Windows 10 Pay As You Go con job?

You may have heard the sayings;

- If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
- Nothing is for free.

It seems that Microsoft has mislead its customers that the upgrade to Windows 10 is for free.

In reality Microsoft should be sued, for that action alone.

So, when was the best time to ditch Microsoft Windows?

At least 10 years ago.

There is no reason for any person to use the Windows operating system today, as there are plenty of other mature operating systems available which also include the 'Office' suite of programs.

Read the article from 4 Aug 2018 by forbes.com of the headline:

Windows 10 Leak Exposes Microsoft's New Monthly Charge

Ever since its creation, Microsoft MSFT +0.11% has described Windows 10 “as a service”. The fear has always been that this meant Microsoft would start charging users a monthly fee to maintain the operating system, and now a new leak has confirmed this is exactly what will happen… 

In a new report, CNet’s well connected Microsoft specialist Mary Jo Foley reports the company will soon launch ‘Microsoft Managed Desktop’ which will charge a monthly fee to configure computers running Windows 10 and keep them running smoothly as new updates are released. 

Foley also notes “Microsoft already has a number of the pieces in place to make this happen” such as a Windows Autopilot automatic device provisioning service, device financing programs like Surface Plus and a ‘Surface as a Service’ leasing program. Microsoft also has a subscription bundle including Windows 10 and Office 365 called Microsoft 365 and Windows 10 Enterprise subscription plans. 

Furthermore, Foley states “One of my contacts said that Bill Karagounis - former Director of the Windows Insider Program & OS Fundamentals team, who last year joined the Enterprise Mobility and Management part of Windows and Devices - is in charge of the coming Microsoft Managed Desktop.”

With Microsoft also publicly hiring for this new division, managed subscriptions for Windows 10 appear to have the green light.

So what’s the good news? At this time, Foley believes Microsoft Managed Desktop will be targeted at businesses. But the obvious question, given the clear direction Microsoft is moving becomes: for how long?

Foley did ask Microsoft to go on the record about Microsoft Managed Desktop, but the company declined to comment.

All of which means those users who chose to stay on Windows 7 and Windows 8 are probably feeling pretty smug right now. As for everyone who upgraded for ‘free’ to Windows 10, the nagging question must be: will it prove too good to be true?

Unlawfully fined for holding an unopened alcoholic beverage

So let's get one basic fundamental out of the way as to what a law is, at state level.

A law is a booklet or collection of papers (or a pdf for the Millennials) that is called an Act.

This 'Act' MUST come out of the state's parliament, with all the checks and balances in place, obviously.

If your person has been 'fined' it must be defined within an Act passed by the parliament of the state you allegedly commented the offence in.

The corporation aggregate called Australian Government is now 'advertising' that there are 3 (three) tiers of government, that being federal, state and now 'local government', where in fact there are only two lawful bodies that can make laws in Australia, that being the federal and state / territory parliaments, where these Acts must be subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).

To get this message the government 'advertises'  across to the uneducated population, where Victoria Police is part of the fraud, unlawfully issuing fines according to the "Benalla Community Local Law 2017"

 See document:


(Source: http://www.benalla.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/all-pdfs/document-community-local-law-2017.pdf)

What lawfully enacted Act have you been fined under?

Can you really trust a Victorian police officer issuing your person this sort of 'fine'?

It looks like it's the police state in full swing, down in Victoria, Australia.

See text from 1 Aug 2018 by the Benalla Ensign of the headline:

Little-known law confounds

By Simon Ruppert
Have you ever walked home after 11.30pm with some unopened tinnies in your bag?

Bought a bottle of red, popped it in the boot and driven home later, again after 11.30pm?

If you have, and you were in Benalla, then you’ve been breaking the law and could end up with a $200 fine.

This is a lesson two local 18-year-olds learnt the hard way after falling foul of the little known Benalla Rural City (BRRC) Bylaw last week.

On Tuesday, July 17, Jeb Morrison and Lane Williams had been at a friend’s house when, at about 11.45pm, they decided to take a walk home.

Jeb said he would normally phone home for a lift, but did not want to disturb his parents who had work the next day.

‘‘Mum does night-shift and her husband works long hours, generally they pick me up, but it wasn’t that far so we decided to walk,’’ Jeb said.

