T-Mobile Hack Hits 37 Million and PayPal 'stuffing' hack

See more at:

A deep dive into Windows spying from a new laptop

As the version numbers of Windows increase, so does Microsoft's spying on you, and that's before you even technically start using your personal computer.

Mirosoft is subservient to the 5eyes global surveillance regime.

If you truly value your privacy (and security) then this would be refelected in your action in not using Microsoft products at all.

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

How does a 'factory' installed Windows 11 on your new laptop compare to that of Windows XP?

See detailed analysis in the following video:

All part of the nanny state agenda!

Google is being sued by the US government and eight states over online advertising

Google’s facing a lawsuit from the US Department of Justice and eight states over its alleged monopoly on the digital advertising market. The agency accuses the company of abusing “monopoly power” at the disadvantage of websites and advertisers who use other advertising tools, according to a lawsuit filed on Tuesday (PDF).

“Google’s anticompetitive behavior has raised barriers to entry to artificially high levels, forced key competitors to abandon the market for ad tech tools, dissuaded potential competitors from joining the market, and left Google’s few remaining competitors marginalized and unfairly disadvantaged,” the lawsuit reads.

It goes on to allege that Google’s various acquisitions allowed it to “neutralize or eliminate” competitors, and claims that it’s been “forcing” other companies to use its tools. According to the government’s lawyers, when you add up the alleged anti-competitive moves, “these interrelated and interdependent actions have had a cumulative and synergistic effect that has harmed competition and the competitive process.” Additionally, the DOJ says Google “pockets on average more than 30% of the advertising dollars that flow through its digital advertising technology products.”

Google responded to the lawsuit in a post on its blog and argues that the DOJ’s request for it to “unwind” two previous acquisitions from over a decade ago is an attempt to “rewrite history at the expense of publishers, advertisers and internet users.” It also says the DOJ “mischaracterizes” how its advertising products work, noting that Google doesn’t force customers to use its products and that people “choose to use them because they’re effective.” The company highlights other companies making moves in the advertising industry as well, including Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and TikTok.

“Today’s lawsuit from the DOJ attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector,” Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global ads, writes. “It largely duplicates an unfounded lawsuit by the Texas Attorney General, much of which was recently dismissed by a federal court. DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.”

Google knew this was coming. Last year, the company attempted to avoid a potential lawsuit from the DOJ by offering to separate its ad auctions business, which sells and puts ads on customers’ websites, from Google’s digital advertising arm. But instead of making it a separate company altogether, the move would’ve put the division under the umbrella of Google’s parent company, Alphabet.

That and the other concessions Google reportedly offered obviously weren’t enough to convince the DOJ that it’s not engaging in anti-competitive practices. The DOJ’s lawsuit asks the court to force Google to divest its advertising businesses. Eight states, including New York, California, Connecticut, and Virginia, also signed on to the suit.

“Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful conduct”

“Today’s complaint alleges that Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful conduct to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland says in a statement. “No matter the industry and no matter the company, the Justice Department will vigorously enforce our antitrust laws to protect consumers, safeguard competition, and ensure economic fairness and opportunity for all.”

The DOJ sued Google for similar reasons in 2020, accusing it of illegal monopolization of the search and ad markets. At the time, the agency asked the court to “break Google’s grip on search distribution so that competition and innovation can take hold.” Earlier this month, Google filed a motion to dismiss a complaint from the agency that alleges Google leverages its Android operating system and general grasp on the search market to further limit competition in the industry.

This lawsuit comes as part of a wider governmental crackdown on the grasp of Big Tech. In May of last year, a group of Senate Republicans and Democrats introduced the Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act. The bill could force companies like Google and Meta to divest their advertising businesses, as it would bar companies processing over $20 billion per year in digital ad transactions from partaking in multiple parts of the digital ad industry.

See original filing:

From source::

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23584913/google-doj-advertising-lawsuit.pdf

See also:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies

 

Tommy Hilfiger, the epitome of brand name fraud?

MANY corporations use their name to defraud customers of their hard earned cash for a product they're trying to spruik, period.

Their products just aren't worth the rubles one is paying for them.

This exposé is about Tommy 'Hell Finger's', that being a finger from Hell, in terms of shatfting you of your hard earned cash, entry into the gaming peripheral market.

Their product can be no more satisfying than a 2bit whore.

See full review within the video:

Brought to you by: slave labour in IT 'sweat shops' (supported by governments world wide!).

On this day 3 years ago Australia’s largest health & legal farces began

On this day three years ago, the 25th of January 2020, Australia recorded its alleged first case of the disease named after the preceding year.

