Coronavirus Australian update

The actions of caring for a country's people versus caring for the economy are in two distinctly different directions.

When it comes to the coronavirus, 'Scotty from marketing' has shown the Australian people which direction is important to him:

Australian police lied on the use of AI facial recognition software

There are plenty of facts Australians should know when it comes to the place in which they live in, but for the purpose of this post let's start of with these two:

- Australia is a colony (different set of rules from a country on the global stage) 

- It is also a police state.

With the police state agenda in full swing comes an action from those in government against the serfs where NO ACCOUNTABILITY is the name of the game.

At the federal level, the social security (alleged) debt fraud committed against welfare recipients was dubbed 'robo-debt' insinuating that it was machine carried out, where there is no 'legal person' responsible for this action. 

'Persons' have died as a result of false debts claimed against them, but what's worse is there is no 'remedy' (compensation) in sight for their family members.

At a state level, for example in Victoria, property seizures are done unlawfully, under the actions of the so called sheriff, where no warrants exist in order to be able to take property lawfully.

This action is supported by all those in power, when it comes to a serf losing his/her possessions.

These people systematically destroy other's lives with zero repercussion or even accountability IF ever brought before the courts.

See the following article from 4 Mar 2020 by the conversation of the headline:

Australian police are using the Clearview AI facial recognition system with no accountability

Australian police agencies are reportedly using a private, unaccountable facial recognition service that combines machine learning and wide-ranging data-gathering practices to identify members of the public from online photographs.

The service, Clearview AI, is like a reverse image search for faces. You upload an image of someone’s face and Clearview searches its database to find other images that contain the same face. It also tells you where the image was found, which might help you determine the name and other information about the person in the picture.

Clearview AI built this system by collecting several billion publicly available images from the web, including from social media sites such as Facebook and YouTube. Then they used machine learning to make a biometric template for each face and match those templates to the online sources of the images.

It was revealed in January that hundreds of US law enforcement agencies are using Clearview AI, starting a storm of discussion about the system’s privacy implications and the legality of the web-scraping used to build the database.

Australian police agencies initially denied they were using the service. The denial held until a list of Clearview AI’s customers was stolen and disseminated, revealing users from the Australian Federal Police as well as the state police in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia.

Lack of accountability

This development is particularly concerning as the Department of Home Affairs, which oversees the federal police, is seeking to increase the use of facial recognition and other biometric identity systems. (An attempt to introduce new legislation was knocked back last year for not being adequately transparent or privacy-protecting.)

Gaining trust in the proper use of biometric surveillance technology ought to be important for Home Affairs. And being deceptive about the use of these tools is a bad look.

---

Read more: Why the government's proposed facial recognition database is causing such alarm

---

But the lack of accountability may go beyond poor decisions at the top. It may be that management at law enforcement agencies did not know their employees were using Clearview AI. The company offers free trials to “active law enforcement personnel”, but it’s unclear how they verify this beyond requiring a government email address.

Why aren’t law enforcement agencies enforcing rules about which surveillance tools officers can use? Why aren’t their internal accountability mechanisms working?

There are also very real concerns around security when using Clearview AI. It monitors and logs every search, and we know it has already had one data breach. If police are going to use powerful surveillance technologies, there must be systems in place for ensuring those technological tools do what they say they do, and in a secure and accountable way.

Is it even accurate?

Relatively little is known about how the Clearview AI system actually works. To be accountable, a technology used by law enforcement should be tested by a standards body to ensure it is fit for purpose.

Clearview AI, on the other hand, has had its own testing done – and as a result its developers claim it is 100% accurate.

That report does not represent the type of testing that an entity seeking to produce an accountable system would undertake. In the US at least, there are agencies like the National Institute for Standards and Technology that do precisely that kind of accuracy testing. There are also many qualified researchers in universities and labs that could properly evaluate the system.

