Google loses $314 million lawsuit over data transfers when Android phones are idle

Google just lost the class action suit against it in California – the suit was filed on behalf of an estimated 14 million Californians in 2019 and alleged $800 million in damages over Android phones collecting and transmitting data to Google while idle.

The jury sided with the plaintiffs and awarded them $314.6 million (that’s almost pi!). More specifically, Android phones collected data that would be used for targeted advertising and transmitted it to Google’s servers over cellular data – at the phone owner’s expense.

Google will appeal this verdict as it claims that users were not harmed by these data transfers and that users consented to this when they agreed to Google’s terms of service and privacy policies. A spokesperson for the company stated that the verdict “misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices”.

Another group has filed a separate lawsuit, this time on behalf of Android users in the other 49 US states – this trial will begin in April.

Source: retuers

Shocking hidden recording reveals corrupt police on Good Friday

A reality that many do not want to wake up to, is the fact that Austalians live in a police state.

In this exposé, Victoria Police have arrested a motorist under false pretences on Good Friday.

The claim by police was also made that the person is "very sovereign citizeny" DESPITE there being no proof of this.

They wanted to cause physical injury by driving dangerously while he was placed in custody in the back of the divisional van.

They wanted to damage his property, that being his watch that they held.

This is not a unique or isolated example of what sort of scum is in the state's and territory's police forces of Australia.

Police can make all sorts of false claims, where there is little chance of a remedy for victims of police or if there is it's a great finanical cost, where the system is deliberately rigged against people seeking 'justice'.

See video of the title The video these INCOMPETENT COPS don't want you to see :

NEVER trust the police and record all interactions with them.

LIES about fuel price, cost before and after US attack on Iran

People in corporations and governments lie to the general population every single day, where the lies will never stop.

Those in government have preplanned agendas that even span decades where the serfs are none the wiser, pity.

On Monday, the 23rd of June 2025, Rupert Murdoch’s publication mentioned that NRMA spokesperson stated that “drivers likely to pay 8 cents more a litre when fuelling up".

One would expect that to be nationwide, albeit a small difference from one state or territory.

On that day, in Melbourne unleaded fuel was 159.9 c/litre as seen by the receipt below, where certain identifying factors have been blocked out:

After the US attack on Iran, the price of fuel from the same supplier skyrocketed, or rather the motorists were bombed with a price of 219.9 cents per litre, as seen in the headline photo above.

That is an increase of 60 cents per litre or a 37.5% price hike.

The good motorists of Australia are being extored to pay for an overseas attack on another country with full support of this by our colonial govenrment.

Australia, the 'lucky' country... NOT!

16 billion password data breach hits Apple, Google, Facebook and more — LIVE updates and how to stay safe

Latest updates on one of the largest data breaches

The news of a massive 16 billion data breach that exposed login credentials from Apple, Google, Facebook has made record as one of the largest data breaches in history.

Cybernews reports that records from over 30 databases have been stolen, with each containing up to 3.5 billion passwords from social media and VPN logins to corporate platforms and developer platforms.

The recent data breach contains a massive amount of information that can affect billions of online account, as cybercriminals now have access to a mass amount of login credentials. This puts users at risk of further malicious behavior from phishing attacks, social engineering and identity theft.

Here are the latest updates on what we know about the data breach, how to find out if you're affected and how to stay safe.

What's exposed?

Currently, nearly all major platforms have been affected by the breach, including Apple accounts (formerly Apple IDs), Gmail, Facebook accounts and GitHub as well as instant messaging platforms like Telegram and both commercial and government platform portals.

The data appears to contain URLs, usernames and passwords. However, with the unfathomable size of the data that's been exposed, there's no way to tell how many accounts are currently under threat.

The stolen data appears to come from several infostealers, and while the datasets are new, the sheer amount of info could also be from a mix of different datasets from previous breaches, including a database containing 184 million records discovered in May this year.

How to stay safe

With the 16 billion login credentials now being exposed, it's important to check if your account has been exposed and to stay safe.

First, the best way to keep your account secure is to enable two-factor authentication (2FA). This will stop threat actors from easily accessing your online accounts, as a second form of authentication through an app, phone, passcode or a physical USB key will need to be approved by you. If you haven't already, find out how to enable 2FA right now.

Second, to find out if your login credentials have been affected, use Have I Been Pwned and check if your email is in the clear. If you are at risk, immediately change your password, delete unused accounts and consider using one of the best password managers to secure your online accounts.

Source:tomsguide

Anticompetitive Practices

The FTC takes action to stop and prevent unfair business practices that are likely to reduce competition and lead to higher prices, reduced quality or levels of service, or less innovation. Anticompetitive practices include activities like price fixing, group boycotts, and exclusionary exclusive dealing contracts or trade association rules, and are generally grouped into two types:

• agreements between competitors, also referred to as horizontal conduct
• monopolization, also referred to as single firm conduct

The FTC generally pursues anticompetitive conduct as violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”

Search Cases

Use our Advanced Search page to find a specific antitrust case. To see all antitrust cases, select “Competition” in the mission field. To see a specific type of competition case, select from the list of available topics in the competition topics field.

Competition Statutes

The primary statutes governing the FTC’s competition mission include:

•     FTC Act

•     Sherman Act
• Section 1
• Section 2

•     Clayton Act

Guidelines

    Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors

    Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care

    Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property

    Guides for Advertising Allowances and other Merchandising Payments and Services – “Fred Meyer Guides”

Competition Advisory Opinions

The FTC provides guidance concerning proposed conduct in the form of advisory opinions. The process starts with a request for advice from the party proposing the conduct. Many advisory opinions are rendered by Bureau of Competition staff, and often involve issues in the health care field.  Commission advisory opinions are voted on by the Commission and are intended to address substantial or novel questions of fact or law, or subjects of significant interest.

FTC staff provides practical guidance for those who may want to request an advisory opinion. You also can review all previous advisory opinions, and filter them using the “Antitrust/Competition” tag.

Source: Federal Trade Commission

With Android 16 upgrade Google should be sued under anti-competative law!

Google is again engaging in anti-competative or in the United States, antitrust behaviour, which is against the law.

With this new action Google is getting rid of ALL competitors, where Android phones must run through Google (it's about 'forcing' the licencing of GMS (Google Mobile Services)), where they are not able to function under AOSP (Android Open Source Project), such as Lingeage OS and GraphenOS.

AOSP is a baseline operating system of Android which manufacturers (e.g Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, etc) use before they load up their hardware with their spyware bloated version of Android.

Lingeage and Graphene, are among a few custom open source Android operating systems called ROMs, that do not have highly invasive 'spyware' that Google and other phone manufaturers (e.g. Samsung) install on their phones, which can be a danger to people's lives where they require privacy or anonimity as a result of their job or for other reasons.

The tech and legal communites MUST take action against Google's latest 'illegal' practice.

Whether they will, is another story that time will tell.

See a Comparison of Android-based Operating Systems:

Source: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

Most of these ROMs are privacy (and security) focused, where Google's actions are an attack on user's privacy and therefore security.

Google is deliberately killing off AOSP.

At the end of the day it's all about data collection by the giants Google and Apple, where the latest actions by Google are part of the global 'Nanny State' agenda where only duopoly powerhouses exist.

If you truly value your privacy, then Google products are not the ones that you will achieve privacy with.

See the following article by androidpolice.com of the following headline:

Google’s latest AOSP move spells doom for custom ROMs on Pixel phones

In March of this year, Google revealed it is changing its Android development process and will no longer make real-time code commits to public AOSP branches. The change barely had any public or development impact. But now, with the release of Android 16, Google is making a bigger change to AOSP that will affect the development of custom ROMs for Pixels.

For years, Google used its Pixel phones as reference devices for AOSP development. As part of this, the company also published the device trees and driver binaries, ensuring that developers could compile a fully working AOSP build of Android for Pixels. Custom ROM developers also relied on the same device trees and driver binaries to ensure core features worked properly in their ROMs.

This won't be the case going forward, though. While Google has already published the Android 16 source code, it won't be releasing the device trees and driver binaries for compatible Pixel phones. The Graphene OS team initially claimed that Google made this change as it planned to discontinue AOSP entirely.

However, Seang Chau, VP and GM of Android Platform, refuted such rumors and provided a clearer picture (via Android Authority). He made it clear that Google is not doing away with AOSP. But going forward, AOSP will use a reference target device "that is flexible, configurable, and affordable — independent of any particular hardware, including those from Google." And so, Google is switching from Pixels to Cuttlefish — a virtual Android device— as the reference AOSP device. Since it's a virtual platform, developers can run Cuttlefish remotely or locally.

Custom ROM development for Pixel phones just got a lot more difficult                

This move from Google will change the custom ROM development scene for Pixel phones forever.

 Unlike other Android devices, device trees and binaries made it relatively easier for developers to build ROMs for Pixel devices.

Without them, they would have to reverse-engineer prebuilt binaries to find out the changes that Google made — a challenging and time-consuming process. The lack of kernel source code commit history from Google only adds to the complexity.

Think of these device trees and binaries as the Android equivalent of drivers on a Windows PC — they ensure the operating system can properly communicate with the device's hardware.

Google's latest changes to AOSP will have a major impact if you run LineageOS or another custom ROM on your Pixel. That's a dwindling number, though, as custom ROMs are no longer as popular as they once were. Still, it's a major setback for leading custom ROM projects, like LineageOS and GrapheneOS.

See other related articles:

Privacy-Focused GrapheneOS Warns Google Is Locking Down Android

Comments from the above link:

Android’s open future questioned after Google withholds Pixel code

Android’s Impossible Deadline—3 Weeks To Update Or Stop Using Phones

A tricky dilemma for Android users this week, as both Google and Samsung release this month’s Pixel and Galaxy security updates with critical missing fixes. And with a June 24 deadline to secure phones or power them down, something needs to give. There are 30-plus important fixes that have been released, but not the ones that matter most.

The fixes are long-awaited patches from Qualcomm, which warns Android users that “there are indications from Google Threat Analysis Group that CVE-2025-21479, CVE-2025-21480, CVE-2025-27038 may be under limited, targeted exploitation.” The flaw affects Adreno Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) drivers.

It is assumed but not known that exploitation would have been used in commercial spyware software, similar to the well publicized attacks outed by Amnesty International. Qualcomm says patches “have been made available to OEMs in May together with a strong recommendation to deploy the update on affected devices as soon as possible.”

The deadline which comes courtesy of America’s cyber defense agency is mandatory for federal staff and recommended for everyone else. CISA warns “multiple Qualcomm chipsets contain” these vulnerabilities, which it describes as follows:

• CVE-2025-27038: “A use-after-free vulnerability. This vulnerability allows for memory corruption while rendering graphics using Adreno GPU drivers in Chrome.”
• CVE-2025-21480: “An incorrect authorization vulnerability. This vulnerability allows for memory corruption due to unauthorized command execution in GPU micronode while executing specific sequence of commands.”
• CVE-2025-21479: “An incorrect authorization vulnerability. This vulnerability allows for memory corruption due to unauthorized command execution in GPU micronode while executing specific sequence of commands.”

CISA has slapped a 21-day mandatory deadline on federal agency employees to update phones by June 24 “or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.” Right now, the window for June’s security updates has been missed, which means absent an out-of-band update that deadline will also be missed.

In the past, we have seen such updates make their way to Pixel faster than Galaxy, with Samsung phones lagging. The company warns patches from chipset vendors “may not be included in the security update package of the month. They will be included in upcoming security update packages as soon as the patches are ready to deliver.”

This plays into the challenge for Samsung in working around an OS and ecosystem it dominates but doesn’t control. In that regard, the more pressing issue for its users will be the speed with which Android 16 via One UI 8 reaches their phones. With a Pixel timeline expected any day now, the gap between the two phones will be critical.

While CISA’s deadline is only mandatory for federal staff, its remit is to operate “for the benefit of the cybersecurity community and network defenders — and to help every organization better manage vulnerabilities and keep pace with threat activity.” As such all users are urged to install these Qualcomm updates as soon as they’re available.

