31 July 2019

Police covering up their dishonest and criminal actions in Lawyer X case

Are these the actions of an honourable corporation?

Should taxpayers be expected to fund a corrupt police 'force'?

Is this something that abides by 'community standards'?

The matter regarding the snitch lawyer Nicola Gobbo is realistically the tip of the iceberg with regards to a corrupt Victoria Police, where as always the brotherhood sticks together with the help of their brethren in positions as lawyers, magistrates and judges.

It would have been bad 'PR' to sweep this one under the chequered tiles.

Not to worry there's PLENTY more corruption that is hidden, where who knows who will expose this in the future, even if the judicature will try to suppress...

For now this is news:


30 July 2019

If you must use Facebook


You may want to follow this advice from the following article of the headline:

If you feel your organization needs a "presence" in Facebook

-- Richard Stallman

2016-12-11

French Translation
Facebook is a surveillance engine, accumulating lots of personal data which is also available to the state. For your privacy and freedom's sake, it is important not to have an active Facebook account; refusing blocks Facebook's main channel for collecting information about you and, through you, about your friends and relatives. (Whatsapp, a subsidiary of Facebook, is also important to avoid.) Explaining to them why you firmly insist on routing your communications with them through some other system will strengthen your will power to resist systems that use you to harm you and others.
Nowadays Facebook has gained so much power that it puts freedom and democracy in danger. Its rules for what can be published amount to censorship of society as a whole, leading to political disputes. But those disputes are a distraction from the bigger point that no company should have so much power.
Facebook has the power to manipulate elections through subtle policy changes. Whether or not it has intentionally done so, this state of affairs is dangerous.
Many organizations maintain a Facebook page to attract public support. Having the page does not directly harm the organization. However, if it's not careful, the page will add to Facebook's power.
Organizations typically manage Facebook pages to aim for the maximum possible visibility. Facebook's cunning engineers have designed the system so that the way to get maximum visibility is to boost Facebook's power as much as possible.
The simple way to completely avoid this is to refuse to have a Facebook page. However, a compromise may be possible, one which attracts public support while not boosting Facebook's power much. This article proposes such a compromise.

General principles


  • Make the organization's own web site the go-to place for all information about the organization. Whatever people want to know, the web site should be the best place to look for it.
  • Say in the Facebook page that the organization's own web site is the best place to look for information about the organization. Explicitly ask people to make links always to the web site, never to the Facebook page.
  • Adopt this motto: "Facebook is a bad place for a person to be. When people find us on Facebook, we lead them away from Facebook and then talk with them elsewhere."

What to post on Facebook; what not to post


  • Select what you post on the Facebook page so that the organization's own web site is clearly the best place to find information about the organization.
  • Do post important new articles and announcements from the organization on Facebook, but only around half of them. Then say, in the Facebook page, "See our web site — we have a lot more there."
  • When you announce an event in Facebook, don't put the full story there. Do state the place, date, time, and a brief description, enough for people to attend if they wish — but give a link to the page in the organization's web site about the event, and reserve part of the interesting information about the event for there.
  • Post the same list of event summaries in the web site, so that people who want a summary don't think Facebook is the best place to look for it.
  • Don't update all the fields of transitory information in the Facebook page. Instead, when you change your the organization's web site significantly, update the Facebook "status" with a few words to say so.
  • On the organization's website, provide a way for people to ask for notifications of changes and new announcements, so that they don't depend on Facebook for this.
  • Don't post on Facebook any information about the participants in your events — especially not their names. Respect their privacy! The only exception is names of speakers or teachers, as part of the advance description of events.
  • In particular, don't post photos on Facebook that show any people. Remember that Facebook identifies people in photos from their faces, and even from the backs of their heads. Don't show anyone's head, viewed from any angle, to Facebook.