Instead, Clearview AI gave the task to a trio composed of a retired judge turned private attorney, an urban policy analyst who wrote some open source software in the 1990s, and a former computer science professor who is now a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. There is no discussion of why those individuals were chosen.

The method used to test the system also leaves a lot to be desired. Clearview AI based their testing on a test by the American Civil Liberties Union of Amazon’s Rekognition image analysis tool.

However, the ACLU test was a media stunt. The ACLU ran headshots of 28 members of congress against a mugshot database. None of the politicians were in the database, meaning any match returned would be an error. However, the test only required the system to be 80% certain of its results, making it quite likely to return a match.

---

Read more: Close up: the government's facial recognition plan could reveal more than just your identity

---

The Clearview AI test also used headshots of politicians taken from the web (front-on, nicely framed, well-lit images), but ran them across their database of several billion images, which did include those politicians.

The hits returned by the system were then confirmed visually by the three report authors as 100% accurate. But what does 100% mean here?

The report stipulates that the first two hits provided by the system were accurate. But we don’t know how many other hits there were, or at what point they stopped being accurate. Politicians have lots of smiling headshots online, so finding two images should not be complex.

What’s more, law enforcement agencies are unlikely to be working with nice clean headshots. Poor-quality images taken from strange angles – the kind you get from surveillance or CCTV cameras – would be more like what law enforcement agencies are actually using.

Despite these and other criticisms, Clearview AI CEO Hoan Ton-That stands by the testing, telling Buzzfeed News he believes it is diligent and thorough.

More understanding and accountability are needed

The Clearview AI case shows there is not enough understanding or accountability around how this and other software tools work in law enforcement. Nor do we know enough about the company selling it and their security measures, nor about who in law enforcement is using it or under what conditions.

Beyond the ethical arguments around facial recognition, Clearview AI reveals Australian law enforcement agencies have such limited technical and organisational accountability that we should be questioning their competency even to evaluate, let alone use, this kind of technology.

Coronavirus update: Aussies wipe toilet paper from shelves

During a global viral pandemic, the residents of the colony called Australia have decided that toilet paper is the most important item to obtain, so much so that there is enough retarded people to bring down the industry to its knees, or even ankles if you’re lucky enough.

In these people’s limited mental capacity it’s most important to have a clean sphincter prior to being on the coroner’s table.

If you had shares in the corporations that manufacture toilet paper you’d be saying “that’s the shit” with reference to an excellent business decision.

The authorities are literally laughing at the (dumb) Aussie's priorities, with regards to the pandemic.

Hang on a minute, maybe these dumbos are not so stupid, ‘cause they know they’ll be in deeper shit once this hits home...

Only time will tell, where you can sit on it...

1). Face blurred of dumb Aussie, so that his children will not suffer ridicule and insensitive remarks aimed at the deadbeat dad, or

2). Face blurred, so that the retarded gene pool can continue to breed, where some lucky mum to be will get the jackpot with this muppet.

Post Scriptum: Corona virus does NOT cause dirrahoea!

Government enacts law to capture real-time data

Centrelink, has caused many people harm, and even death in certain circumstances under an action dubbed robo-debt, where the name can allude to no ‘legal person’ taking responsibility for such action.

The reality is that the so called government was previously warned that this action is unlawful and should not be taken, but instead Centrelink still carried out this unlawful action against vulnerable people of dependence on government financial support.

In a ‘normally’ functioning country one would think that after a federal court stating that this action is unlawful, the business would then refund the stolen cash from people.

Since Australia is not a country but factually (still) a colony, no unlawfully taken cash will be refunded to the serfs, but rather they must take a class action lawsuit to recover their costs, where we know that since lawyers (etc) do not work for ‘free’ it’s another win for [a part of] the system.

As a result of the Centrelink fraud, the government installed a new law, which people may think is for the benefit of those harmed, but instead it's another ‘win’ for the authorities in obtaining more data and controlling the movements of the general population, not just those on benefits.

"That means a person’s income data from the Australian Taxation Office will be automatically uploaded to the government system so bureaucrats can double-check figures."

Ref: https://indaily.com.au/news/2020/02/27/new-centrelink-income-rules-now-law-after-illegal-robo-debt-scandal/

Just a reminder:

With every new law enacted, your rights, privileges, benefits and services are being eroded.

Will you ever wake up and do something about it?

Coalition in contempt of the High Court?

The shenanigans of a colony gone feral.


From the article on 12 Feb 2020 by theguardian.com of the headline:

Coalition seeks to sidestep high court ruling that Aboriginal non-citizens can't be deported

Attorney general Christian Porter says government may be able to legislate a new way to deport those who have committed crimes

 

Attorney general Christian Porter said the high court’s decision that Aboriginal Australians are not ‘aliens’ has ‘very significant, immediate ramifications for what might not be a very large group of people’. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian


The Morrison government is looking to sidestep the high court’s decision that Aboriginal non-citizens cannot be deported using the aliens power by using other powers instead, the attorney general has said.

Responding to the high court’s landmark decision on Tuesday, Christian Porter said he found “great strength of reasoning” in chief justice Susan Kiefel’s minority judgment and the government may be able to legislate to deport the “not very large” group of Aboriginal non-citizens who have committed crimes in another way.

In a four-to-three decision, the high court held that Aboriginal people with sufficient connection to traditional societies cannot be aliens and therefore are beyond the reach of existing deportation laws which depend on the aliens power in section 51 (xix) of the constitution.

Porter told 6PR Radio on Wednesday the decision has “very significant, immediate ramifications for what might not be a very large group of people”.

Porter noted this group – “people who are born overseas, who aren’t Australian citizens, but may be able to show indigeneity and who are in Australia on a visa and commit an offence” would now “have to be treated differently from all other persons in the same circumstances” because they cannot be deported under existing law.

“So, it has a clear impact for that group of people and that policy of deporting people who’ve committed serious offences while on a visa and who are non-citizens,” he said.

“And we’ll be looking into ways in which we might be able to effect that policy, without reliance on the power that we previously were relying on, but we’ll look at that.”

Porter tacitly endorsed Kiefel’s view, saying her “minority reasoning was what I would have expected” but conceded the majority view would have implications for the federal government’s “program of pretty vigorous deportation of people that we consider represent a threat to the Australian community and Australian citizens”.

In his minority judgment, justice Stephen Gageler laid out a blueprint for how parliament could address the “complications and uncertainties” created for the maintenance of an “orderly immigration program” by reinstating its powers to deport Aboriginal non-citizens.

He said these could be addressed “by the commonwealth parliament reverting to the approach of relying on the power conferred by [section] 51(xxvii) to make laws with respect to ‘immigration and emigration’”.

“Alternatively, the commonwealth parliament might consider itself obliged to address them through racially targeted legislation enacted under s 51(xxvi) of the constitution [the race power].”

Gageler said on the “correct understanding” of the aliens power “neither is a course which the commonwealth parliament ought to be driven to take”.

Porter also acknowledged the judgment “may have broader implications”.

“It creates an entirely new category of people in terms of what the government can and can’t do,” he said, in reference to the new category of “belonger” – a non-citizen non-alien, recognised by the majority.

“Whether or not the principle has application in areas where the commonwealth relies on other heads of power, I think, is far less clear.”

Porter argued it was “not always an easy test” to determine if a person is Indigenous, citing the fact the court now requires a further hearing to determine if the second plaintiff, Daniel Love, is accepted as Aboriginal Australian by the the Kamilaroi tribe.

Although the decision has already provoked a furious response from conservative commentators who argue it introduces a new race-based distinction in the constitution, legal experts including Sydney University constitutional law professor, Anne Twomey, have warned it was too soon to know what the possible ramifications for the case might be beyond immigration law.

Wamba Wamba lawyer Eddie Synot, manager of the Indigenous Law Centre at the University of New South Wales, said the judgment concerned a “very narrow application of the aliens power” and explicitly stated it was not a recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty.

