This is a growing global health risk to the public.
Dr Deva Davis is a US expert speaking at the University of Melbourne about iPhone radiation. She indicates she is glad Australia is not the US. Yet it appears we are following the US model. She indicates that in the US Tom Wheeler he was the Executive Director for 10 years of the Cellphone Telecommunications industry. The studies have been inadequate.
In Australia MP Paul Fletcher who was in Optus prior to entering Parliament and an advocate for deregulation of Telstra. From 1996 to 2000, he worked as Chief of Staff to Minister for CommunicationsRichard Alston, a Liberal Party politician. Fletcher joined Optus in 2000 and worked as Director of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs until 2008. He then founded Fletchergroup Advisers, a strategy consultancy focusing on the communications industry. He also wrote a book entitled Wired Brown Land? Telstra’s Battle for Broadband that was published in 2009, discussing Telstra‘s bid to operate the Australian Government’s proposed National Broadband Network.He is active in Smart Cities advisor groups and was the Minister for Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities. He is currently serving as Minister for Communications and Arts.
For those promoting this technology with the knowledge it harms human health and with plans to amplify radiation cell towers, satellites may find themselves in law suits in the future if they do not protect the public interest. Dr Davis brings up the fear of litigation in the telecommunications industry. She believes there needs to be an independent fund into research and training as it is evident studies are biased when funded by industry. The issue is pathological greed and the apathy of the public who do nothing. The former depends on the apathy of the latter.
Dr Deva Davis indicates there are serious health effects and experts issue precautionary advice given cancer developments and that it is a probable carcinogen. there is a higher incidence of brain cancer in studies. If using iPhones before aged 20 there is 4 to 8 x more brain cancer after they had past 10 years. Where is the evidence she says? Brain cancer takes a long time to develop. When bomb’s fell at end of WWII no increase in brain cancer in survivors until 40 years had past. It took 40 years.
My cousin has just been diagnosed with aggressive brain cancer and she places her phone upto her brain. My aunt (her mother) tells her to stop doing it and she won’t believe that her cancer is likely caused by her iPhone given her work in sales required her to use the iPhone. She is a grandmother, a beautiful person who will die in the short term from cancer. I go and visit to support my aunt as she lost my uncle just prior to my dad’s death last year. She is in despair about her daughter. I ask why do those in authority not care about the health of citizens? That is where I feel despair.
Dr Davis indicates the iPhones impact children’s brains more than adults and affect thinking. They impact sperm.
The World Health Organisation indicated in 2011 that additional research should be done but are not doing it.
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.
I give no consent to my location, ID and my data being gathered (bulk connections). I have nothing to hide but I like my privacy as a woman. I realise the company’s believe they own my data and believe they can sell it. I do not give consent.
NOTES: Snowden’s comments –
Central problem is you do not know what the phone is doing!
According to Snowden you can turn off your phone but how do you know it is off he says. Old phones mean you can take the battery out that stops signals. The phones now are sealed. Airplane mode doesn’t turn off wifi. We don’t know what the phone is doing or what it is connected to? Apps talk want it to stop after using e.g. messenger, weather app. People need to be able to make intelligent decisions not just app by app on a connection by connection basis. You may use Facebook – want to connect to Facebook content servers, want to be able message a friend but you don’t want it to talk to an ad server or analytics server or third party (monitoring your behaviour). Facebook crams them (third party) into every app you download, you don’t know as you can see it, problem with data collection today. Industry built on keeping this invisible. Need to make activities of our devices (iPhone, computer) more visible and understandable to the average person and give them control. Say there is a little green icon spokes coming off, every app your phone is talking to, all hosts talking to. Once every 3 seconds phone is checking in with Facebook. No-one wants spying. If people could press a button to turn off apps ie. Facebook etc. People would want no spying. Google and Apple do not allow the button to exist. If the companies think it is not understood, too complex then it needs to be simplified. It is a problem.
Stories data breached, companies spying here or there, manipulating purchases, search results, hiding things on your timeline – influence and manipulate in different ways. Happens as a result of single problem – which is inequality of available information. They can see everything about you , what you device is doing, they can do anything with your device. You paid for the device, increasingly governments and corporations own it. we do all the work, pay taxes, costs… People work hard but they are owning less. The young people do not know what they are losing.
Data became a commodity, valuable to Google an social media platform, making billions of dollars earned, people are accustomed, difficult to turn that horse around. Snowden says money becomes power and influence. Information becomes influence.
Surveilance states they won’t relinquish as they embed this reality. The permanent record is the story of our lives.
Permanent record is the subject of the book.
You life how intentionally BY DESIGN both government and corporate realised it was in their mutual interest to conceal data collection activities to increase the breadth and depth of their sensor networks spread out throughout society. Back in the day Intelligence collection in US (sigin) was sending FBI agent to put alligator clips in a building, or disguised as a workman bug in a building or built satellite listening, in desert, parabolic collector listening to satellite emissions. Satellite links were owned by military and exclusive to government not affecting everyone broadly, all surveillance was targeted. What changed with technology was surveillance becomes indiscriminately, dragnet, ‘bulk collection’ should become dirties phrases in the language if we have decency. This this was intentionally concealed from us, government did it used classification, companies did it, denied it, they say you agreed to this. You didn’t agree to anything. They say they put Terms of Service page up, you clicked. You clicked a button said I Agree when you are trying to open an account to talk to friends, email etc. You were not agreeing to 600 page legal form, even if read you wouldn’t understand. Even if did, the first para says this agreement can be changed anytime by the company.
NOTE: They built a legal paradigm that presumes RECORDS collected about us DO NOT BELONG TO US. This is one of the core principles on which mass surveillance from the government perspective in US is legal. Government says it is legal, it is fine. Our perspective as a public, says that is the problem this isn’t okay, the scandal is not in their breaking the law, it is in that they DON’T HAVE TO BREAK THE LAW. It is called a third party doctrine, legal principle Smith vs Maryland. Established a precedent that the record don’t belong to the guy they belong to the company. The company has ownership over records, back in 1970s. Still relying on this precedent. No-one has a privacy right over their lives (data collection). Not data being manipulated but PEOPLE being MANIPULATED.
Everyone jumps on the bandwagon to make money without a backward glance to the social cost to democracy.I personally do not feel safe and I do not want people I do not know where I am and gathering my data about what I do, where I go, who I speak to, who my friends are. I don’t want people accessing my blog if they are monitoring me rather than reading my blog out of interest. It is a form of surveillance. This feels to me like stalking. I am alarmed by the facts raised above that my data is not mine, YES IT IS. What I am doing now is my thoughts on a page they do not belong to WordPress, the IP company or those surveilling me. I revoke other rights that state I have agreed, I haven’t. This provides insights into FOI requests and why no data is forthcoming. I am not fully informed.
I have real concerns about the medical effects cancer and EMF with iPhones. This is a real problem.
The apps are companies they are not just little icons (analytics) and it is too much for the average person to understand and make clear decisions.
The homeless guy living in the bush I met recently is probably right to be there. He is free. He is not accessing digital. He has let go of this society. I can understand why that is a good thing.
This poem came from inspiration about the Australian bushfires and homelessness.
Notable excerpt from The Big Issue article below:
“Fire has destroyed 8.4 million hectares of land in southern and eastern Australia, an area bigger than Scotland. And despite heroic efforts by thousands of firefighters and volunteers the relentless, unpredictable and fast-changing blazes have killed at least 26 people, more than a billion animals, and destroyed over 2,000 homes. “
I feel her pain. What will it take for our world to wake up to its illusion of economic growth? When will our world come into a space of maturity to be able to self reflect and take responsibility for actions that are undermining earth systems and future generations.
At what point does the money mean nothing?
At what point do you put children’s happiness ahead of your own?
By what facts do you determine that your insistence on IT Smart Cities and automation is sustainable when it uses energy and marginalises those who cannot participate?
AT what point do you care about starving children, refugee flows, endless war doctrines and extensive polluting of the planet and at the same time genetically modifying plants and seeds to conform with business profit outcomes rather than homeostasis of life support systems.
This little girl talks from the heart, can you feel her? I certainly can. I would love to have been her standing in her shoes. As an adult I am ignored. I love children and my hope is that they take it into their own hands and wake up the world to the reality of extinction, we are definitely heading for that.
However, it is not inevitable, as a word some like to use for automation. The future sustainability of the planet is possible but we have to change our ways, The current economic paradigm does not work. We have to create a new paradigm where values is the centrepoint and we envisage our future on the basis of virtues, as you feel it you will see a new world arise.
I will send love to this little girl tonight and strength as they will need it. Adults have proven to be immovable when it comes to greed and there is without doubt a dark energy behind the push for profits without any serious consideration of a real sustainable future. Her video is below these points.
Equality will feature in this new world.
Values will be taught to all children.
Stewardship will replace status.
Judgement is toxic and inaccurate.
Humility will be valued above attention seeking.
All we realise that what you do to another returns to the self.
What you resist persists and what you look at disappears.
You see as you are not as others are.
What you think about you bring about.
Life mirrors what you believe back to yourself (self fulfilling prophecy)
The greatest success is to be who you really are.
The greatest happiness is to live your dreams.
Money is plastic, real wealth is living to give arising from love.
Love is the currency.
There is enough for all.
The planet will not collapse when we align with nature, which is our true nature.
Peace is not idealism it is the centrepoint of our survival as we recalibrate with nature, which is peace.
Speaking up is our true nature as expression is making impressions like footprints in the sands of time, each print changes the future. Good Luck Greta!