Source:Forbes

Procedural fairness: the duty and its content

14.11  ‘Procedural fairness’ means acting fairly in administrative decision making. It relates to the fairness of the procedure by which a decision is made, and not the fairness in a substantive sense of that decision.^[12] A person may seek judicial review of an administrative decision on the basis that procedural fairness has not been observed.^[13] In Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala, the High Court held that the denial of procedural fairness by an officer of the Commonwealth, where the duty to observe it has not been validly limited or extinguished by statute, will result in a decision made in excess of jurisdiction and thus attract the issue of prohibition under s 75(v) of the Constitution.^[14]

14.12  In considering whether there has been a denial of procedural fairness, courts will examine two issues:

• whether a duty to afford procedural fairness exists; and

• if such a duty exists, the content of procedural fairness in the particular case.

Is there a duty?

14.13  In 2015, the High Court succinctly stated that, in ‘the absence of a clear, contrary legislative intention, administrative decision-makers must accord procedural fairness to those affected by their decisions’.^[15]

14.14  The manner in which a person’s interests are affected is relevant to whether a duty to afford procedural fairness exists. There is less likely to be a duty to afford procedural fairness where a decision affects a person as a member of the public or a class, rather than in their individual capacity.^[16] Procedural fairness may not apply where a decision ‘affects so many people that it is really a legislative act; or where the range of public policy considerations that the deciding body can legitimately take into account is very wide’.^[17]

14.15  A duty to afford procedural fairness may be excluded by legislation. This is a matter of statutory construction, the key question being whether legislation, ‘properly construed, limits or extinguishes the obligation to accord natural justice’.^[18] Professors Mark Aronson and Matthew Groves have suggested that courts increasingly construe legislation so as to imply that a duty to afford procedural fairness exists, particularly since the statement by the High Court in Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Saeed) that procedural fairness is protected by the principle of legality.^[19] This has made legislative exclusion ‘very difficult in practice’.^[20]

14.16  Courts have found that a duty to afford procedural fairness may be impliedly excluded where it would be inconsistent with the proper operation of the relevant statutory provisions.^[21]

14.17  Express statutory provisions that set out procedural requirements to be followed in the making of a decision may not establish with the requisite clearness an intention to exclude natural justice.^[22] Groves has observed that the ‘weight of more recent cases suggests that the courts are very reluctant to accept that a legislative code is exhaustive and therefore intended to exclude the implication of further common law hearing rights’.^[23] This may be the case even where the provisions are described as a ‘procedural code’.^[24] In Saeed, the High Court accepted that provisions stating that procedures contained in the Migration Act were ‘exhaustive’ statements of the natural justice hearing rule were effective to exclude the implication of natural justice, but only in relation to the matters to which the provisions referred.^[25]

Content of procedural fairness

14.18  There is no fixed content to the duty to afford procedural fairness. The fairness of the procedure depends on the nature of the matters in issue, and what would be a reasonable opportunity for parties to present their cases in the relevant circumstances. Mason J stated in Kioa v West that ‘the expression “procedural fairness” … conveys the notion of a flexible obligation to adopt fair procedures which are appropriate and adapted to the circumstances of the particular case’.^[26] In Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam, Gleeson CJ emphasised that ‘fairness is not an abstract concept’ and that the ‘concern of the law is to avoid practical injustice’.^[27]

14.19  Aronson and Groves have noted that the willingness on the part of the courts to imply a duty to afford procedural fairness, and reluctance to find that it has been excluded by statute, has meant that the crucial question will usually be the content of procedural fairness rather than whether the duty exists.^[28]

14.20  Procedural fairness traditionally involves two requirements: the fair hearing rule and the rule against bias.^[29] The hearing rule requires a decision maker to afford a person an opportunity to be heard before making a decision affecting their interests.^[30] In Kioa v West, Gibbs CJ said that the ‘fundamental rule is that a statutory authority having power to affect the rights of a person is bound to hear him before exercising the power’.^[31] The rule against bias ensures that the decision maker can be objectively considered to be impartial and not to have pre-judged a decision.^[32]

14.21  The content of the rule against bias is flexible, and determined by reference to the standards of the hypothetical observer who is fair minded and informed of the circumstances.^[33]

14.22  The specific content of the hearing rule will vary according to statutory context. However, a fair hearing will generally require the following:

• Prior notice that a decision that may affect a person’s interests will be made.^[34] This has been referred to as a ‘fundamental’ or ‘cardinal’ aspect of procedural fairness.^[35]

• Disclosure of the ‘critical issues’ to be addressed, and of information that is credible, relevant and significant to the issues.^[36]

• A substantive hearing—oral or written—with a reasonable opportunity to present a case.^[37] Whether an oral hearing should be provided will depend on the circumstances. The ‘crucial question is whether the issues can be presented and decided fairly by written submissions alone’.^[38] In some circumstances, there may be a duty to allow a person to be legally represented at a hearing.^[39]

14.23  The balancing of issues to determine what fairness requires in a particular case may have the result that the content of procedural fairness is greatly reduced. This may be the case, for example, where issues related to national security arise. In Leghaei v Director-General of Security, the Federal Court considered the duty to afford procedural fairness in the making of an ‘adverse security assessment’ by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).^[40]

14.24  Adverse security assessments are relevant to administrative decisions related to visa status.^[41] In Leghaei, the receipt of an adverse security assessment resulted in the cancellation of the plaintiff’s residency visa.^[42]

14.25  The primary judge found that there existed ‘a duty to afford such degree of procedural fairness in the making of an adverse security assessment as the circumstances could bear, consistent with a lack of prejudice to national security’.^[43] However, upon considering the balance to be struck between the public interest in national security and a duty to disclose the critical issues on which an administrative decision is likely to turn, the primary judge held that the content of procedural fairness was ‘reduced, in practical terms, to nothingness’.^[44]

14.26  On the other hand, it may be that, where a decision ‘would have especially serious consequences upon a person affected, the hearing rule would require detailed procedural requirements’.^[45]

• [12]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 399. However, a decision made without evidence, or contrary to evidence, will not generally be considered to have afforded procedural fairness: Bill Lane, ‘The “No Evidence” Rule’ in Matthew Groves and Hoong Phun Lee (eds), Australian Administrative law: Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 233, 241–2.

• [13]

  Australian Constitution s 75; Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B; Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5(1)(a). Judicial review is considered further in Ch 15.

• [14]

  Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, [17], [41] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ, Gleeson CJ agreeing); [132], [151]–[152] (Kirby J); [169]–[171] (Hayne J). Prohibition is a prerogative remedy issued by a court to prevent a tribunal or inferior court, which is acting or threatens to act in excess of its jurisdiction, from proceeding any further: Ray Finkelstein et al, LexisNexis Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (2015). Where there is a decision-making procedure that has been statutorily prescribed, failure to comply with it in making a decision may also amount to jurisdictional error, known as ‘procedural ultra vires’, and the decision will be invalid: SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 228 CLR 294, [77] (McHugh J); [173] (Kirby J); [204]–[208] (Hayne J).

• [15]

  Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH [2015] HCA 40 (4 November 2015) [30] (Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ). Procedural fairness will not be implied in relation to an exercise of legislative power by an administrator—that is, in the making of delegated legislation.

• [16]

  Westlaw AU, The Laws of Australia (at 1 March 2014) 2 Administrative Law, ‘2.5 Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Procedural Fairness’ [2.5.150]. See also Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 428–36.

• [17]

  Smith and Brazier, above n 4, 570.

• [18]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 454.

• [19]

  Ibid 455.

• [20]

  Ibid.

• [21]

  Ibid. See, eg, Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 246 CLR 636.

• [22]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 259–60.

• [23]

  Groves, above n 8, 310.

• [24]

  Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, [90]–[95] (Gaudron J); [143] (McHugh J); [178] (Kirby J).

• [25]

  Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 241 CLR 252.

• [26]

  Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 585.

• [27]

  Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1, [37]. For a more detailed discussion of practical justice, see Ch 8.

• [28]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 491. This echoes the language used by Mason J in Kioa v West, who said that the ‘critical question in most cases is not whether the principles of natural justice apply. It is: what does the duty to act fairly require in the circumstances of the particular case?’: Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 585.

• [29]

  Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, [25] (Gleeson CJ); Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 398–9.

• [30]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 398–9.

• [31]

  Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 563, quoting Mason J in FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342, 360.

• [32]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 399; Westlaw AU, The Laws of Australia (at 1 March 2014) 2 Administrative Law, ‘2.5 Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Procedural Fairness’ [2.5.20].