Avoid Facebook messages


  • State in the Facebook page that those who wish to talk with the organization should use other systems, not through Facebook messages. State which systems you prefer, and give the account names or numbers to use.
Other communication systems may have other flaws. At the FSF we use mainly email and phone calls; we use SIP for audio/video communication over the internet, but never Skype because Skype requires proprietary client software. However, the crucial point here is that any communication method other than Facebook and WhatsApp (owned by Facebook) will move people out of Facebook.
If someone sends you a Facebook message despite your request, respond by saying, "Please let's switch to system X, Y or Z to have this conversation. We do not want to give Facebook any more information about our organization or its participants, including you."

Avoid helping or boosting Facebook


  • Don't mention the Facebook page in your web site or other postings. The Facebook page is for those that look for it on Facebook.
  • Don't display a "Like" button on your web site. Facebook uses "Like" buttons in non-Facebook pages to track all visitors to those pages. The button tracks even visitors that don't have Facebook accounts.
  • It is advisable on general principles to use a browser such as IceCat that blocks tracking systems in web pages, including the Facebook Like buttons and most advertisements.
  • Another reason not to have a "Like" button in your own web site is that they encourage visitors to be more involved in Facebook.

How you can communicate safely with Facebook

Facebook uses many methods to get data about people. Some of them are rather tricky. If people in the organization have Facebook accounts and want to use those to manage the organization's page, the organization has no reason to object. But the organization must never urge a person to submit to Facebook's surveillance in order to manage the organization's page. That would be a gross wrong to the person in question.
Here is a guide for how people can manage the page using pseudonymous Facebook accounts. A few of them stretch Facebook's commands, but it is not wrong to do that — Facebook does not deserve obedience.

  • Make an account under an alias for maintaining the organization's page. Give made-up plausible data which is not humorous and doesn't relate to you. Then never use the account for anything except to handle the organization's page. Facebook will never have a reason to doubt the data on the account.
  • If several people manage the organization's page, give each one a separate alias account. Don't give any of the same data in two accounts.
  • Make a couple more such accounts as backup.
  • The only more-or-less safe way to connect to Facebook is through a browser. Never connect using Facebook's mobile app, because that requires giving Facebook access to other information on the mobile device, including personal contact information, text messages, calender events, and other confidential information. This can expose personal information — yours and others'. It can even expose sensitive information, harming you or others you know. This is no surprise, because the app is proprietary software (an injustice in itself; see here), and proprietary software commonly snoops on users (see proprietary surveillance).
  • It is safest to connect to Facebook only from a computer that belongs to the organization and is in the organization's office.
  • To make the site work without the need to run nonfree Javascript code, visit to m.facebook.com rather than facebook.com itself.
  • If you ever connect to Facebook from your own computer (rather than the organization's computer in its office), do it this way: install the Tor Browser Bundle (available for Windows and OS X as well as GNU/Linux) and use it to visit https://m.facebookcorewwwi.onion/ rather than Facebook directly. This stops Facebook from determining your location or your IP address.
    Note: the site facebookcorewwwi.onion.to is a fake. Don't be fooled.
  • Never "check in" at a location no matter how much Facebook nags you.
  • Make a separate local account on the computer for each Facebook account, connect to it from that local account, and don't ever use that local account for anything else.
  • If you don't make a special local user account to talk to Facebook from, delete cookies immediately after each connection with Facebook. Not just once a day! Facebook uses cookies to surveil other browsing done from the same account. Many browsers will allow you to specify a setting to treat all cookies as one-session cookies. That will delete them automatically, provided you shut down the browser after each connection with Facebook, which is advisable.
  • Do not give Facebook access to any real account on any other site. If Facebook demands info about your other accounts, make real accounts that you don't really use, and tell Facebook about those. It is OK to give Facebook the email addresses that the organization publishes for contact from the public, but not the passwords of those email accounts.
Facebook harms people in many ways, and there is no way to completely avoid the harm. We hope this compromise approach to Facebook will provide benefit to the organization, while saving it from becoming Facebook's tool. Meanwhile, there are many other social networks one can use. Many well-known centralized social networks are less intrusive than Facebook; what's more, GNU Social and Diaspora respect users' rights through a decentralized architecture, based on free software — why not try them?