How did the authorities factually establish that the man had the disease given the fact that no approved or certified testing method existed at the time?

The Australian population was then subjected to the biggest medical and legal farces in Australia’s history which included a censorship onslaught by the authorities and ‘social media’ (e.g Meta nee Facebook), I.T. corporations (Google), and mainstream media.

Part of that medical farce was the testing procedure and notification process to patients.

When a patient was coerced or forced to take a test for the alleged disease, patients did not receive a medical certificate or report, but rather a yes or no response via text message to their phone.

Is this the same method medical authorities employed when one had the ‘common’ flu or even cancer?

Why didn’t the authorities give their patients the medical report they deserved?

Remembering the age old saying “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear”, governments use on their subjects.

We obtained a report from such a test, which had the details of the patient’s details blanked out.

as posted within the link: https://corpau.blogspot.com/2020/07/covid-test-useless-faith-in-quick-test.html

The test clearly states that it “cannot be fully validated” and that it “is not currently NATA accredited.”

At the time of this post, 3 years later the same test is used on people and it’s still neither fully validated nor NATA accredited.

What followed in Australia was a legal and medical farce across this entire land.

Actions against people were implemented without any lawful framework in place, a fact deliberately hidden by the mainstream media’s ‘investigative’ journalists.

The state governments then damaged the Doctor-Patient relationship, but in the ‘motherland’ the story was different.

See: https://doctorsforpatientsuk.com/press-release

The medical profession also discriminated against persons, without any real (legal) consequences even to this day.

Australia’s courts are denying victims of medical practitioner’s neglect a remedy, where many cases  are stopped from being heard by not allowing them through, where even those that do get through, the judicature is instructed to rule in favour of the ‘accused’ or more specifically the medical practitioner.

With specific legal reference to Victoria there was no “state of emergency”.

No such lawfully enacted instrument existed to declare the said state.

See post: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/there-was-no-victorian-emergency/

With reference to the current medical procedure that people are being subjected to, currently that being maybe a 5th trial procedure, approximately one year after the alleged initial case, on the 21st Day of February 2021, in a lesser known interview Greg Hunt stated:

“The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global v____nation trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data.”

See link: https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/interview-with-david-speers-on-abc-insiders-on-the-covid-19-vaccine-rollout

The above mentioned article is an important official Australian Government document which the mainstream has deliberately not drawn attention to.

Who is part of that trial? 

The general population, a fact that was confirmed later by a Pfizer representative in a EU inquisition, another fact that Australia’s mainstream media did not mention.

What’s worse is that the authorities did not implement lawfully enacted legislation in order to issue Infringement Notices to alleged perpetrators of alleged health order and the like.

The fact that there was no lawfully enacted legislation was proliferated within social media, and co-incidentally so called fines were withdrawn by authorities.

The government and medical authorities have been spruiking the injected liquid (from various manufacturers) as a substance that gives immunity, which was found to be a false claim within a US Supreme Court case on the 4th Day of November 2021, a fact that was conveniently omitted by Australia’s mainstream media.

See reference: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/the-covid-19-injections-do-not-confer-immunity-and-therefore-do-not-meet-the-definition-of-a-vaccine/

As a result of an inaccurate testing procedure, as shown from the test result, the so called daily statistics that have been so heavily promoted by the mainstream media are factually false.

The government of Victoria under the dictation of Andrews, also falsely imprisoned people in their domestic dwellings.

See: https://freedomviatruth.org/report-into-covid-19-response-asserts-mistakes-were-made/

Therefore Victorian Premier Mr. Daniel Michael Andrews, is a human rights abuser and should face the domestic Human Rights Commission at the least.

His claims were that people's views about human rights had no basis in science, fact or law, but in reality they do.

Your 'remedy' should you choose to pursue it, is in 'human rights'.

ALL (new) law MUST be compatible with Human Rights, as specified by SARC (Scrutiny of Acts and Regulation Committee).

See: https://new.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/committees/scrutiny-of-acts-and-regulations-committee/

The mask fiasco was a farce, even with documentation allegedly co-authored by Victoria’s Chief Health Officer ‘Dr.’ Brett Sutton in a report from September 2001 of the title:

Do anaesthetists need to wear surgical masks in the operating theatre? A literature review with evidence-based recommendations

See reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11832106_Do_Anaesthetists_Need_to_Wear_Surgical_Masks_in_the_Operating_Theatre_A_Literature_Review_with_Evidence-Based_Recommendations

Please note that this post is deliberately a very brief account of what has happened over the past few years, where the inclusion of many hundreds of pages of official medical and government and media information is not included.