‘‘We got to the front of VicRoads, about five minutes from home, and I saw a police car come around the corner and the lights started flashing, so we stopped and they pulled us up.’’

What would unfold has shocked Jeb, Lane and their families.

The policewoman noticed that Jeb was holding a sealed can of scotch and cola in his hand and told him it was illegal for him to have it. The can was subsequently confiscated.

Lane would then explain to the officer that he had sealed cans of alcohol in his backpack, he was also told that he was breaking the law, they were also taken from him.

Both men would then be issued separate $200 fines.

Benalla Community Local Law 2017 10.3 states: ‘‘A person must not, without a permit, in any public reserve or in the Benalla Restricted Area have in his/her possession or control any liquor between 11.30pm and 9am in a container with an unbroken seal’’.

A sub-clause then states that this applies to any stationary vehicle in a public reserve or in the Benalla Restricted Area.

The Benalla Restricted area covers most of the town.

You can see the exact boundaries of the Benalla Restricted Area on the BRRC Community Law 2017 document, which is available at www.benalla.vic.gov.au

Jeb, who works full-time and has never had any previous run-ins with police said he could not believe what happened.

Nina, Jeb’s mum agreed, and said she was shocked the law even existed.

‘‘The kids have been raised to respect the police,’’ she said.

‘‘And the police do an amazing job, they do have to deal with drugs, violence and a lot of horrible things.

‘‘But these kids were not being aggressive, there was no backchat, they’re good kids.

‘‘When Jeb told me what had happened I phoned council, but was told we couldn’t appeal the fine as it was handed out by the police.

‘‘When I spoke to Benalla police one officer told me if Jeb fills out the form to say he will go to court the officer who issued the fine might revoke it.

‘‘But if she doesn’t and we have to go to court then Jeb is going to lose a day’s pay.’’

Leading Senior Constable Ross Plattfuss told The Ensign the laws were implemented a few years ago and have had a positive effect.

‘‘It has decreased the amount of public disorders in relation to alcohol on the street,’’ Leading Sargent Plattfuss said.

‘‘That used to be a big problem, but the laws were changed a couple of years ago, it’s not very common nowadays for us to stop people on the street after 11.30 with alcohol, but when we do the laws are enforceable.

‘‘The concept of the law is that all the bottle shops shut and there is about a two-hour grace period between when you buy alcohol and when you get it home.’’

Leading Senior Constable Ross Plattfuss said the best advice was if you had unopened alcohol at a friends after 11.30pm, leave it and pick it up after 9am in the morning.

What (whore-mongering?) politicians cost Australian taxpayers

(illustration, The Catholic Mr. Barnaby Joyce, looking lustfully at Vikki Campion, who he later copulates with in order to broaden his gene pool, while himself being married to his wife of 4 daughters Natalie Joyce)

According to Section 48 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), of course.

For the those in power:

• Prime Minister: 160.0%
• Deputy Prime Minister: 105.0%
• Treasurer: 87.5%
• Leader of the Government in the Senate: 87.5%
• Leader of the House: 75.0%
• Other Minister in Cabinet who is also Manager of Government Business in the Senate: 75.0%
• Other Ministers in Cabinet: 72.5%
• Other Minister who is also Manager of Government Business in the Senate: 67.5%
• Other Ministers: 57.5%
• Parliamentary Secretary who is also Manager of Government Business in the Senate: 35.0%
• Parliamentary Secretaries: 25.0%

Let's not forget those opposing those in power:

• Leader of the Opposition: 85.0%
• President of the Senate: 75.0%
• Speaker of the House of Representatives: 75.0%
• Deputy Leader of the Opposition: 57.5%
• Leader of the Opposition in the Senate: 57.5%
• Leader of a recognised party of more than 10 members of parliament, other than a party whose Leader is the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition: 45.0%
• Shadow Minister: 25.0%

See document titled:
Parliamentary remuneration and entitlements:2016 update



Don't forget the sweeping changes the CEO of the country in administration, Mr. Turnbull  introduced.

See document titled:
2017 Parliamentary remuneration and business resources: a quick guide

What the Channel Nine takeover of Fairfax means to Australians

It seems that in Australia, duopolies are so last millennium where monopolies under seemingly independent businesses or shelf companies will be the norm.

People should see that the corporations are trying to kill off the likes of the ABC (Australian Broadcasting News) irrespective of which side they are aligned to.

ALL part of the 'nanny state' agenda.

Who needs the apparent China/Russia 'bad guys' propaganda single news media sites? 

Noam Chomsky 'documented' this in his 1989 presentation called;

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, as seen in video:

Corrupt cops above computer hacking laws?

There are plenty of indicators both in law and action on the streets that Australia is a police state as started on the 26th of January 1788, but distractions of the footy and beer keep the herd population docile.

One place that has officially lost its democracy is Queensland, that being in 1922, but that's another story altogether.

Among other crimes committed, it seems that the business called QPS (Queensland Police Service, ABN:29 409 225 509) nurtures stalkers and hackers, who do not get prosecuted according to the same laws that are handed out to the slave population.

Australia's judicature is one cesspool of criminal activity, where now apparently judges and magistrates are making it public knowledge that they are stressed.

Maybe because they've heard too many cases ex-parte which is unlawful, and they know they are liable for their actions, where some people are slowly waking up to this.

But that's another story altogether.
 
Let's read the article by theguardian.com of the headline:

Queensland police computer hacking: no action taken in nearly 90% of cases

Of officers charged, one accessed ex-girlfriends’ data and one gave woman’s details to abusive partner

Queensland police took no action against 52 of 59 officers investigated for hacking in 13 months. Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP

Queensland police took no disciplinary action against 52 of the 59 officers investigated internally for computer hacking during a 13-month period, amid concern police do not have adequate measures in place to prevent the wrongful access of private personal data.

Four police officers were charged with computer hacking offences last year under what was considered a crackdown on improper access of the Queensland Police Records and Information Management Exchange (QPrime) database, which stores personal information.

In one case, an officer was charged for looking up personal details of his former girlfriends and the former Australian netball captain, Laura Geitz, “out of curiosity”.

But concerns have been raised that comparatively more serious cases have not led to similar charges or proper disciplinary action.

Renee Eaves, a social justice advocate, found out through a right to information request in 2016 that her personal information had been accessed 1,400 times since 2008. She does not have a criminal record.

A police officer sent the address of a Gold Coast woman to her abusive former partner and advised the man to “just tell her you know where she lives and leave it at that”.

The Brisbane Times reported this week that the woman at the centre of that case recorded a conversation with police commissioner Ian Stewart, in which Stewart said there “was insufficient evidence to place it before a criminal court. We then took that down our discipline process”.

Michael Cope, the president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, said police accessing personal information was a systemic problem.

“The public has lost confidence in this process. We’re going back to the bad old days, pre-Fitzgerald.”

Information released under Queensland right to information laws shows police conducted 59 investigations into improper access of the QPrime database between August 2016 and September 2017.

In 52 cases, no further action was taken. These included some allegations deemed vexatious, and allegations where police were unable to obtain sufficient evidence. Specific details of the allegations were redacted.

Two officers were dealt with by “chastisement”. Two had their salaries reduced. In three cases, allegations were found to be true, but the files gave no details of what action was taken.

Cope said police security measures were clearly not good enough. He said most modern organisations that retained sensitive data had sophisticated tracking systems that would be able to closely monitor who was accessing data, and for what purpose.

“The security system in being able to track people who get in this system is not as good as in other institutions,” Cope said.

“If complaints are being dismissed for lack of evidence ... it means their control over data access is just not up to modern standards.

“It may well be the tip of the iceberg. There may be people whose information has been used and abused and have no idea about it. That would suggest there’s something wrong with their internal data controls.”

The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission has an oversight role of internal police investigations. Cope said the CCC needed to become more directly involved.

“This needs to be taken more seriously and it’s time for the CCC to get involved and conduct a review of these investigations and perhaps exercise their power to take on some of these and do them themselves.”

Queensland police and the Queensland police union were both asked by Guardian Australia to comment.

The police union president, Ian Leavers, has previously said police were afraid to properly investigate cases due to fear of being accused of improper use of the QPrime database. The union last year published guidelines for officers and suggested they document their access.