Copyright (c) 2016 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved.

26 July 2019

Facebook's activities in Australia are illegal

Riding on the back of Facebook's five billion dollar fine in the United States, we have been 'reminded' that the global advertising and data hoovering giant is conducting its business activities illegally in Australia.

Now we've heard all the "you made that claim, you prove it" type responses that people make on social media, and this post in not about 'proving' anything to any person.

Now you don't have to be a 'constitutional expert' in order to get to the bottom of Facebook's illegal business activities in Australia, meaning there will be no need to refer to the law called the 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act'


or any reference book known as the 'Quick and Garran' within the legal business.



Now now, don't get all special in calling the Quick and Garran our 'constitution' or 'true law'.

So, what will set you apart from the herd, the Facebook 'lawyers' is that you'll know where to look.

Please note: Do not use the Facebook app from your smartphone.

Just recently The Australian Government has completed a report (Digital platforms inquiry) from an 18 month investigation into Facebook and Google's online dominance.

Pity (or maybe is it on purpose?) that they did NOT pick up that Zuckerberg's company is not kosher in Australia.

Betcha if you (the serf) did something illegal [online] the feds would be all over your ass.

25 July 2019

Hundreds of PSO arrests are unlawful


For years we have informed readers that warrants that apparently the so called Sheriff of Victoria allegedly possesses as a result of fines arising from the so called 'Infringements Court' in Victoria are unlawful, but that fact has not been heralded by the mainstream media.

THEREFORE, ANY action or seizure of property as a result of those alleged warrants is unlawful, since the days before Warwick Knight or Brendan Facey, but that is a far greater bug bear for those in government, than the topic of this article.

One important line in this article to note is this:

"Victoria Police officers are now "supporting" PSOs on the job"

The action described in the sentence above indicates the police state Victorians live in.

Shouldn't police support the victims of 'crime', that being those wronged by the system?

After all you did have harm done to your 'person' in the hands of the system, right?

See article from 25 Jul 2019 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-25/hundreds-of-pso-arrests-in-question-due-to-legal-loophole/11347620

NBN contractors destroying property

NBN's acronym should be National Butchering Network with relation to the entire dodgy business that the Australian tax slaves have payed dearly for, that is already outdated before it's finished.

In the usual business practice of denouncing liability, the rock apes that dig up the ground are 'contractors' where no onus falls on the NBN Co, should any issues occur, you know like the apartment 'scandal' that has hit residents.

Just say you are a house proud home 'owner' (well, no person is technically a property owner in this colony) about to get conned into an inferior product called the NBN, get ready for a surprise, where if any excavation is required for the install, the Neanderthals will not put it back the way they found it (in this case being the driveway), where they will patch it up with an eyesore of volcanic hot tar.


There goes the value of your home thanks to these assclowns.

Who you gonna sue ??? !!! ???

Be vigilant serfs, don't let them devalue your investment.

21 July 2019

Australia supporting businesses built from the proceeds of crime


It's in the government's DNA:

e.g. James Squire:


Reminder: Not just any person can commit criminal activity successfully.
For the time being, it may work out better for you if the 'brotherhood' supports you.

18 July 2019

FaceApp tells you it will cause you harm


MANY humans and (rock) apes share similar traits, especially when it comes to mobile phones (and their apps), where they simply just don't get it.

On the physical side of things some humans have progressed, where they did learn that pressing a screen harder with their index finger 35 times will not achieve the desired result.

At another level, taking things at face value (pun intended) there is a LOT to be desired from these creatures.

They are enchanted or amused at a 'simple' (by computing standards) picture altering program, without looking past (i.e. reading the terms and conditions) this superficial function or distraction.

Governments are pushing biometrics on mobile devices for 'security' purposes, but their use (and those mobile devices) is anything but that.

The producers of FaceApp, a mobile phone program that transforms your face to a younger or older version are using this data to cause you harm, either instantaneously or at some point in the future, where the best part about it is that they 'own' your face (i.e. that data).

