This question applies to everyone, inclusive of those watching and ultimately a future for their children being watched and grandchildren having no privacy.
These days I always notice the cameras in lights. I am aware of the monitoring of Smart Meters. I am conscious of cyber security used as a means of accessing people’s data and breaching privacy and justifying this intrusion by utilizing threats as bonifide reasons. I am conscious of mass data gathering and I see it as a much greater threat than the cold war or nuclear postures.
I am monitoring government and business who may not be holding the public interest above all interests. I am in service to humanity.
This video is on Edward Snowden who has risked his life to expose criminality and breaches of civilians privacy and indeed security.
My concern is the lack of empathy, human wellbeing and basic respect of a human’s right to privacy and safety through anonymity.
Edward Snowden the NSA whistleblower says that governments use the same techniques as hackers to take over your device. They launch exploit on your device they can do anything you do. They can look at emails, location services etc. He says they don’t need to hack devices they can ask Google, as they have a copy he says. Everything you have done Google keeps a permanent record. It is available to this private company and government. If you can do it they can do it, he says. The device is talking all the time, 10’s, 100’s, thousands of times a minute to a number of companies who have apps installed on your phone. He says, we have not created the tools for people to see this activity. It is the invisibility that is important, if you don’t know they are gathering data from you, you will not say anything.
Hackers Can Control Your Phone Using a Tool That’s Already Built Into It
A lot of concern about the NSA’s seemingly omnipresent surveillance over the last year has focused on the agency’s efforts to install back doors in software and hardware. Those efforts are greatly aided, however, if the agency can piggyback on embedded software already on a system that can be exploited.
Two researchers have uncovered such built-in vulnerabilities in a large number of smartphones that would allow government spies and sophisticated hackers to install malicious code and take control of the device.
The attacks would require proximity to the phones, using a rogue base station or femtocell, and a high level of skill to pull off. But it took Mathew Solnik and Marc Blanchou, two research consultants with Accuvant Labs, just a few months to discover the vulnerabilities and exploit them.
The vulnerabilities lie within a device management tool carriers and manufacturers embed in handsets and tablets to remotely configure them. Though some design their own tool, most use a tool developed by a specific third-party vendor—which the researchers will not identify until they present their findings next week at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas. The tool is used in some form in more than 2 billion phones worldwide. The vulnerabilities, they say, were found so far in Android and BlackBerry devices and a small number of Apple iPhones used by Sprint customers. They haven’t looked at Windows Mobile devices yet.
The researchers say there’s no sign that anyone has exploited the vulnerabilities in the wild, and the company that makes the tool has issued a fix that solves the problem. But it’s now up to carriers to distribute it to users in a firmware update.
Carriers use the management tool to send over-the-air firmware upgrades, to remotely configure handsets for roaming or voice-over WiFi and to lock the devices to specific service providers. But each carrier and manufacturer has its own custom implementation of the client, and there are many that provide the carrier with an array of additional features.
To give carriers the ability to do these things, the management tool operates at the highest level of privilege on devices, which means an attacker who accesses and exploits the tool has the same abilities as the carriers.
The management tools are implemented using a core standard, developed by the Open Mobile Alliance, called OMA device management. From these guidelines, each carrier can choose a base set of features or request additional ones. Solnik says they found that some phones have features for remotely wiping the device or conducting a factory reset, altering operating system settings and even remotely changing the PIN for the screen lock.
They’ve also found systems that allow the carrier to identify nearby WiFi networks, remotely enable and disable Bluetooth or disable the phone’s camera. More significantly, they’ve found systems that allow the carrier to identify the applications on a handset, as well as activate or deactivate them or even add and remove applications. The systems give the carrier the option of making these changes with our without prompting the consumer. Carriers also can modify settings and servers for applications pre-installed by the carrier—something hackers could exploit to force the phone to communicate with a server of their choosing.