What the government doesn't want you to know about your online data

The commotion with regards to the recent actions of the corporation conglomerate called the Australian Government putting patient's health records online is the illusion that they have an 'opt-out' choice, where in reality the information will still be shared between various agencies, just without the patient's knowledge.

What people did not know prior to the focus on the health records is that their data was already available six years prior with the ability to be shared.

As sure as death and taxes, politicians will lie, where the Australian people have been lied to and will keep on being lied to by those in authority.

Despite the false assurances by those in government, your 'online' data is not safe and never will be, where security (or rather lack of it) will be breached in order to access your records which will later be used against you in various ways, which could potentially kill you if you are easily vulnerable with regards to your medication.

As seen in the above screen capture, Australia is a cyber espionage hot spot.

The Australian Government's I.T infrastructure in order to keep data allegedly safe is in an appalling state, subject to many vulnerable points of entry, but that's something that is no doubt vehemently denied.

As an example in the screen capture below, Singapore is much more technologically advanced where not too long ago, what was put into the public domain was that 1.5 million medical records were hacked.

Whatever the real figure of hacked Australian records that have occurred and will occur, you can be sure that the people in government will not tell the general population the real numbers.

MyHealthRecord is a scam that has cost the Australian tax payers millions.

Australia's corporatised schooling system

Australia is one of the best corporate slave prison camps on the planet, established on the 26th day of January 1788.

The corporation aggregate will even let you leave the country if you haven't paid your fines, for now.

They've even have to audacity to 'advertise' corporate sponsorship in the schooling system.

What happens if you want to use Apple operating system products, which we do not recommend if you truly value your privacy.

What's worse is if you are aware of the privacy breaches the Australian Government is supporting in the public (and private sector) schooling system via the use of Apple and Samsung products, where you would want your son or daughter to use more privacy centered hardware and software you are literally ostracised and on your own. 

MANY articles in the mainstream media point to the deliberate failure of government with regards to the education of the children of the general population, where the standard is deliberately low, on a global scale.

After all it's not to the benefit for the people in government to have highly educated (or even skilled), children of the cannon fodder, but rather a dumbed down, financially struggling, (corporate) subservient  herd population where footy and beer is their staple diet to be only educated in consumerism.

Health Minister backs down on My Health Record

As seen in smh.com.au from 31 July 2018.

Health Minister Greg Hunt will re-draft the My Health record legislation.
Photo: Dominic Lorrimer
Australians may be given an extra month to opt out of the MyHealth Record after Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt agreed to tear up the legislation behind the controversial system to protect patients from having their medical records accessed by police.

Following crisis talks with the head of the Australian Medical Association in Melbourne on Tuesday night, Mr Hunt confirmed the My Health Record Act will be redrafted to ensure "no record can be released to police or government agencies, for any purpose, without a court order."

Mr Hunt was due to meet with state and territory health ministers in Alice Springs on Wednesday night and said in advance of that meeting he would consider extending the opt-out deadline beyond October 15.


"So, the medical groups have asked if we could extend for an additional month. I am disposed to that," Mr Hunt told ABC's AM program.

Senior doctors had held talks with Mr Hunt over growing and wide-spread concerns over privacy and security of the online records, which are designed to follow patients through their lives and streamline treatment.

Doctors and privacy experts were particularly concerned about provisions in the legislation to allow police access to the records without a warrant.

"The Digital Health Agency’s policy is clear and categorical - no documents have been released in more than six years and no documents will be released without a court order. This will be enshrined in legislation."

Mr Hunt said the reform would "remove any ambiguity on this matter".

He added that the legislation would also be amended to ensure that if any Australian wished to cancel their record, they could do so permanently, with their record deleted from the system.

"The government will also work with medical leaders on additional communications to the public about the benefits and purpose of the My Health Record, so they can make an informed choice," Mr Hunt said.

AMA President Tony Bartone told Fairfax Media that he had enjoyed a "frank and constructive discussion" with Mr Hunt and welcomed the Minister's decision, which he said would allow patients to make "an informed choice".

"In addition, we’ve also impressed upon the Minister that there’s a need to have some clear air, to ensure that the community has time to fully understand what is a My Health Record and what is entailed in the opt out process," Dr Bartone said.

My Health Record is scrambling to put through new restrictions on mobile phone apps that use its data.

Dr Bartone sought to meet Mr Hunt after doctors, patients and privacy advocates raised a raft of concerns about the My Health Record Act.

He last week vowed to do "whatever it takes" to safeguard patients' interests.

It is understood that support for a redrafting of the legislation emerged within the Liberal Party after last weekend's byelections, in which Labor bolstered its position in part by attacking the Turnbull government's record on health.

Labor health spokeswoman Katherine King yesterday said Mr Hunt had not gone far enough and that the roll-out should be suspended until women fleeing domestic violence can be sure their privacy is protected.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson also came out against the system, posting detailed instructions on how her supporters can opt out.

"I’m sorry, but with cyber hacking at an all time high, I can understand the general public's concerns with their personal details being kept online," Ms Hanson said in a statement on Tuesday.

Queensland Health Minister Dr Steven Miles has threatened to disrupt the three-month opt-out roll-out period, calling for this week's Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting on Thursday between states and territories to discuss whether to suspend it.

Privacy Commissioner Angelene Falk has also raised concerns with Mr Hunt and the Australian Digital Health Agency, which is administering the scheme, while former AMA President Kerryn Phelps highlighted concerns with the legislation and warned that GPs may boycott the system.

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners president Harry Nespolon, who has opted out, last week told Fairfax Media that he believed the government would have "no choice" but to redraft the legislation after backlash from patients and doctors.

Queensland Australia's most corrupt police state?

"Welcome to Queensland"
- but just don't get imprisoned by police, 'cause they'll beat you and get away with it.

"Queensland beautiful one day.."
- corrupt as f_ck the next!

You see the 'brotherhood' has taught its members a lesson,  via Rick Flori, in that if you expose criminal actions within the force, you will be sacked, and your path will be on the road to ruin.

While the general population may be outraged, this is normal behaviour in a police state.

See article by HeraldSun of the headline:

Whistleblower Rick Flori accuses Qld Police of lack of disclosure

August 1, 2018. Whistleblower Rick Flori has accused Queensland police of withholding documents in his bid for damages over alleged bullying. Mr Flori, who left the force before being acquitted of misconduct for leaking footage of Gold Coast police bashing a handcuffed man, spoke to reporters after appearing in Brisbane Supreme Court in his civil matter against the state and eight police officers. "I'm very disappointed in the behaviours of police particularly towards their own," My Flori says. (AAP VIDEO/Warren Barnsley)

The shocking hidden legal secret in new estates

With every new action or law put into force by the colonialists in government, the good people of Australia are having less and less rights (term used very loosely).

This thing we call 'normal' today may not have been so a generation ago where the new normality steered by people in authority is not necessarily for the benefit of the general population, or "peace, order, and good government".

An important aspect of society has attention drawn away from it with deliberate distractions, one that profoundly effects our daily lives, that being law. 

In particular people's rights where it can be easily argued that Australia's general population has none, but that's another story altogether.

Today newly developed land, which is supported by businesses called city councils, not in line with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), may come with a caveat or the 'trend' of not having a front fence or gate.

To the legal profession this should raise alarm bells but instead the topic has been moot.

MANY thousands of words can be written on this topic and specific reference to case law will be deliberately omitted , where only the relevant information will be provided, in order to make this post as short and as easy to comprehend as possible.

"the occupier of any dwelling-house gives implied licence to any member of the public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the door of the house." This implied licence extends to the driveway of a dwelling-house. However, the licence may be withdrawn by giving notice of its withdrawal. A person who enters or remains on property after the withdrawal of the licence is a trespasser.”

A sign at your front entrance clearly indicates that you do not give permission unless by invitation therefore entry is prohibited. Information from QLD has indicated that the police will enter through an open gate regardless of the sign, but cannot open one. Therefore, keep your gates closed. Police have also indicated that they cannot deliver a summons past a proper Trespass sign unless a felony has been committed under the Crimes Act and a warrant issued.

Without a clear boundary, or a gate which can be closed, your protections and right to no trespassing has been taken away from you.

The protection afforded within entrenched imperial laws is being taken away from Australians with use of the Roman law of guilty until proven otherwise, and subverted use of contract law in order to obtain your consent, by default.