We do not recommend the use of FaceApp.

See article from 18 Jul 2019 by Forbes of the headline:

Viral App FaceApp Now Owns Access To More Than 150 Million People's Faces And Names


Everyone's seen them: friends posting pictures of themselves now, and years in the future.
Viral app FaceApp has been giving people the power to change their facial expressions, looks, and now age for several years. But at the same time, people have been giving FaceApp the power to use their pictures — and names — for any purpose it wishes, for as long as it desires.

Composite image of a diverse group of people. Getty


And we thought we learned a lesson from Cambridge Analytica.

More than 100,000 million people have downloaded the app from Google Play. And FaceApp is now the top-ranked app on the iOS App Store in 121 countries, according to App Annie.

While according to FaceApp's terms of service people still own their own "user content" (read: face), the company owns a never-ending and irrevocable royalty-free license to do anything they want with it ... in front of whoever they wish:
You grant FaceApp a perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully-paid, transferable sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and display your User Content and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your User Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed, without compensation to you. When you post or otherwise share User Content on or through our Services, you understand that your User Content and any associated information (such as your [username], location or profile photo) will be visible to the public.
FaceApp terms of use

|That may not be dangerous and your likeness may stay on Amazon servers in America, as Forbes has determined, but they still own a license to do whatever they want with it. That doesn't mean the app's Russian parent company, Wireless Labs, will offer your face to the FSB, but it does have consequences, as PhoneArena's Peter Kostadinov says:
You might end up on a billboard somewhere in Moscow, but your face will most likely end up training some AI facial-recognition algorithm. Peter Kostadinov

Whether that matters to you or not is your decision.

But what we have learned in the past few years about viral Facebook apps is that the data they collect is not always used for the purposes that we might assume. And, that the data collected is not always stored securely, safely, privately.

Once something is uploaded to the cloud, you've lost control whether or not you've given away legal license to your content. That's one reason why privacy-sensitive Apple is doing most of its AI work on-device.

And it's a good reason to be wary when any app wants access and a license to your digital content and/or identity.

As former Rackspace manager Rob La Gesse mentioned today:
To make FaceApp actually work, you have to give it permissions to access your photos - ALL of them. But it also gains access to Siri and Search .... Oh, and it has access to refreshing in the background - so even when you are not using it, it is using you.

Rob La Gesse
The app doesn't have to be doing anything nefarious today to make you cautious about giving it that much access to your most personal computing device.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website or some of my other work here.

15 July 2019

Leaked data reveals how much a Chinese made phone costs


With pricing in a range between $669 and $749, one might think that OnePlus is only making a few bucks on each OnePlus 7 Pro that is rung up. The manufacturer's margins must be restaurant thin, right? Wrong. A leaked image posted on Weibo (via GizChina) allegedly reveals the cost of the materials used to build the 6GB/128GB version of the OnePlus 7 Pro. If the list is legit, the AMOLED panel purchased from Samsung is the most expensive part of the device, costing OnePlus slightly over $80 for each screen. The rear-facing triple camera setup (48MP primary + 8MP telephoto with 3x optical zoom + 16MP Ultra-wide) costs OnePlus $27.29 for each unit. The 6GB LPDDR4X RAM chip is priced at $26 while another $20 secures the 128GB storage component. The Snapdragon 855 Mobile Platform isn't cheap either. In fact, after the display, it is the most expensive part of the phone at $70 a pop.
|
The cost of the parts required to build the 6GB variant of the OnePlus 7 Pro add up to $324.21. Of course, that doesn't include the money spent on R&D, the labor needed to assemble the parts, packaging, shipping, marketing and all of the other expenses required to build and sell a phone these days. This particular model retails for $669 which still leaves enough room for OnePlus to turn a healthy profit on each unit sold.

