists last year.

The facility went largely unused during the pandemic after completing construction in February 2022 just as covid restrictions were easing nationwide.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced prior to construction that Queensland would pay for the entire project after a political spat with then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

Now Josh Wagner and the Wagner Corporation will inherit the facility without cost when the government's lease expires.

The $220 million Wellcamp facility near Toowoomba, QLD, was handed over to the Wagner Corporation after only taking in 730 people in 14 months 

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced prior to construction that Queensland would pay for the project, which ended up operating at a cost of more than $300,000 per person

Wagner, one of the state's wealthiest men, says the area will become part of a $175 million entertainment precinct.

'This is the worst decision ever made by a state government on behalf of taxpayers,' Deputy Opposition Leader Jarrod Bleijie told the Courier-Mail.

'The Premier has never apologised for it and she should because Queenslanders will be paying the price for this waste for a long time to come.

'It's a $500,000 a day check-out bill that could have helped Queenslanders in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.'

The anticipated 'Wellcamp Entertainment Precinct', will temporarily house agriculture staff before transforming into a private hotel.

While the facility operated as a quarantine base, the number of people entering the country that were required to use it never exceeded the number of its beds.

The 730 who did use it during its ill-fated tenure equates to a cost of more than $300,000 per person.

Deputy Premier and Planning Minister Steven Miles defended the development of the site, insisting that it aided the state's post-pandemic recovery effort.

'This supported our economic recovery and ensured the safety of Queenslanders,' Mr Miles said.

'The day before the government announced our intention to build Wellcamp, in August 2021, we had to pause interstate arrivals because all our quarantine hotels were full.

'There were 5114 people across 22 quarantine hotels at the highest point and multiple outbreaks caused by hotel leaks.'

While the camp was empty, humanitarian groups pleaded with the Premier to allow people in need, including the homeless, to stay there but were repeatedly turned down.

The Wellcamp facility will now become part of a $127 million 'Wellcamp Entertainment Precinct', currently under-development by the Wagner Corporation

The centre began construciton during Australia's peak-pandemic period but only opened in Febraury 2022 as restrictions were already easing 

The Wellcamp facility primarily took in unvaccinated tourists who needed to quarantine in accordance with Queensland's mandate international travel.

Now the project is being probed by the Queensland Auditor-General, who is working on a probe into the costs and decisions that led to the commissioning of the site.

This probe is expected to be completed within the next two months.

As Brisbane prepares for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Mr Wagner told The Courier-Mail that he hoped the precinct would become a legacy infrastructure project.

Daily Mail Australia has contacted Premier Palaszczuk's office and the Wagner Corporation for comment.

How your phone tracks you and how to throttle the tracking

When it comes to privacy in today’s modern world it is virtually non existent for the general population.

Today’s most widely used surveillance device by the governments and corporations is the self sponsored ubiquitous mobile phone, which bugles the location a lot and invades the privacy of the user.

A personal computer (even a laptop with inbuilt camera & microphone) can be more easily configured to mitigate data collection, where a mobile phone also leaks bio-metric data including the surroundings.

Sensors that give the above information can be turned off in Developer Options of AOSP.

Since at lest the 4th generation iPod touch, Apple used its sensors (3-axis gyro, accelerometer) combined with known database of Wi-Fi router locations to obtain the user's location very accurately.

That’s why there is a huge push from governments and corporations for the general population to use smartphones and apps which also harvest ‘private & confidential’ user data.

The reality is that the general population is tracked & monitored 24/7 by the ‘5-eyes’ global surveillance network, which also the ‘9-Eyes’ & ‘14-Eyes’ nations are part of, where this surveillance is not for the benefit nor protection of the people.

MANY people may be of the the erroneous belief that the surveillance began since the introduction of smartphones or the inclusion of GPS chips into the phones, but in reality tracking occurred with the introduction of GSM phones via cell tower triangulation and audio via deliberately ‘flawed’ or insecure communications protocols.