“More than anything for me, today just confirmed that the high court is never really going to be an environment where we’re ever going to be able to settle those original questions about sovereignty and the founding of the nations,” Synot said. “It’s going to have to be a political decision outside of the court.”

Synot said the decision had caused some angst among Aboriginal people concerned that a court was yet again appearing to decide on Aboriginal identity and belonging to country. Those concerns have been heightened in recent weeks by a request, swiftly denied, for police to investigate the Aboriginality of author Bruce Pascoe.

Dunce of Sussex

Briefly,

You were born into an ‘institution’, and were you not taught its law?

When you grew up and got married you concocted a plan to flee this institution with a one foot in and one foot out approach, but that was never going to work for you even though you did not comprehend the law you’re bound to.

You then tried to commercialised on your ‘royal’ status by branding ‘Sussex Royal’ (lol).

The sovereign had to step in and remind you of the law that you're bound to in the first place.

The removal of the brand name you tried to capitalise on makes you a laughing stock, but what’s more laughable is that people pay to hear you waffle on.

Even in the colony called Australia one cannot profit from the ‘crown’, which is what your intention was.

Your privileged and parasitic lifestyle demands that [for example] Canadian taxpayers must pay for your security as you are allegedly an IPP (Internationally Protected Person), whatever that really means.

In your case maybe it should stand for Internationally Prancing Punce?

Irrespective of whatever commercial success you may or may not have in the future, you’re still a dunce, a common trait of inbreeding (even though they tried to thin it out with the introduction of your mother) within the institution you came from.

So how did that work out for your wanna be ‘princess’?

Phone manufacturers false advertising on 'new' tech?

Is the smartphone industry realistically a lacklustre game of which company can add the smallest ‘feature’ which may have been disabled from a few years back, turned on in a new package in order to extrude a few hundred bucks from the unsuspecting consumer?

Or is it a bit more deceptive where in some regions consumer law should be woken up to pull these corporations in for false advertising?

Even though Samsung currently is one of the world’s largest smartphone manufacturers is it really the ‘best’ or even a company the consumer can trust?

Let’s take a quick simple analogy with regards to Australia’s automotive industry, and the Aussie iconic brand of Holden, which is now in the stage of being buried 6ft under.

Just because it was the most popular vehicle on Australian roads does not make it the best vehicle on the road.

With smartphones manufacturers are not so much innovating with technology into their devices but rather with terminology to lure consumers to purchase their high end products are more expensive yielding greater profits for the corporations.

With the release of Samsung’s new Galaxy S20 Ultra comes the focus on its 100x (zoom) photography, which is ‘advertised’ in a nice large font.

When camera or rather lens zoom capability is mentioned, the number that is referred to is the optical capability of the lens, period.

Samsung have made up a term called ‘space zoom’ where at this level of ‘100x’ the subject is realistically unusable in real life tests.

In today’s world apparently the next best newest portable communications device to have is determined by its photographic quality rather than its communication capabilities.

Samsung is not that honest when it comes to its new foldable phone the Galaxy Z Flip either, where it’s not a glass foldable phone but rather a plastic screen with some glass like substance in between.

With the emergence of many new smartphone players over the last few years,  which Australian consumers may have not heard of or even see over the shores of this colony, it’s very competitive out there especially in the large Chinese and Indian mid range consumer market, where desperate times call for desperate measures, like ‘false’ (?) advertising for some companies.

Just because this month’s new phone model has a wacky named tinge of bluish green aqua mauve matt finish compared to the glossy back of the previous model, does the really necessitate you to spend the overinflated price asked for it?

Too many models with no (real) innovation to offer.

As an example Huawei, despite the US ‘ban’ in 2019 announced 32 new smartphones (excluding tablets & watches) to the world, where that's an average of over two and a half phones per month.

Imagine if China was a ‘capitalistic’ régime, lol.

See also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P52pqNMpXSU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP5d1n-XLbc