Microsoft demands your mobile number for Windows 10 setup

Microsoft wants your phone number when you set up their Windows 10 (build 17063) Operating System.

(illustration:phonearena.com)

A part of the global surveillance policies in 'force'.

Your phone number is a piece of data that is tied in to your 'person's' name.

Your person's name is the most important piece of information in a legal matter for without that there can be no 'accused'.

Is this a step towards where every 'person' on the internet is 'guilty' until proven otherwise, with their alleged actions?

We do not recommend the purchase of products that contain Microsoft's Operating System

Net neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[4] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

This is what's really happening;

Invasion Day Hawaii 17 January

While the people of Australia are debating the 26th of January as Invasion Day rather than Australia Day,

where a lesser known fact is that this is when Martial Law was officially installed on the land,

and another lesser known fact is that on the 28th of April 1770, the land of Australia became a 'possession' of the UK in the name of then Monarch King George III,

spare a  thought for the good people of Hawaii.

'Big Business' from the United States f_cked over the good people and the Queen of Hawaii on the 17th of January 1893, and installed military rule on the people of the islands.

Those rascal colonialists.

Huawei and ZTE banned by the US government

'Consumer' grade communications electronics, e.g. routers, modems, phones are (deliberate by design) unsecured devices.

We have mentioned that Microsoft's BitLocker encryption has vulnerabilities;
https://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2018/01/microsoft-bitlocker-vulnerabilities.html

Now the lawmakers of the United States have put through law that forbids people in government using hardware manufactured by Huawei or ZTE as shown in article within screenshot;

Just one aspect of secure communications is the use of https:// in web addresses as opposed to the not so secure http://.

In order to be assured of some sort of security, login links for quite some time contain the address https://, however ZTE have deliberately omitted the https protocol in favour of the more vulnerable http to gain access as administrator to their hardware.

In the above illustration the web browser warns that the connection is not secure i.e http://

The company TP-Link also has this not secure mode of login to their routers.

We therefore do not recommend the purchase or use of Huawei, TP-Link or ZTE.

Optus sells Huawei modems to Australia's 'consumers'.

Optus and Virgin also sell ZTE pocket wifi devices.

Microsoft BitLocker vulnerabilities

For those who think that their (Microsoft) BitLocker encrypted storage device is safe from prying eyes from the corporation aggregate commonly referred to as government, think again.

As documented by the NSA (National Security Agency) of the USA;

Kindly brought to you by Edward Snowden.

Source: http://www.cjfe.org/snowden

How to deal with a sheriff's warrant

Many people's first contact with the "SHERIFF'S OFFICE VICTORIA" is in the form of a template letter stating that the "natural person" has outstanding warrants to a particular value.

As of this writing, the template letter has a scanned signature and a name of Brendan Facey, stating that he is the "Sheriff of Victoria".

In accordance with the law, specifically the Infringements Act 2006, S3 on "execution copy" states:

"execution copy", in relation to an infringement warrant, means the copy issued for the purposes of execution and includes an execution copy comprising a number of infringement warrants consolidated under section 86; 

as seen in the scanned document below:

Note: The burden of proof is on the accuser.

If you have obtained notification either verbal or in writing that the sheriff is stating that there are warrants in your person's name, demand that the sheriff produce;

1). Copies of the (alleged) warrants See: warrant form,
2). the "execution copy".

as required by law.

If the above documents are not produced and further action is carried out against your person, then the due process of law has not been followed, where your person has obtained financial damage, where you have a course of action against;

1). the (alleged) sheriff, Mr. Brendan Facey,
2). the "SHERIFF'S OFFICE VICTORIA"
3), the issuing person from the court,

or other persons associated with your matter.

See also the hidden video:
Sheriff's warrants do not exist - verified on video

Lose the name win the game Fact or Fiction?

Some people may have heard the catch phrase;

"Lose the name win the game", where currently a search engine result points to 7,690,000 references.

In order to hold one accountable for one's actions the most important element in a court room, is the 'persons' name.

Without that there can be no case.

Many people should also be aware of the saying "knowledge is power" where today a researcher can obtain this with far less legwork than one did a generation ago, prior to the vast resources of the internet.

With that comes the fact that people are becoming more aware that (for example) fines are not being issued honestly by the Australian authorities.

As a result the authorities are responding, where now you do not know the name of your accuser as shown in the example of a fine or "Infringement Notice"

where in this case the Issuing Officer is the number 127.

The fundamental laws in this country give you the right to know the name of your accuser.

A right that has currently been taken away.

How does that saying go again? - "Nothing to hide nothing to fear", right?

Are these the actions of honest authorities?

Top Cop Graham Ashton head of organisation committing criminal offences?

So it seems that the CEO of an organisation committing criminal offences is back in 'business'.

Can you make your allegations of criminal activities stick???


Just a reminder that the police hand out fines 'unlawfully';

See document;

Ex Victorian police officer comments on fines at:
https://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/ex-victorian-police-officer-comments-on.html

ATO is swindling Australians

So, among other points, just a reminder that;

1). The ATO (Australian Tax Office) is NOT a legal entity,

2). The ATO was NOT established according to the correct 'lawful' procedure,

3). The people were not informed according to law, within the Government Gazette.

Note:

"Junior officers are routinely destroying people's lives"


See parts of a document tendered into court;

Australian Defence Force personnel allowed to get away with crime?

It sure does look like the old saying "crime does not pay" does not hold true when you're a member of the Australian Defence Force.

When it comes to criminal activity, not only does it seem that the 'administration' is above the law, but also its foot soldiers.

When a member of the serf population does not pay unlawfully issued fines by corporations, one can spend over a year in gaol, but when one is a member of an arm of the administration one can commit criminal activity AND get away with it, meaning IF you get caught you may have to pay it back and if you can't pay it back you do not get incarcerated.

Just another policy showing the serfs that the administration is above the law in this penal colony.