Spying via mobile phones is supported at two levels, the hardware layer, that being the baseband modem and the application layer meaning programs or ‘apps’.

The PC world has not been left out in the cold, ‘malicious’ code, no ‘backdoor’, no ‘administrative’ portal has been put into Intel branded CPUs that went undetected for many years, where there is no action to remove this ‘computer in a chip’ by Intel.

The humble ‘landline’ didn’t get left out either.

For example in the United States, all phone records have been ‘outsourced’ to an Israeli corporation called Amdocs, where in Australia Telstra also worked with Amdocs in a discrete deal and location.

A lesser mentioned fact is that Israel is a top tier surveillance state with products like Cellebrite, and educational institutions designed for the sole purpose of hacking.

Israel is also involved in surveillance technologies within hardware manufacturers such as Intel and in software from Google, Microsoft, Meta (nee Facebook) and many other ventures.

In the mobile phone arena, people are given the illusion that they have a choice, you know the red pill or the blue one or Apple & Google, where in this duopoly the data goes back to the same people.

Other ‘competitors’ e.g. BlackBerry or Microsoft have been shut down for the purpose of easier administration having the duopoly only to contend with, just like in anything else, from politics e.g. East v West, North v South, Liberal v Labor to supermarkets Coles v Woolworths.

While there are other manufacturers of privacy related phone tech, they do not influence the market enough to make an impact, but nonetheless they still exist.

Apple’s hardware and software is so locked down where even replacing a faulty camera module or battery may render your device unusable, not very good if it’s truly ‘your’ device.

In the Android world it’s a bit better where a base version of Android, devoid of Google's and manufacturer's spy or bloatware called AOSP (Android Open Source Project), is available for certain phones.

This ‘de-Googled’ operating system cut off other newer ways of spying on people, that being via Wi-Fi Scanning and Bluetooth Scanning, and also ‘Contact Tracing’ which is embedded in the retail smartphones such from e.g. Samsung, LG, Sony, Nokia, Motorola etc.

In AOSP, there is no Contact Tracing or 'Exposure Notifications' programming for apps to later reference, unlike in retail phone's Android or Apple's iPhones. 

One can also ‘de-Google’ a Google phone (how ironic) via GrapheneOS, another flavour of AOSP only compiled for Google Pixel phones.

Because the internet today cannot function without Google (a legal topic that should be fought out in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit) in order to get some more modern useful functionality like apps and notifications the AOSP community has you covered.

In order to better spy on you, corporations (and governments) want/need you to login to your phone, e.g. mail services by Google or Microsoft or Social Welfare services e.g. ‘myGov’ in Australia.

These actions are not recommended if one is truly concerned about one’s privacy.

AOSP has created an app called microG that has anonymised your usage with Google and negated any requirement for you to login to Google on your phone.

Unlike Google’s core services app (Google Play Services, com.google.android.gms) microG does not obtain data from your contacts SMS or phone apps.

Hidden in the microG setting, there is a setting that is not available in the standard Android phones, that being in Location Module which includes the Mozilla Location Service setting which can be configured to disable Wi-Fi data & Cell data being sent to the geolocation service.

This is another way to stop data collection on you.

You can also obtain apps from Google’s Play Store, again without the need to login to Google, with the use of an app called Aurora Store, but keeping in mind that most of the data collection is done via apps.

Developers that respect your privacy, offering their programs up for scrutiny put their applications in an ‘open source’ app store called F-droid.

What’s important on ANZAC Day?

Every year it’s the same, where the nation stops to commemorate the perils of war, right?

Nope!

Only a few hours are set aside, an inconvenience to those who are at the lowest level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

After all that’s what Australia is all about, the ‘economy’.

Got to keep those mice turning that wheel perpetually.

You, the corporate fodder (or more appropriately known as ‘consumers’) have to keep spending, to keep the economy going, ‘their’ economy.

You’re told not to hoard (old terminology; save up) cash in order to purchase a television or vehicle, but rather get a loan for it to keep the banks and financial institutions profiteering from usury (refer to the Statute of the Jewry) on the fruits of your labour, a modern day accepted form of slavery.

But isn’t hoarding what the global elite do? 

They amass vast sums of cash, lock up art in private collections, and even keep stolen artefacts from their thieving ways, the British ‘monarchy’ as just one example.

What’s not important on ANZAC Day?

For you to know that what is known as World War I, was actually a ‘cousin’s’ war, where the offspring of the serfs were seen as cannon fodder and thus put in their appropriate use case scenario for the entertainment and financial gain of the global elite.

True sociopaths are in control.

What’s more disgusting is that people accept this, but then again, the majority of people are not supposed to think.

See Manufacturing Consent excerpt by Noam Chomsky:

What business did Australia have in going over the seas to kill people of other nations?

Well, the colony is at the disposal of the Imperial empire’s whims, of course.

It’s a breeding ground for resources to be used however fit the empire sees.

Let’s take the example of Indigenous Australians.

Because of their excellent skill sets they where used abroad by the British.

How were they repaid? What did the British think of that?

Well the actions speak for themselves, with the detonation of an atomic bomb in Maralinga.

Have we forgotten about that? 

Maybe we aren't supposed to teach our children, of the poisoning of people and landscapes that governments and corporations do, or your so called ‘recycling’ isn't going to change centuries and millennia of cyclic whether patterns, but rather keep the focus on consumerism?

Hoping McDonald’s is open so we can have a 5 burger deal for lunch only, where for dinner it's KFC for a family size bucket of junk for one to consume. 

Government in contempt of Supreme Court ruling, re: C-19 fines

The colony has a very rich history of abuse by those in government.

In the 1800s Imperial law (No it wasn’t 1788, contrary to popular belief) was established on this land, but those in government ignored it completely.

So much so that when Britain found out, the empire installed the Colonial Laws Validity Act in 1865.

While much has changed since then, some things never do, that being the illegal or unlawful behaviour of those in control of the general population.

The general population are being terrorised by those in government from many fronts.

The state’s premiers dictated to police, (an illegal action) to issue notices to people for so called C-19 ‘Infringements’ where exorbitant amounts were listed.

The problem there was that those in government did not follow the law in order to put into place lawfully enacted infrastructure in order to issue the said fines.

MANY people have caught on via the help of social media platforms and other forums, culminating in court action against the government.

Even though the Supreme Court of New South Wales issued a ruling, the people in government have not heeded to this, therefore being in contempt.

We should all be aware if the plebs are in contempt of a court ruling, there are consequences.

It’s up to you to hold them accountable and make them pay.

So far the people in government have had no consequences as a result of a breach of the court ruling.

See case file:

Scam prevention, detection and response by the four major banks - ASIC Report April 2023

See report:

Source: https://download.asic.gov.au/media/mbhoz0pc/rep761-published-20-april-2023.pdf

Federal Police CAUGHT ON CAMERA fabricating evidence

WARNING: Never trust the police.

The police lie, tamper with evidence and provide false statements in court.

The police are not there for you, nor are they your 'friend'.

The best part of all this is that they are allowed to get away with this.

Where those police personnel charged with criminal offences?

Supreme Courts Rules COVID Fines Invalid as the Penalty Notices Did Not Specify the Offence

The overbearing law enforcement approach to the COVID pandemic, which had a focus on criminalising those who didn’t follow health restrictions, via the widespread imposition of draconian fines that were issued seemingly with no discretion and in the most absurd of circumstances.

Following the passing of the pandemic, as people went back to business as usual, however, many civilians had to deal with these outstanding fines continuing to hang over their heads as the average COVID infringement notice amounted to $1,000,

So, the Redfern Legal Centre (RLC) challenged the legitimacy of COVID fines issued to three clients, who sought declaratory relief from the penalties they were subjected to, in accordance with section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), with the outcome likely to affect thousands in NSW.

Brendan Beame, Teal Els and Rohan Pank all claimed that the penalty notice they received failed to fall within the bounds of the meaning of such a notice, which are set out in section 20 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) (the Act). Although Pank had his fine dropped prior to the case going ahead.