• [33]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 609.

• [34]

  Westlaw AU, The Laws of Australia (at 1 March 2014) 2 Administrative Law, ‘2.5 Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Procedural Fairness’ [2.5.460].

• [35]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 517.

• [36]

  Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 587 (Mason J); Westlaw AU, The Laws of Australia (at 1 March 2014) 2 Administrative Law, ‘2.5 Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Procedural Fairness’ [2.5.530]; Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 517.

• [37]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 549; Westlaw AU, The Laws of Australia (at 1 March 2014) 2 Administrative Law, ‘2.5 Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Procedural Fairness’ [2.5.630].

• [38]

  Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 564.

• [39]

  Ibid 567.

[40]

Leghaei v Director General of Security [2005] FCA 1576 (10 November 2005). An adverse security assessment is one that is prejudicial to the interests of the person, and contains a recommendation that prescribed administrative action, the implementation of which would be prejudicial to the interests of the person, be taken or not be taken: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) s 35.

[41]

The exercise of any power, or the performance of any function, in relation to a person under the Migration Act falls within the definition of ‘prescribed administrative action’: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) s 35(1).

[42]

Leghaei v Director-General of Security [2007] FCAFC 37 (23 March 2007) [14]. Additionally, a person who receives an adverse security assessment will not be eligible for a protection visa: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36(1B)

[43]

Leghaei v Director General of Security [2005] FCA 1576 (10 November 2005) [83].

[44]

Ibid [88]. On appeal, the Full Federal Court considered that the balance struck by the primary judge was correct: Leghaei v Director-General of Security [2007] FCAFC 37 (23 March 2007) [51]–[55]. See also Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director General of Security (2012) 251 CLR 1. The situation for a non-citizen affected by an adverse security assessment has been described as a ‘legal black hole’: the person is ‘unable to know the case against them and thus unable to effectively challenge the unknown allegations; enjoying no right at all of merits review; and enjoying only a legal fiction of judicial review’: Ben Saul, ‘“Fair Shake of the Sauce Bottle”’ [2012] Alternative Law Journal 221, 222. A number of submissions addressed questions of procedural fairness in relation to the making of adverse security assessments: Councils for Civil Liberties, Submission 142; Legal Aid NSW, Submission 137; Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 41; Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 39; Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law, Submission 22; UNSW Law Society, Submission 19.

[45]

Aronson and Groves, above n 1, 491, n 2.

Under the publication: Traditional Rights and Freedoms—Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws (ALRC Report 129)

Corrupt governnment Peter Dutton swearing in, not the real Oath but just a clown show.

They call themselves 'honourable', but they are far from it.

'Persons' in this corporation aggregrate called the government (either state or federal) are not serving the people, but rather themselves and corporations.

To put it quite bluntly, they're nothing more than corporate whores.

Their corruption goes beyond the comprehension of Joe Average.

When or if you expose them, they dobule down on gaslighting you.

If you ask for documents (under FOI) that reveal the true scale of their corruption, you are met with an unpenetrable wall of secrecy and denied the documents that you are legally entitled to.

The Oath of Office by Peter Craig Dutton is covered in this post.

For a person to 'assume' office under the 'Commonwealth of Australia', the following oath must be recited:

"I, (e.g. Peter Craig Dutton) do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law, SO HELP ME GOD!"

as mandated by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act or as commonly referred to as the 'Constitution', as seen in the SCHEDULE from a copy of the original document below:

Source: https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/scan-sid-109.html

Just another government clown show:

In the above video it can be seen and heard that Mr. Peter Craig Dutton is sworn in by Governor General of Australia Sir Peter John Cosgrove on the 27th day of August 2018.

The following conversation occurs:

Cosgrove:

"Mister Dutton, I now invite you to take and subscribe the oath of office as Minister for Home Affairs."

Dutton:

"I Peter Craig Dutton do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia, in the office of Minister for Home Affairs and that I will be faithful and bear truly allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second the 'Queen of Australia'* so help me God."

According to the website (gg.gov.au), the Governor-General's office is under the jurisdiction of the 'Commonwealth of Australia' as seen in the screen capture below:

THEREFORE the Oath MUST be taken from the Constitution and not the one recited to then G-G Cosgrove.