Some more information can be obtained from the sites within the above links.

You can post a comment if you feel your information needs to be added.

Australia's mainstream media also hid from people Pfizer's document dump, relegating it to a 'conspiracy theory'?

Australia got its instructions from the WHO and American health authorities.

Do not forget that this is not the first time authorities have enacted a global health farce:

See the 16 minute video of the title: The Swine Flu Fraud of 1976

In the early days the mainstream media touted this as an 'unprecedented' event, but lest we forget the Spanish Flu that made its way to the colony in 1918, hardly 'unprecedented'.

Apart from fiat currency, this is one of the world’s largest scams in living history.

See also: https://howbadismybatch.com/international.html

See Pfizer document dump: https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

Microsoft spies on you! Microsoft 365 Bannned in Germany, what about Australia?

Bill Gates' Microsoft is part of the global surveillance and data 'hoovering' network called the 5eyes.

Some people may assume that this means that our personal/private & confidential data generated on our electronic devices or that by governments or corporations in relation to us is safe but that is quite to the contrary.

ANY online data is not safe from being compromised, where even off-line data is also vulnerable.

In relation to this exposure that Office 365 'phones home', Australian government departments and businesses that are using this product are putting Australians at risk, period.

Germany banned the use of the product called Microsoft 365.

An evaluation by a working group of German data protection authorities states Microsoft's cloud-based 365 products cannot be used in compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more at: https://iapp.org/news/a/german-report-details-eu-gdpr-compliance-issues-for-microsoft-365/

Will Australia ban M$ 365? Most definitely not, as the colony's government is part of the 5eyes, where this action is against the agenda, and besides they really don't care about the serf's data only about litigation.

So, the serfs in the colony will just keep on accepting this just like every other action by the government that is against their best interest.

This does not mean that one personally has to use Microsoft products meaning its operating system and Office suite, where there are high quality alternatives currently available.

If privacy is your concern, then we do not recommend the use of Microsoft products.

See more within video:

It is important news for Australians, where it seems that the Australian mainstream media has not informed us about this.

Enforcement Management Unit (formerly Sheriff's Office)

It seems that the current Sheriff's Office Victoria, which previously operated as just Sheriff's Office

Current website: https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/contact-us/sheriffs-office-victoria

falls under the umbrella company called the Department of Justice and Community Safety today, where it was previously the Department of Justice and Regulation and prior to that just the Dpeartment of Justice, today secretly opeerates as the Enforcement Management Unit, from 1994 to present.

Above screen capture from: https://prov.vic.gov.au/archive/VA4702

PLEASE NOTE:

That the courts must operate independently without prejudice or bias, subject to Chapter III of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

The Magistrates' Court of Victoria has stated that it does not operate solely in Crown right, as it is suject to its stakeholders.

The court also does not operate in a manner free of bias or prejudice as it must perform judicial decisions critical to its '"success", under the influence of its stakeholders.

See document within the link:

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

What lawfully enacted instruments are in place facilitate the changes?

Victorian police officers charged with assault in Narre Warren South

Two police officers will face court after they allegedly assaulted a man during an arrest.

Two Victorian police officers have been charged after they allegedly assaulted a man during an arrest in Melbourne’s southeast.

The 35-year-old male senior constable and a 45-year-old male senior constable have each been charged with unlawful assault and unlawful assault with a weapon following an internal investigation.

Both officers are attached to the Transit and Public Safety Command.

 

The two officers have been stood down from all duties. Picture: NCA NewsWire

The two officers allegedly injured a 58-year-old man in Narre Warren South on February 4 last year while on duty.

The man had been taken to hospital for treatment but was later released, according to reports in The Age at the time.

Both officers were stood down from active duty.

They will face court at a later date.

City council’s ‘green’ bicycle lane an environmental farce!

Australia is a ‘money for mates’ (penal) colony, and the businesses called ‘city councils’ are rife with fraud.

Useless positions are created within councils that Australian tax payers (usually ‘mums & dads’) have to fraudulently support.

So called ‘environmental’ officers is just one example, people who literally have no qualifications to take on such a role.

In this example the global policy is to ‘force’ people to commute via bicycle.

While it may seem to work in certain areas around the world or for certain people, in many cases this is not a practical mode of transport in relation to Australia.

Practicality aside, let’s look at the environmental impact of one such action which city councils failed to see the consequences of.

When marking out a lane, they use a compound which is prayed on the tarmac indicating that the section of road is for bicycle use only.

In the above example a very small section of road on a roundabout has been applied.

The problem there is that this when applied has high over-spray, which then makes it way into drainage then into the oceans.

The micro plastics then make their way into the food chain, next stating the obvious which is that being, we consume this.

This is even before any wear factor is considered on the applied surface.

This is an environmental disaster which is (deliberately?) overlooked, so some outsourced company can make huge profits from, where its tender process has been falsely acted upon?

Governments are allegedly so concerned about the environmant impact the mankind has apparently made, yet their action state otherwise.

At the end of the day, it's the serfs (not corporations) that pay.

YouTube’s Policy on Hacking Videos Makes Everyone Less Safe

There are certain cybersecurity mistakes we seem destined to repeat over and over and over again: forcing people to change their passwords at regular intervals, for instance, which research has shown does not make accounts more secure, or acquiescing to online ransom demands, or punishing people for figuring out clever ways to compromise computer systems and then trying to inform others about the flaws they’ve discovered. That last mistake came up just last week, when many people noticed that YouTube had updated its examples of videos that violate its policies against “harmful or dangerous content” to include “Instructional hacking and phishing: Showing users how to bypass secure computer systems or steal user credentials and personal data.”*

YouTube told the Verge that the updates to its examples of policy-violating content actually occurred in the spring, but the decision drew attention just before the holiday weekend when Null Byte, a channel devoted to ethical hacking, was unable to upload a July 4 video on how to launch fireworks over wireless networks. It turned out that that YouTube was punishing the channel because of a previously uploaded video highlighting a technical vulnerability. After significant outcry from the security community, YouTube later reversed its decision to block Null Byte from uploading new videos. A platform as large as YouTube will inevitably make some wrong calls about what videos should or should not be blocked. But the larger issue is not whether one video—or one channel—crosses the line from ethical to dangerous content. It’s whether tech companies like YouTube’s parent Google view security researchers and their findings as threats and mischief-makers or as useful and important allies.

A quick scan of the video titles on the Null Byte channel makes clear how it could have drawn unwanted negative attention. Sample videos include “Take Over Sonos Smart Speakers With Python” and “Steal User Credentials Stored in the Firefox Browser With a USB Rubber Ducky.” Null Byte isn’t the only channel on YouTube dispensing hacking tutorials, of course, but it has some of the more useful and educational ones. (For comparison, try a YouTube search for videos on “how to hack someone’s Gmail account.”)

The notion that the videos posted by Null Byte are harmful or dangerous dates back to a deeply misguided idea espoused by some tech firms that anyone who finds a vulnerability in their products or figures out a way to compromise their software is an enemy—and a criminal. It’s not a new idea. For two decades, companies have taken advantage of both the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to go after security researchers looking for vulnerabilities, even when they clearly just want to raise awareness about the problems they identify.

But while companies like Oracle, Sony, HP, and Blackboard have been going after security researchers for years, it is new to see Google, by way of YouTube, embracing this particularly counterproductive approach to blocking content on “instructional hacking.” The whole point of making videos like the ones Null Byte publishes is to make everyone more aware of security vulnerabilities and better informed about how they work and what to do about them. Blocking those types of videos just serves to make us all less secure by allowing the vulnerabilities they describe to remain unaddressed.

Of course, it is possible to use the techniques described in some of these videos for malicious—and illegal—purposes. But if the video-makers actually wanted to steal sensitive information or sell their vulnerabilities on the black market, then, presumably, they would not be making videos that give away the information for free to any interested viewer. If you should someday find yourself in the position of discovering a computer security vulnerability, arguably one of the most responsible (and least lucrative) things you could do with that information is create a detailed tutorial explaining your discovery and then make it available to everyone free of charge.

What’s truly harmful and dangerous is not instructional hacking videos but the ethos that leads companies to treat the people who make them like criminals, or list them alongside videos that provide instructions on how to “create drugs” or “build a bomb meant to injure or kill people” or videos “promoting or glorifying violent tragedies, such as school shootings.” Certainly, there are risks to making videos publicly available that provide information on how to steal credentials or take over smart speakers. But the risks of not publishing those videos at all are much, much greater.

Correction, July 10, 2019: This article originally misstated that YouTube had updated its policies on what constitutes “harmful or dangerous content” to include “instructional hacking and phishing.” YouTube did not update its policies; it added “instructional hacking and phishing” to examples of content that violates its policies.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.