And on appearing in court last November, the remaining pair sought acknowledgement that the NSW fines administration commissioner couldn’t serve an enforcement notice regarding their fines, that their partial covering of the fines be refunded and that the state pay their court costs.

For the crime of picnicking

Beame received his penalty notice in the sum of $1000 on 6 August 2021 penalty notice, which specified the location and time of the offence, as well as a description of it which read “Fail to comply with noticed direction in relation to section 7/8/9 – COVID-19 – Individual”.

Offence code 95638 was also listed, which, contained in section 10 of the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW), is the offence of failing to comply with a public health order in section 7, 8 or 9 of the same legislation.

This offence carries maximum penalties of 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $11,000.

Section 7 of the Public Health Act provides the minister with the power to isolate inhabitants, reduce risks and prevent movement into an area in relation to a health risk. Section 8 can require individuals undertake medical examination, while section 9 deals with authorities posing such health risks.

Brendan’s crime was having a picnic at Bronte with five others, four of whom were from other households. And in an internal review, Beame put it to Revenue NSW in December 2021, that as the notice didn’t specify a specific offence it was “contrary to law”: a claim that was rejected.

The offence of watching kids play  

Els was fined $3,000 on 28 August 2021 over having participated in an outdoor gathering of more than two people at a reserve on Tonbridge Street in Ramsgate, “an area of concern”, on 28 August 2021.

The penalty notice specified offence 97722, which is contrary to section 10, as it relates to a failure to comply with “a direction given by Minister in section 7 order for participating in outdoor gathering”. The notice doesn’t mention the related legislation or specify what the breach was.

Els made two applications for internal review with Revenue NSW in 2021 and 2022. The first stated that she’d been in the park with her child, supervising them exercising with other kids, while the second asserted it was “unfair and unjust” that the notice failed to state what she’d done wrong.

A change of heart

RLC senior solicitor Samantha Lee submitted two affidavits to the court, which included the number of fines issued similar to those of the plaintiffs, and while the defence objected to this, NSW Supreme Court Justice Dina Yehia determined it was relevant during the 29 November 2022 hearing.

These details set out that, in terms of the Els notice, another 162 people were fined $3,000 for “unlawfully participating in outdoor public gathering”, while 32,648 penalty notices were set out in a similar manner to Beame’s notice.

A month prior to proceedings, the defendants, the NSW police commissioner and the NSW fines commissioner, argued the fines were valid, as section 20 of the Act doesn’t require detailing of a specific offence or the legislative provision and what did appear on the notices should suffice.

Yet, on the day prior to court, the defendants agreed the notices were inadequate and the partial payment that Beame and Els had made be refunded, although a declaration about the invalid nature of a specific division of the Act should not be provided, as it would limit issuing any fines under it.

Those declarations

According to Justice Yehia, the question turned to whether the court should make the requested declarations even though the commissioner had conceded he would not be issuing further penalty notices to the plaintiffs and, indeed, the money paid in relation to the fines would be refunded.

“Where the subject notices have been declared invalid, the plaintiffs are plainly entitled to the consequential orders,” her Honour noted, adding that these would provide certainty, vindicate the plaintiffs’ claims, and they’d serve to notify the public of the resulting consequences of the decision.

But, while the justice considered that declarations regarding the notices in question falling outside the bounds of section 20 and the fact the plaintiffs were refunded should be issued, the requested declaration that would find fines can’t be issued under part 3 division 4 of the Act should not.

Reasons of the court

Despite the defence suggesting that the invalidation of the penalty notices under scrutiny ruled out any need to provide reasons, Justice Yehia considered it was necessary to provide, as they’d deliver “certainty in relation to the basis for the invalidity” of the penalty notices.

Section 3 of the Act defines a penalty notice offence as “an offence under a statutory provision for which a penalty notice may be issued”. While, contained in part 3 division 2 of the Act, section 20 states that “the penalty notice offence must be specified in the notice”, along with the fine amount.

Section 22A of the Act then incentives an individual to promptly pay their fine, in order to avoid further liability for wrongdoing in court. Therefore, according to Justice Yehia, its “imperative” that the offence is specified on the notice in order to follow the suggested path to avoid this. 

Another key reason for a detailed offence being laid out in the notice is that section 23 of the Act outlines that the fine amount cannot exceed the maximum penalty triggered by an offence, but this is impossible to verify if the recipient fails to understand which actual offence they’ve breached.

And a further issue is that section 24A outlines how the recipient of a fine can apply to have a decision internally reviewed, however this process is again complicated when the person to submit the review application doesn’t have a clear idea of the offence they’re supposed to have committed.

In respect of section 20, “the statutory context and purpose favours an interpretation whereby the penalty notice offence must be clearly and unambiguously specified in the notice itself”, Justice Yehia made certain.

The broader implications

Justice Yehia first handed down her decision, finding both penalty notices to be invalid, during the November 2022 hearing. Although her full findings weren’t published until 6 April this year.

As a result of her initial decision, over 33,000 COVID fines issued in NSW, or more than half, were revoked last December.

And following the release of her Honour’s findings two weeks ago, Redfern Legal Centre considers the ruling could invalidate the remaining 29,000-odd fines issued during the pandemic.

“The government must now do the right thing and withdraw all COVID-19 fines that were issued, including withdrawing those offences for which individuals elected to take to court, any Work and Development Orders and reimburse fines already paid,” RLC senior solicitor Lee said in a statement.

Source:nswcourts.com.au

What’s really killing your phone battery life

MANY phone manufacturers may boast that their newest wares will last on a single charge for the whole day.

Wow! What an accolade, a technological breakthrough!

So what sort of battery is needed for this ‘smart’ phone to last a day? 4000mAh, 5000mAh?

Battery drain on an AOSP phone with a 3000mAh battery.

Sure the processing power as well as the screen size has increased dramatically over the years where they are most taxing on your battery, or are they?

So called tech reviewers on various ‘social media’ platforms will spruik the manufacturer’s newest wares in order to boost their income, so their reviews will not be without bias.

One deliberately overlooked aspect by the tech ‘gurus’ is the software, as realistically this is what makes or ‘breaks’ any computer.

Governments and corporations have ramped up their attack on people’s privacy (and technically therefore security), where this is the case across all ‘mainstream’ platforms.

In the smartphone operating system world, surveillance of the ‘user’ (or product) has increased under a health pretext, where the user has unlawfully, no opt-out choice, which is something that is deliberately not reported by any mainstream news sources.

You MUST be surveilled, and that’s it, period. It’s for your own good, allegedly.

We do not recommend any person to make their decisions on technology from mainstream media outlets.

Phone manufacturers, including Apple, load their hardware with ‘spyware’ baked into the operating system, in seemingly innocuous settings that go under the labels of Wi-Fi Scanning and Bluetooth Scanning.

Another computer that gives away your location is the baseband modem, which is active 24/7 when a SIM card is inserted, but this topic is not part of the scope of this article.

In these OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) devices, this setting contributes significantly to battery loss, as this process runs in the background, pinging cell towers and devices 24/7 and ‘phoning home’ to corporations and governments your precise location many times a minute.

Your so called privacy is thrown under a bus the moment you use a computer or phone, where one can only mitigate some of the data the authorities obtain.

With reference to Android powered phones, some manufacturer's phones can run the basic open source, non spyware loaded version of Android called AOSP (Android Open Source Project).

With this bare bones operating system one can turn off the two settings mentioned previously, at the  end user and developer levels, where they are truly off.

There are limitations to using this version of the operating system, where one can search forums on this topic.

The AOSP is available from developers of LineageOS, e foundation or GrapheneOS.

Others have got into the privacy bandwagon, with ‘generic’ hardware and a fork of LineageOS, under the label BraxOS on a BraX2 smartphone.

We do not recommend the use of Apple products if privacy is of concern to you.