Therefore Dutton is not in office lawfully, period.

The corruption of those in government is then taken to the next level.

On 20 April 2020, an FOI request was submitted to the Department of Home Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The applicant sought access to documentation showing that Minister Peter Dutton made and subscribed to the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance as required by Section 42 of the Australian Constitution.

The specific request was for:

• A copy of the signed oath or affirmation by Peter Dutton, as per the Schedule in the Constitution.

• If that document could not be found, any undertaking made by Mr Dutton before assuming his position in Parliament.

• If neither of the above could be provided, an explanation as to why the oath or affirmation was not made in accordance with the Constitution.

2. Response and Department’s Actions

• The Department of Home Affairs initially tried to respond informally, providing:

  • An overview of the swearing-in process for Members of Parliament.

  • A link to the Hansard record from 2 July 2019 confirming Mr Dutton and other members swore the oath or affirmation on that date.

  • A link to further info on the Parliament’s website about the procedure: Swearing-in process.

• The applicant was not satisfied with the informal response and requested the matter proceed through formal FOI procedures.

3. Department’s Formal Decision

• The Department refused the request under Section 24A of the FOI Act, which allows refusal when a document does not exist or cannot be found after a reasonable search.

• The key points of their decision:

  • The requested document is not an “official document of a Minister” as defined under the FOI Act.

  • The Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance made under Section 42 of the Constitution is a parliamentary function, not related to the Department of Home Affairs' operations.

  • Such documents would fall under the Department of the House of Representatives, which is exempt from the FOI Act under section 68A of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999.

  • Thus, the Department has no access or authority over such records and cannot transfer the request to a relevant body that is subject to FOI.

4. Outcome

• The Department concluded that the requested document:

  • Does not exist within the Department’s records.

  • Is not a document held by or related to the affairs of the Department of Home Affairs.

• The request was formally refused on those grounds.

See response to the FOI:

Source: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/where-is-peter-duttons-oath-of-allegiance/

* - There is no lawfully enacted entity called the 'Queen of Australia'!

See documents within these posts:

- Information Request to establish the Lawful Effect of the Parliament of Australia under the Queen of Australia.

- If the Queens role in the Constitution is entrenched who is the Queen of Australia?

- Has there been legal transfer of the Prerogative power of Assent to the Queen of Australia? FOI-15-094

- Separation of Powers, Australia Act, Validity of the Queen of Australia ~ FOI-15-129

- Is there power to create the Queen of Australia as a Corporation Sole?

- Is the Queen of Australia Sovereign for the purposes of the Commonwealth Constitution?

Victorian courts are fully aware of this fact, and the County Court of Victoria contains the evidence, since 2018, that there is no lawfully enacted 'Queen of Australia'.

Australia is truly a corrupt colony!

NSW education department caught unaware after Microsoft Teams began collecting students’ biometric data

People in government are subservient to corporations, where an Australian government federal or state,  itself is a corporation aggregate.

INSTEAD of using open source software, the people in government put the general population's (as opposed to their own) privacy and security at risk.

Instead of using open source software Australia's governments and businesses (e.g. Telstra) use Microsoft products, e.g. word processors, spreadsheets, etc which give ALL user data back to Microsoft.

This is deliberate negligence of government, to keep user data 'safe', period.

This type of action is part of the Nanny State agenda to also provide all user data to corporations, to be used later to the detriment of the data generator.

In many instances 'you' (the user) is being 'forced' to use Microsoft's Teams, where no alternative is given.

Even if you are allegedly given the choice to delete 'your' data, it is still kept, while not on a live system but rather offline for 'archival' purposes.

Microsoft after publication of the data hoovering, denied that anyone could access the biometric data is a blatant lie.

There should be a class action lawsuite against Microsoft.

Read more within the link:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/nsw-education-department-caught-unaware-after-microsoft-teams-began-collecting-students-biometric-data/ar-AA1F0gcb

The people in government that make decisions, are nothing less than corporate whores.

Please note that we do not recommend the use or purchase of Microsoft's data collecting propriatary products including but not limited to the Windows operating system and its Office Suite of products.