Furthermore, some of the systems can monitor the web browser’s home page and in some cases retrieve synced contacts. Others include a call redirect function that can direct the phone to a specific phone number. Carriers typically use this feature to program shortcuts to their own phone numbers. For example, Verizon might program its phones so “299” dials customer service. But Solnik found this feature can be used to redirect any number; phone numbers also can be programmed to launch an application.
“Pretty much whatever number … if we programmed it, when you dial it, it would do whatever functionality we programmed it to do,” Solnik says. “Whether you have the number 1 programmed for your mother, it would then do what we choose.”
The more features the management tool offers the carrier, the more an attacker can do as well. But at a minimum, every device they examined would allow an attacker to change all of the cellular network functionality. In many cases, they could also control firmware updates.
And even the phones that use only the most basic management system have memory corruption vulnerabilities that would still allow a hacker to execute code or install malicious applications, they found.
Two phones that provided the highest level of exploitation were the HTC One M7 and the Blackberry Z10. Among iOS devices, they found that only iPhones offered by Sprint and running an operating system prior to version 7.0.4 were vulnerable. The 7.0.4 version of the software, which Apple released in November, partially solved the issue.
Carriers recognize the risk these management tools present, and many have added encryption and authentication to bolster security. Accessing the management system in the device, for example, often requires a password. And the researchers found every carrier in the US encrypts communication between a device and the carrier’s server. But these protections are so poorly implemented that the researchers could undermine them.
“Pretty much all the safeguards put into place to protect the clients in nearly all major devices we found can be bypassed,” Solnik says.
In the case of the authentication, for example, they found that the systems use passwords that are generated in part using a public identifier—that is, the IMEI, or the cell phone’s serial number. That number is readily available by any base station that communicates with the phone. Solnik says that although each carrier’s system uses a slightly different method for generating passwords, they’re all based on the same core.
“They’re all taking a certain public identifier and a certain pre-shared token or secret and using that to derive the password,” he says. “There is some secret sauce added, but because it’s derived from this token that is already public knowledge, that can be reverse-engineered and reproduced…. We can more or less pre-calculate all passwords for any device in order to manage the client.”
They also found many ways to undermine the encryption. “It does require a deep understanding of what it’s doing, but once you understand how it works, you can pretty much turn off or just bypass or man-in-the-middle the encryption itself,” Solnik says.
Although the vulnerabilities are basic from a security perspective, exploiting them is not. Each requires extensive knowledge of the OMA-DM standard implementation and how cellular networks work. A successful hack also requires setting up a cellular base transceiver station or finding a vulnerability in a femtocell to take it over and use it for the attack. And cracking the encryption is also not trivial. Nonetheless, anyone with the same level of knowledge and skill as the researchers could conduct the attacks.
That said, the researchers don’t believe anyone has exploited the vulnerabilities so far.
“During our disclosure with the vendors, different vendors have processes to look through to see if there are any traces of someone exploiting the vulnerabilities and we haven’t heard that there are any traces that anyone has seen so far,” says Ryan Smith, chief scientist at Accuvant.
Solnik and Blanchou have notified the firm that makes the management tool used by so many, and the company has already issued a fix. They also notified baseband manufacturers, who have written code that would implement that fix. Carriers are in the process of distributing a fix to existing phones.
“It’s important that all users … stay up to date with all the latest patches,” Solnik says. “Users should contact their carrier to see if an update is already available.”
Facebook will face a class action law suit in the wake of its privacy scandal, a US federal judge has ruled.
Allegations of privacy violations emerged when it was revealed the app used a photo-scanning tool on users’ images without their explicit consent.
The facial recognition tool, launched in 2010, suggests names for people it identifies in photos uploaded by users.
Under Illinois state law, the company could be fined $1,000 to $5,000 (£700 – £3,500) each time a person’s image was used without consent.
The technology was suspended for users in Europe in 2012 over privacy fears but is still live in the US and other regions worldwide.
Scroll down for video
Facebook’s facial recognition tool, launched in 2010, suggests names for people it identifies in photos uploaded by users. A judge has ruled this broke Illinois state law and people could be entitled to up to $5,000 (£3,500) in compensation for every image used
It is believed that the function runs afoul of Illinois state law on protecting biometric privacy.
Judge James Donato ruled the claims by Illinois residents Nimesh Patel, Adam Pezen, and Carlo Licata were ‘sufficiently cohesive to allow for a fair and efficient resolution on a class basis.
‘Consequently, the case will proceed with a class consisting of Facebook users located in Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after June 7, 2011,’ he said, according to the ruling.
June 2011 was the date on which Facebook rolled out its ‘tag suggestions’ feature.
The feature is not available to users in most countries, including the UK – and can be turned off in settings for US users.
Facebook believe that the lawsuit should be pursued by individual as the total amount of damages could ‘amount to billions of dollars,’ U.S. District Judge James Donato wrote in the ruling.
The judge has ruled that the Illinois law is clear: Facebook has collected a ‘wealth of data on its users, including self-reported residency and IP addresses,’ reports Bloomberg.
Facebook has acknowledged that it can identify which users who live in Illinois have face templates, he wrote.
A face template can be generated from ten or more photos and is used to generate a profile on Facebook’s database.
‘Although many individuals may not have had enough tagged photos to generate a face template in Facebook’s database, in January 2011 [when Facebook implemented tag suggestions for all users] the average user was tagged in 53 photos, far more than the 10 needed to generate a face template,’ according to a December court filing.
Facebook believe that the lawsuit should be pursued by individual as the total amount of damages could ‘amount to billions of dollars,’ U.S. District Judge James Donato wrote in the ruling
A Facebook spokeswoman said the company was reviewing the decision, adding: ‘We continue to believe the case has no merit and will defend ourselves vigorously.’
Facebook also contends it has been very open about the tool since its inception.
The Mark Zuckerberg-owned app allows users to turn the feature off and prevent themselves from being suggested in photo tags.
Also on Monday, Facebook confirmed that it collected information from people beyond their social media use.
‘When you visit a site or app that uses our services, we receive information even if you’re logged out or don’t have a Facebook account,’ product management director David Baser said in a post on the social network’s blog.
WHAT IS THE LEGAL IMPACT OF THE CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA SCANDAL?
News that Trump-affiliated company Cambridge Analytica used data mined from Facebook user’s to try and influence the US presidential election may trigger a wave of lawsuits, according to experts.
Vanessa Barnett, a commercial lawyer and data protection expert at Keystone Law, believes it’s ‘very likely’ we will see a slew of legal cases against the firms in the wake of the scandal.
Speaking to MailOnline, she said: ‘In the UK, users can take direct action for damages caused to them by a data breach – and that includes damages for distress.
‘How that translates into a “pounds, shillings, pence” type number for each person would depend on the nature of the damage.’
‘We have case law where the Home Office revealed personal data of asylum seekers, including potentially where they lived. Some of those individuals were awarded £12,500 ($14,000) in damages.
‘It remains to be seen if the damage caused by the Cambridge Analytica scandal is comparable.’
Ms Barnett says that a number of consumer rights focused groups are looking at the possibility of a class action lawsuit, a more regular feature of the US legal system than in the UK.
A class action lawsuit filed against the firm in America is now seeking compensation for the roughly 70 million US users who were affected.
Ms Barnett added: ‘Years ago we just had Max Schrems vs Facebook, and he didn’t do too bad, but now it’s much more in the public consciousness.
‘If the mechanics to participate in a class action are easy, I can see many users joining in.’
Mr Baser said ‘many’ websites and apps use Facebook services to target content and ads, including via the social network’s Like and Share buttons.
When people use their Facebook account to log into another website or app and Facebook ads and measurement tools.
But he stressed the practice was widespread, with companies such as Google and Twitter also doing the same.
The company has used a program it calls DeepFace to match other photos of a person.
Google faces a lawsuit in Chicago like the one against Facebook in San Francisco federal court.
The ruling comes as the social network is snared in a scandal over the mishandling of 87 million users’ data ahead of the 2016 US presidential election.beyond their social network use.
Cambridge Analytica, run by former White House senior adviser Steve Bannon and billionaire campaign benefactor Robert Mercer, was hired by the Trump campaign during the 2016 president election.
Messenger communications may be among the data harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a disclosure buried in a new ‘Protecting Your Information’ (pictured) tool on the social network has revealed
It is believed that the data taken from people via the app was used to assist in the propaganda and electing of Donald Trump to president of the US.
Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, admitted that his own information was taken in the scandal.
The admission came in front of US congress as he was quizzed about his role in the pilfering of information from his social media site.
Recently, the social media conglomerate has implemented a variety of updated privacy controls and settings.
Last week, Facebook launched a new tool that lets you check whether your data was harvested by Cambridge Analytica.
Facebook slipped the previously unknown information into the fine print (highlighted in red) of the app created to address concerns over the scandal. MailOnline reporter Joe Pinkstone is among those to have had personal information shared with Cambridge Analytica
As a result, Facebook’s 2.2 billion users began to receive a notification on their newsfeed.
Titled ‘Protecting Your Information,’ it contains a link to let you see what apps you use and what information you have shared with them.
A separate tool lets you manually check whether you or your friends logged into the ‘This Is Your Digital Life’ quiz responsible for the data grab.
As well as the information provided on a person’s Facebook profile, there were concerns that personal messages were also jeopardised.
Cambridge Analytica has denied the claims that it accessed private message data.
Professor Shoshana Zuboff speaks about Silicon Valley shadow operation. We won’t get the data. Hi-Tech claim data they take from our lives without our permission, private lives without permission, analyse data, took it, illegitimate profit. Bypassing our awareness. Without consent.
I, Susan Carew, do not consent to any extraction of my data or the residual data in order for companies/government/intelligence to predict my behaviour with the objective of selling to me, controlling me or suppressing my democratic rights. I will not use a iPhone ever as it takes away my rights, distracts me from my life and purpose, and exposes me to radiation which likely causes cancer and health damage. I do not consent to other radiation emitters around me as it impacts my health and safety. Moreover, the rampant consumption is the outcome of data usage mapping our lives and is the very core issue of ecological collapse. I cannot participate in the destruction of my planet or imprisonment of human society as a global citizen. Today is my birthday and it is the gift I give to myself.
Surveillance capitalism is embedded in infrastructure projects to control the population. We are addicted to our iPhones and this is the foundation for a system of control that will not serve people but public/private partnerships to further industry. The previous blog explains the serious health effects of using iPhones emitting radiation.
Whenever you bring up ‘surveillance of phones’ in a conversation often the counter argument will quickly state: “I have nothing to hide” which is a misconception and a form of denial where the person doesn’t want to go there as they depend on their phone. They don’t question their learned dependency.
I was at the railway station today. It is a recent infrastructure project where the station was raised above a road and enlarged with surveillance equipment evident. I saw at least 15 cameras and then the LED lights which can also surveil. I saw the free public phone (recently made free). I found myself standing out of the view of cameras as I didn’t want facial recognition given my privacy. I have had surveillance happen to me when I went to a Senate inquiry in Canberra called the Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press. The hearing I went to was intelligence agencies talking about this topic. In addition, a few months earlier walked to Parliament to make homelessness visible. I am also a former community radio person, analyst and advocate for peace education. When I walked through a public square a light came on brightly in a public space as I walked through the space. I was the only person there. I saw police insignia on the camera. I knew it was facial recognition and I was uncomfortable as I feel my democratic right to participate is being targeted. My mother was stopped by the police a short time after, in the car I had driven to the inquiry. So the technology in my view can adversely impact those of us advocating for democracy and a better world.
Shoshana Zuboff indicates we willingly give our personal information believing that information is under our control, which we do not. We provide this personal information is the least important part of the information they collect about us according to Shoshana Zuboff.
Placing our heads in the sand is not an option if you want democratic freedom. If you wish to be a cyborg then just keep burying your head in your iPhone to avoid the reality of your life and courageously facing challenges to awaken and become aware.
key points and notes:
Google earth was a CIA start up;
surveillance capitalism is also offline;
we don’t know the predictive implications;
supermarket chain knew a woman was pregnant before she did;
predict personality, sexual orientation, political orientation – range of things we didn’t intend to reveal;
residual knowledge upload photos – Facebook photos, predictive signals companies can lift from photos;
algorithms facial recognition software;
predicting human behaviour and predictions are sold;
data sold to anyone, could be used for oppression;
facial photos facilitate totalitarian regimes;
processes disguised and operate in stealth;
engineered to be indecipherable to create ignorance in vast group of users;
Facebook massive scale contagion experiments, subliminal cues planted in Facebook pages influence offline real world;
two key findings manipulate subliminal cues to change real world behaviour and emotion, we can exercise this power and methods whilst BYPASSING USER AWARENESS;
Pokemon,go https://www.pokemongo.com/en-au/ – invented by Google. Google the inventor of surveillance capitalism – John Henke;
Invented keyhole which is a CIA Google Earth start up. Pokémon is not a happy game, they brought it to market, the big game on top of little game precisely emulates logic of surveillance capitalism. Sell click through rate pays for clicks on website, click to buy button. Paid for real world equivalent (footfall) to get real bodies into businesses. Buy lure modules;
Use rewards and punishment of game to herd you to the city for those paying for your body to turn up, the real game is to get you to spend, we predict where you will be, it is of value when it works;
You believe you are being served, you will not notice or complain. The shadow operation will remain hidden, you will not ask questions;
Want to know about your walk in the park, what you are doing in car, your home etc;
Net security system has a microphone built into it, voices, conversations, watching t.v., who is visiting, shouting over breakfast – predictive value;
Google’s business to misdirect to engineer ignorance in mechanism undetectable, if confronted deny until habituate;
Don’t have to think;
We give consent, privacy, your device held hostage to you agreeing, we maintain functionality, third parties will do what they do;
Third parties have no responsibility;
Silicon valley surveillance capitalism broke through in 2002;
More money came from surveillance capital;
Google acquired android, made great margin, rich. Make iPhone cheap, get price down, more on the iPhone more, facebook used network drones (growing markets);
Facebook’s intention doesn’t share information on how company works. Facebook Australia told its business customers that it has so much data about 6.6 million young adults and teenagers, predict mood shifts, stressed, fatigue, frightened. We can alert you when they need a CONFIDENCE BOOST, the exact moment when they are likely to need this. Send advert for a sexy black jacket (going on a date). Peak vulnerability.
2018 – Chris Whiley – Cambridge Analytica – analysed 18 million citizens. They wanted to understand their inner demons, how to target their demons, fear, anger, paranoia, trigger emotions manipulate them to click on website, join group, what to read, who to hang out with, who to vote for. Manipulate innocent young people. From commercial to political outcomes. Cambridge Analytica is a parasite on a huge host surveillance capitalism;
Mark Zuckerberg announces future of privacy, fear of litigation, not genuine;
When on facebook there is no right to privacy, no expectation of privacy they think;
VPN – send data via private networks;
Amish example of simplicity. Technology we use, not to control us.
I found this YouTube video by chance it dates back to 2012 but I feel this is significant as revealing foundational support for communications intercepts.
It is a Senate hearing on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Joint Committee.
It is interesting listening to the police. I am aware of unquestioned power and avoidance of important questions.
Former Senator Ludlam asks about the Australian Federal Polices (AFP) role in the lead up to the announcement of this committee, play some part for terms of reference, material for the discussion paper. They said yes.
I found that concerning as a citizen.
The AFP is a user of the Telecommunications interception Act. Content of the proposed Bill and strategic issues. Attorney Generals meetings and telecommunications company involving the AFP. Deputy Commissioner spoke to every jurisdictions important for Australian Law enforcement. AFP decided to take a leadership role, former commissioners have a united front in the law enforcement perspective. States and territories do use interception, involved but no voice. Public Submission to committee AFP position is clear. Operational examples around methodology. Idea that you would send a deputy commissioner around the country to get everybody on the same page before you gave evidence. The AFP speaker exhibited stress when challenged.
Without taking down notes on this session I wish to convey impressions. As a citizen I am reliant on the ethics, intelligence and capacity of Senators to protect our interests. I can understand that the Australian Federal Police believe it is essential to access metadata but I do not feel confident that they would not do fishing exercises or be tempted to access communications, browsing history and essentially gathering all metadata. The temptation to have this legalised is clearly evident as they are indicating they have 23,000 warrant requests and not enough Judges, they state.
What happens when the police is policiticised similar to the Bjelke Petersen regime or the close working relationship with the current Home Affairs department. Where is the line between a stazi form of political persecution or targeting and a bonifide police service (not force) as law enforcement? What we witness as citizens as these lines change depending on who is in power. Clearly the Attorney General’s Department is the government solicitor so evidence based legal information would be what is wanted as this department is housed by lawyers. In my own experience of lawyers there is a difference between an intention for justice and winning the case. I recently had an experience whereby a Court requested my address to return a USB I had submitted to the court in 2014 it is now 2020. Why 6 years later out of the blue would they return my USB. I noted that key files were deleted from my USB and unknown files were on the USB. I wrote to the Chief Justice and a Court Registrar came back to me threatening me to take the matter to court if I am not satisfied. I stated that when I am not satisfied I seek the truth of a matter and court action would never occur to me. What I saw through legal mind sets was to use the Court as a form of fighting rather than Justice. I have worked for the police in a temporary capacity and noted some had come from military backgrounds as this is a regimented form of organisation. Military intelligence would have intercepted communications without warrants, Pine Gap would intercept communications without warrants, foreign intelligence via telecommunications companies (not Australian) would have intercepted communications (both metadata and content) without a warrant. So it seems the police would be the only ones feeling constrained hence the trip around the country to encourage a ‘voice’. I did smile at that statement as the public has no voice and the AFP has a considerable voice. So I saw that as not about a voice but influence to encourage data and communications interception. At the time of these meetings Optus was engaged in trying to break up the monopoly of Telstra indicating it was inefficient when it was not. The issues of privacy are the most important issues from a citizens perspective. What we are witnessing today as a result of these meetings prior to 2012 is that everyone’s phone calls are monitored, data collected and profiled. People are concerned at talking to their friends to then see ads pop up trying to sell them something. So their conversation was not private. As a former market analyst myself I am very aware that telecommunications multinationals do not have any sense public mandated expectation of privacy. Yes they talk about privacy statements but for the most part, they take away our rights the moment we tick the box in respect of terms and conditions. We have absolutely no say over who takes our information, we do not know who they are or who they share our data with. We are not briefed about the 5 Eyes (10 Eyes) network inclusive of US intelligence. If a person is a Person of Interest (POI) which I am sure I am, then they believe they have the right to tap phones, surveil, monitor not because that person is a threat in a negative sense but they may be claiming their democratic rights, as I have done in the public interest. I have been shocked as a citizen to be filmed at protests, have photos taken, facial recognition when I walked to Parliament to make homelessness visible. I know I had facial recognition as when I walked through the Woden Plaza outside court area I saw a bright light come on (no-one else around) and I knew I had been facially recognised. This was because I attended the Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press on 14 August 2019. I was interested to know why ASIO was located physically at parliament. I drove there in my mother’s car. A few days later she is pulled over by the police. I happened to be walking parallel (in the evening) to notice flashing lights not realising my mum was being stopped. We both believe they thought it was me. So why would the police be doing that? They could say it was a breath test, she is 80 years old. So as a citizen seeking the truth, standing up for real peace (balance, harmony) and embracing democracy I felt myself to be profiled and targeted.
So Senator Ludham’s annoying questions to the AFP were actually extremely important. I saw the strange look on the plain clothes policeman (Assistant Commissioner) after a question was asked, the moment Ludham turned away his feelings were visible, it was a disturbing intense look revealing his anger and fear at being asked. I felt they do not like being held to account and I wondered what the truth was. I also contemplated power issues where they have too much power.
From their perspective they think they do not have enough power as other intelligence gathering agencies can get what they want, circumvent laws, as we learned from Edward Snowden’s disclosures and Julian Assange. We saw the criminality, lack of respect, intrusion into private lives and the ability to take out people or set them up to serve interests or apply pressure. We are learning about pedophilia at the highest levels used as leverage, black operations to create more fear in our society so we hand over our power.
This Brave New World they are either wittingly or unwittingly contributing to is not about balancing investigation and privacy, in my view, it is about increasing control over our lives and increasingly regarding differences of opinion, challenges, leaks or dissent as somehow a problem to be criminalised when it is necessary that people debate, be challenged and double check their decisions are in fact in the public interest. As the public pay their wages, yet they forget this as ‘business as usual’ takes over, or objectives or foreign law enforcement influence shows them how to get around the public interest test. This is not what the public want.
The gentleman with the yellow bow tie from the Attorney General’s Department came across as arrogant and rude in his ‘single syllable’ comment. As he too exhibited power and privilege which made me feel as a citizen that we have no rights as the class divide perceives itself as having the right to rule without question, diminishing the importance of public oversight in their power games. They suppress their annoyance at any suggestion of improper conduct or undue influence as they know it is publicly filmed and it is the media that restrains them rather than thoughtful conscience about the implications of getting it ‘wrong’.
Today we are in a situation where foreign intelligence (notably the Deep State – unaccountable intelligence capability without government oversight and operating as corporate interests – are having disproportionate influence over our leaders, sovereignty and day to day lives. They have their own agenda, black ops, business interests that have nothing to do with the Australian people yet our taxes are used to fund risk, purchase their weapons as private interests redirect public money under the name of defence or national security. We see a shrinking of the public sector as public/private partnership deals incur debt and assets are increasingly transferred without public debate in alignment with global ‘smart cities’ agendas which collect public data without oversight. So how can we believe people in positions of power are working in the public interest?
I have real concerns about corruption, espionage and treason given merged unaccountable interests. The same issues are being raised in the United States and Britain as empire is still embedded in old paradigms that cannot respond to the environmental collapse and move to Cultures of Peace, inclusivity and real sustainability (free energy). For when the fear is de-escalated, secrecy becomes truly repugnant (as US President J.F. Kennedy) and the community have a say over what happens in their name rather than shutting us down and then controlling us through metadata. Lastly, the issue of terrorism is increasingly being understood as an inside job given the Project for a New American Century, the Bush Oil Cartel and the Clinton Foundation etc. all involved in activities coming to light that are illegal. The wars were illegal as profit was the motive. This is all ignored as we pretend the Emperor has Clothes when he is naked in his corruption. So in light of massive surveillance and corruption the public are not safe when government’s hand over all their records to privatised telecommunication companies who can only see dollars not rights.
So below is the Senate hearing excerpt that I believe sets the scene for the bigger conversation of metadata in the hands of foreigners infiltrating through business, public institutions and politics all in the name of power, greed and self interest.
Sadly, the Green’s Senator Scott Ludlam was removed from politics citing his New Zealand citizenship. Yet he was a true advocate for the public interest. Australians lost when he was removed for political purposes. As genuine debate is not invited in corridors of power but rather viewed as a war which is all about winning. The suppression of freedom of speech, human rights, privacy and truth is not in the public interest.