How Xiaomi manages to keep its profit margins on phones at 5% or less

Comparing the cost of the OnePlus 7 Pro's parts to the parts used on the Apple iPhone XS Max shows some similarities. The 6.5-inch OLED display on the iPhone is priced at approximately $80. Apple pays $72 for the A12 Bionic SoC compared to the $70 OnePlus shells out for the latest Snapdragon chipset for its phone. But there are some discrepancies too. The cameras on the iPhone cost $44, nearly $17 more than what they cost for the OnePlus 7 Pro. Overall, parts and components for the 256GB iPhone XS Max total $443 compared to its retail price of $1,249. Apple obviously enjoys a wider profit margin than OnePlus.

Now compare Apple and OnePlus to what Xiaomi is trying to accomplish. Known for its "value for money" business policy, the company aims to keep its net profit margins at no higher than 5% on any given handset. Company founder Lei Jun said last year that if a particular phone produces greater than a 5% profit margin, Xiaomi will find other ways to compensate its customers. Back in 2015, former Googler and ex-Xiaomi CEO Hugo Barra explained how the company keeps its margins so low. First, it prices its devices at cost but gives it a long shelf life. This way, as component prices drop over the life of the device, Xiaomi can cut prices and still turn a profit. Barra said that over the 18 to 24-month life of a Xiaomi phone, the product might see its price cut three or four times.


 Parts for the 256GB Apple iPhone XS Max cost $443; the phone is sold for $1,249

Source: phonearena.com


NOTE: In Australia, at the time of this post the 265GB version of the iPhone XS Max, is sold for $2049 from the popular retailer JB Hi-Fi.



We do not recommend the purchase or use of Apple products.

14 July 2019

Harvey Norman bullying its contractors for free advertising



The world is made for corporations where the serfs are nothing more nothing less than corporate fodder.

The Australian Government (as opposed to the 'Commonwealth of Australia') figured a great way to make more money from its slaves, by corporatising 'everything'.

From the people's (i.e. Commonwealth) assets the likes of the Postmaster-General's Department, utilities, 'local government' to jobs that have been privatised within those government departments a new era of slavery dawned upon workers in Australia under the fashionable name of 'contractors'.

A great benefit to any (Australian) government department or business is something called liability, where they denounce any or all of it with regards to the 'contractors' carrying out the tasks seconded to them.

As we should know in this modern day and age, there are big bucks in advertising especially when the service is online.

In the 'old school' way bill boards, pamphlets and advertising material on moving vehicles is the norm.

Harvey Norman uses contractors for its delivery services, where fierce competition drives the costs (for H.N) down, especially when cheap imported (slave) labour is thrown into the mix.

Being the entrepreneurs (oops sorry, scumbags) they are Harvey Norman, wants their independent contractors to advertise the Harvey Norman brand on their trucks for free, that's right for nothing for no exchange of cash or numbers into a bank account.

Since these 'contractors' have set up business names in order to make a living, pay the bills and feed their families, they may advertise their business name on their own (or financed) trucks, but Mr. Gerry Harvey requires them to have his 'brand' advertised exclusively with no 'compensation' for this action, if not they just might not get any Harvey Norman jobs.

No law put in place to stop this kind of corporate bullying?

That's a shame.

But they'll put in a law that punishes drivers for 1km/h over the speed limit, as the excuse is that it may save lives, but in reality they know it does not.

Thankfully this is a 'lucky country', as it sure is NOT a clever one.

11 July 2019

Google removes petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide on EMF radiation

Google fiddles with internet search results, to support a government or corporate agenda, as opposed to the facutal data obtained from those search results.

Google also deletes documents in its possesion that may not be in line with a mainstream point of view, irrespective of evidence.

With the emergence of 5G technology corporations as agressively pushing it, e.g. Telstra, Samsung (obviously for a high Return On Investment), whereas scientists may be a bit more cautious.



In an article from 15 Jul 2018 by theguardian.com of the headline "The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones" there is a link to a "petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide" that points to a storage facility within Google, where the document has been removed, as seen in the screen capture below:

Could this be the document they removed?:

https://www.emfscientist.org/images/docs/International_EMF_Scientist-Appeal.pdf

Reference to document:
https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal