This is my review of AI. Artificial Intelligence is nowhere near as intelligent as the human being. Those looking at humans and seeing monkey’s do not see the real person, they see as they are not as we are. We are far deeper, more complex and more beautiful than most can conceive of. Humanity is full of stories of great inspiration, incredible courage and an ability to think outside the box. To imagine there are those who want to remove us like a plague. Perhaps they need to question their thinking and ‘think again’.
This blog is a public interest disclosure directed to the OAIC and the public as I hold concerns of fraud and corruption inside the Australian Government not being addressed by the regulator charged to protect the ‘public interest’, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
I was inspired to write this poem which I sent to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) in response to the email on 3 July. The poem was sent 4 July which for me represents my ‘independence’ as I sat for 6 hours to write it and express my freedom of speech in the best way I know how. The blog naturally came after as I felt inspired to write my story, as expression is healthy, suppression is not. I am open to the OAIC response to me and open to publish their view as transparency, as I believe in two sides, justice and problem solving. I have written many concerns to the OAIC which have not been answered satisfactorily or ignored. This is why I have felt moved to communicate my truth. Perhaps I am the Fool but maybe that is the school for world peace.
This is the email sent to me by the OAIC on 3 July 2025.
Dear Ms Carew-Holmes,
We write in response to your email dated 24 June 2025.
Please note that, as an Australian Government agency, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (the OAIC) is obligated to handle the personal information you provided us as part of your Information Commissioner review (IC review) application securely and in accordance with the Australian Privacy Principles set out in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and with the Archives Act 1983 (Cth). Please rest assured that the OAIC has only used and disclosed the personal information you provided in your IC review application for the authorised purpose of assessing your IC review application lodged on 14 August 2023.
If you continue to hold concerns about the handling of your personal information by the OAIC in this matter, you may lodge a privacy complaint to the OAIC in the first instance. Information about lodging a privacy complaint about the OAIC can be found here: Privacy complaints about the OAIC | OAIC. Our online complaint form is available here: OAIC Web Form.
If you are otherwise dissatisfied with the decision provided to you on 24 June 2025, the review rights and complaint information is provided on the last page of that decision.
As per our email on 24 June 2025, this IC review has been closed, and we are unable to assist you further with this matter.
Yours sincerely
[NO NAME]
Freedom of Information Case Management BranchOffice of the Australian Information CommissionerGPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001| oaic.gov.au1300 363 992 |foidr@oaic.gov.au
My response to Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)
The issue from this Applicant’s perspective is the privacy of “my FOI information gathered” from Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC, 2024) and the Department of Health and Aged Care (DOH, 2025).
It is clear that my data is being gathered and has been withheld from myself. What I need is – to be able to view this data unredacted to be sure this is not violating my right to FOI. There needs to be checks available.
I question why my documents that I have produced are released in FOI when I am not asking for my data to be sent back to me. I am asking for information to/from the Departments about myself, not what I’ve sent in unless it has a direct baring as it links to Departmental data about myself for clarity.
I have strenuously raised safety reasons and public interest concerns. This is not mentioned nor recorded in RESOLVE (cite – OAIC data release). The fact I am homeless is NEVER mentioned as if irrelevant or perhaps housed within the perception that I might believe I am entitled to FOI but in reality I am not given I am not monetorised in the system.
This website speaks to those concerns by experts and would be the evidence that FULL DISCLOSURE in FOI processes is not only critical but life saving. The evidence is clear that Covid-19 was a bioweapon and many people died as a result of this untruth and had their lives affected, as I did. They were not dissidents they were speaking the truth as they were independent and had conscience. They took risks and realised they may be ‘removed’ or ‘killed’. When authorities are informed, as I did, as a duty of care, and do not change their track, it becomes clear this moves into the realm of war crimes. I draw attention of the Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Tydd to this link below. I ask for you to pay particular attention to former Pfizer Chief Scientist Michael Yeadon who was one of the first to explain that the vaccines (genetic therapies) were not safe, PCR was ineffective and healthy people can’t transmit disease, thus there is no need for quarantine under FEMA. It is akin to placing innocent ‘healthy’ people under some form of house arrest without trial as the term ‘lockdown’ implies.
What concerned me was data was released online and there is pressure to allow it, when it is known third parties gather data (e.g. telecommunications, IT companies, electricity companies, intelligence and official breaking of encryption by other actors) rendering all online activity porous. Even passwords are not protecting privacy.
The Department of Health (DOH) FOI release sent my questions back to me redacted. These questions were directed to the Prime Minister just prior to the Vaccine rollout. That data was not ‘about myself’. I have said repeatedly I did not want my own data as I have the records, that is why the issue was escalated to the OAIC for IC review. I find the redacting of my own document sent back to me noteworthy as clearly there is awareness that third parties access online and they don’t want other parties reading my questions (censorship?) which raised important issues of corruption and profiting from the vaccine rollout with impunity. For the record none of my questions were answered but apparently sent to PMC FOI officers. Instead of answers I receive an official letter from the Prime Minister Scott Morrison personally urging me to be vaccinated. Given my extensive research on Covid-19 sent to the Australian Senate I find that encouragement the basis for my concerns about targeting andpersonal safety given I was clearly viewed as a ‘threat’ in an environment clearly not democratic. The questions were legitimate and gave the government an opportunity to address concerns of safety which it didn’t.
It raises questions about FOI used for fishing for my data to determine ‘threats’ rather than addressing my FOI request in integrity with checks and balances.
The issue of Personal Information is mentioned by OAIC and pointed to in the Privacy Act 1988 and Australian Privacy Principles (APP) but in reality offers no real privacy protections for information collected ‘about myself’ and general information (opinions, research, classifications, assessments, profiling and communications ‘about myself’ circulating in the government, third parties and stakeholders). It means I cannot find out if there was incorrect statements made about me and threats to my life which is not only in the public interest, but my own interest to protect myself from harm. The allowance of false profiling can be projected onto any member of the public or persons at the top. Everyone has a right to speak their mind, give their opinion, share truths with others to offer clarity to empower fair debate on subjects that affect all our lives directly, and in the future our children and grandchildren as ex Pfizer Michael Yeadon points out.
In my experience ‘personal information’ issues has been raised by agencies and OAIC rendering FOI conditional on providing identity. This was never requested in FOI processes prior to Covid-19. It appears to be used now to train the public to give ID when asked without question. There are no laws to say this is necessary. The Privacy Act was to protect people from intrusive surveillance. I recall Peter Garratt (Midnight Oil band) arguing against the Australian ID card as intrusive and illegal. Covid-19 became the place where ID was demanded under false pretences to force behavioural change and undermine human rights.
I was not after personal information but information ‘about myself’ which under the FOI Act does not require proof of identity, only minimal information. Prime Minister and Cabinet supported by OAIC contracted Assistant Commissioner Ji Beom Jang made it very difficult for me to access my rights and requested more proof siding with PMC and forcing me to disclose more personal information as a legal document was clearly not enough. I was surprised at the request asking who owns my website ‘Worldpeacefull’ and then connecting this to ID which was irrelevant. Requests for proof of my emails was also irrelevant as these same emails had been used to communicate to the OAIC in the past. The OAIC supported PMC in searching for my worldpeacefull website online and accepted their opinion that some links were Australian but conveyed they were not satisfied it was mine, when anyone could easily ascertain it was. It was not relevant as ID anyway, it was data gathering raising my profile as a peacemaker so others could access my work in peace, education, conflict resolution, anti-bullying, blogs and empowerment for peaceful societies. This was a form of data gathering sanctioned by OAIC which is contravening of the duties of a regulator.
FOI Act was not mentioned in the email from at OAIC on 3 July 2025. I wondered why?
2.2Submitters were invariably supportive of a well-functioning FOI system. Australia’s FOI system was seen by submitters to be vital to a healthy and well-functioning democracy,[1] a fundamental aspect of the rule of law,[2] crucial to ensuring government transparency and accountability,[3] and essential to enabling the public to participate in and scrutinise government decision-making.[4]
2.3The former FOI Commissioner, Mr Leo Hardiman PSM KC, described the FOI system as ‘an important adjunct to the doctrine of responsible government’ that provides ‘a check on the integrity and apolitical nature of the [Australian Public Service]’.[5] The Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) outlined the role and significance of Australia’s FOI system:
A well-functioning FOI system is a key part of Australia’s integrity architecture; it promotes government accountability by enhancing the transparency of policy-making, administrative decision-making and service delivery. The right to access government information, subject to appropriate exemptions in the public interest, is now accepted as an essential component of a democratic society. The [Freedom of Information Act 1982] recognises that government-held information is a national resource, managed for public purposes, and as such, access to information should be prompt and at the lowest reasonable cost, unless there is an overriding reason not to disclose it.[6]
2.4The website of the Office of the Australian Information (OAIC) recognises that government-held information is ‘a national resource and is managed for public purposes, and that public access to it should be prompt and at the lowest reasonable cost’.[7]
2.5The OAIC also submitted that:
A community that is better informed can participate more effectively in the nation’s democratic processes. Consequently, an effective and efficient FOI system is fundamentally in the public interest.[8]
2.6The Law Council of Australia told the committee that the FOI regime was ‘critical to the effective operation of the administrative law system and more broadly to the integrity of Australia’s democratic institutions‘.[9]
2.7A range of submissions received from representatives of the media also emphasised the importance of a robust FOI system for public interest journalism.[10] Crikey claimed that ‘the information journalists have revealed using the FOI system has been hugely consequential in informing readers of government decisions‘.[11] Country Press Australia (CPA) told the committee that:
Our laws and access to FOI is a fundamental ingredient of good and even great journalism in this country. The use of existing FOI rules has helped uncover some of the biggest and most important stories of our era…The ongoing existence of a free and open press is a fundamental component of any democracy’.
2.8 Civil society groups also emphasised the value of the FOI regime for their work, arguing that information obtained under FOI enables their clients to engage more effectively with government processes.
Notable extracts from FOI Act:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 – SECT 11B
Factors favouring access
(3) Factors favouring access to the document in the public interest include whether access to the document would do any of the following:
(a) promote the objects of this Act (including all the matters set out in sections 3 and 3A);
(b) inform debate on a matter of public importance;
(c) promote effective oversight of public expenditure;
(d) allow a person to access his or her own personal information. (Note: about myself)
Legislation underpinning the FOI system extracted from Freedom of Information Act 1982
2.9The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) underpins Australia’s FOI system. At the time it was introduced, the FOI Act was the first such legislation brought forward by a Westminster-style government.[13] Inaugural InformationCommissioner, Professor John McMillan AO, described the legislation as ‘a radical milestone in Australian public law’.[14]
2.10The FOI Act is supplemented by the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations 1982—which provides that the agency that holds requested information (decision-making agency), may at its discretion, impose a charge for processing an FOI request or providing access to a document released under FOI—and the Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous provisions) Regulations 1982.[15]
2.11The FOI Act was designed to ensure that government departments and authorities facilitate and promote the disclosure of the information they hold, except where there are ‘special reasons’ not to. The FOI Act acknowledges the need to balance these two objectives, and recognises that a government cannot function with an absolute right of access. The FOI Act therefore outlines circumstances where confidentiality over certain types of information should be maintained.[16] The OAIC website lists three categories of exemption: exemptions, conditional exemptions, and documents that are accessible to the public under other arrangements for a fee. Each is detailed below.
2.12First, certain documents may be exempt under the FOI Act, including documents:
that affect national security, defence, or international relations;
[Question: what if national security becomes national interest (business) of privatised agencies who use legislation to profits and avoid Trans Pacific Partnership legal action – suing governments when affecting profits?]
[Question: what if foreign actors are working in contracts with the Federal Cabinet]
that affect law enforcement and public safety;
[Question: What if the police are privatised? Who is on the board, fines become revenue raising. The oath changes from protection of people to protection of assets? Hence the presence of Protective Safety Officers learning from AFP]
where the secrecy rules of a law applies;
where legal professional privilege applies;
[Question: What of City of London magic circle law firms (large) who protect multinationals?]
that contain material collected in confidence;
whose disclosure would be in contempt of parliament or in contempt of court;
disclosing trade secrets or commercially valuable information; and
[Question: What if public confidential data becomes the ‘new gold’ thus part of trade secrets (contracts, non-disclosures) and of commercial value]
[Question: What if the Australian Electoral Commission is privatised and is accepting donations (which it is?), and other State electoral bodies?]
2.13Second, some documents may be conditionally exempt under the FOI Act, including a document that has:
personal information that would be unreasonable to disclose;
information about certain operations of the agency (such as operations, audits, examinations, or employee management);
[Question: What of private actors in operations and privatised records (ownership)?[
information about the deliberative processes relating to an agency or minister’s functions;
[Question: What of Ministers holding public information and sending it offsite?]
information that could damage federal and state government relations;
[Question: If it is unlawful then it should be released]
information that may damage the Australian economy; and
[Question: If unlawful pharmaceutical companies are causing harm to the Australian people then it is in the public interest to release information no matter if it damages the economy. In fact OAIC is not to protect departments. The public interest case ensures disclosure]
information about the Australian government’s financial or property interests.[19]
[Question: What if financial interests are equity financiers who have dubious histories of crimes against humanity? What of property interests buying up Australian Real Estate to implement SMART Cities. These properties become owned by the property purchaser. What if these assets are owned by foreign countries and they decide to protect their assets with military?, What then?]
2.14Third, documents that are accessible to the public under other arrangements for a fee are also exempt from the FOI Act.[20] See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the merits of fees, charges, and costs for FOI applications.
[Question: Consider abolishing the fee or charge as these too become barriers to freedom of information?]
2.15AGD submitted that FOI exemptions ‘were intended to protect a specific “interest” which could be justified as outweighing the public interest of providing access to the particular information’.[21] An agency that holds requested information may nevertheless decide to disclose a document, even if the document may be exempt or conditionally exempt. Agencies are therefore required to weigh up factors that favour access and those that favour non-disclosure.
[Question: Why is a ‘specific interest’ specified as discretionary to allow access public information yet the public are told ‘no access’ as ‘exempt’?]
Factors that favour disclosure include whether the provision of access would promote the aims of the FOI Act and would promote the participation of the public in government decision-making. An agency or minister cannot take into account the potential for disclosure to result in embarrassment or loss of confidence in government, misunderstandings, confusion or unnecessary debate, or the seniority of the document’s author.[22]
Question: How does OAIC weigh up private interests and the public interest? This statement is key: “.. An agency or minister cannot take into account the potential for disclosure to result in embarrassment or loss of confidence in government, misunderstandings, confusion or unnecessary debate, or the seniority of the document’s author… ” This is the core of my persistence with the OAIC to provide FULL DISCLOSURE in the public interest as crimes are occurring which are causing harm to the Australian people (and other’s around the world. What of appointment via contract (ABN) of Assistant Information Commissioners and lawyers who have had prior work with identified corporations engaged in promoting the Global Reset and New World Order agenda. How does this work in the public interest and how is it not a conflict of interest?)
2.16The OAIC encourages the use of proactive publication and administrative access (see Box 2.1, below), through which agencies and ministers elect to release information as a matter of course, rather than waiting for an FOI request.[23] The OAIC also oversees the Information Publication Scheme, which requires publication of specific categories of information by Australian government agencies, reflecting the pro-disclosure goals of the FOI Act.[24]
2.17A decision-making agency may also refuse access for ‘practical refusal reasons’ if an FOI request does not sufficiently identify the requested documents or if the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources or interfere with the performance of the decision-making agency.[25]
[Question: It is a tall order to expect the public to know the documents they are seeking particularly in the realm of vaccines or information ‘about themselves. You cannot use ‘practical refusals’, ‘diversion of resources’ or ‘lacking in substance’ as a legitimate reason to refuse access. These are used strategically as barriers in my experience.]
2.18The Attorney-General’s Department submitted that the FOI system, when designed more than 40 years ago, was intended ‘to serve as one feature, within a broader landscape of integrity related measures, to ensure government transparency and accountability’.[26]
[Question: How is it transparent to repeatedly state the discretion to decline an IC Review without facts or sound reasons. It works against integrity, transparency and accountability. The delegate can simply use this as they do not want to be held responsible for information becoming public that discredits agencies or exposes them to criminal prosecution. The OAIC allowed third parties to search for me without consent. They also allowed litigation and IT team to do ‘broad’ searches to ensure there are no legal cases. This is misuse of the FOI Act in my view’]
Therefore, I require FULL DISCLOSURE on the basis of public interest criteria.
The identity issue stood out for me as a key concern in the Prime Minister and Cabinet FOI and it was highly concerning to see this used as a barrier for myself to access FOI rights to information to/from … ‘about me’.
The barriers created repeated requests for identity and FOI officers at PMC stating they were not satisfied, forced me to provide more personal information that I would otherwise not have done. This breached the Privacy Principles and the Privacy Act as it was coerced disclosures. The legal document from a lawyer was more than sufficient, yet I was pressed for more, Why? This felt like data gathering and intrusion into my personal information. I provided Statutory Declarations from a lawyer, Justice of the Peace both citing my licence and a video of my late mother stating she gave birth to me. Evidence that goes way beyond proof and moves into the realm of gathering personal information for other purposes. In addition, OAIC had dealt with me for years and yet for some strange reason could not identify me to their own satisfaction. I had direct dealings with FOI officers, using the emails under question. One OAIC employee on reviewing Ji Beom Jang’s concerns about my original FOI could simply send the email to me and have me send it back as verification, he didn’t do that. As it turned out, I had forgotten in 2021 I had sent it via post, I recalled I was avoiding data gathering. Luckily I was able to locate the original and pdf’s it to OAIC. PMC would have known it was posted as they received it on 28/1/2021. The pressure about proof of ownership of my emails was a deliberate ‘barrier’ as no-one is asked who owns GMAIL. So this appeared and was experienced as harassment, erecting barriers, intrusive requests for personal information and forced further disclosure of ‘personal information’. I can only conclude that this is to force my showing my licence, not as proof of who I am but to force a contract with OAIC and the Departments involved to recognise them as authorities in a business to business context. None of this is disclosed transparently by OAIC but as a result of my own research indicating unlawful Corporate Governance violating the Australian Constitution.
My question is – why was I being prevented from my FOI rights by the fallacious use of ID ? Having researched the Global Reset links I shared with OAIC highlighting the public interest case re: Conscientious Objection to ACT Health Orders and International Health Regulations reports amongst others (see below), it is evident we are experiencing corruption, fraud and foreign interventions in our government that some report is in fact a national takeover by foreign interests as it is they who require ID. As a national I am represented by the Commonwealth of Australia who under oath use public funds to provide goods and services. Section 44 makes clear corporations and profiting from office are unlawful.
Therefore, it becomes clear the request for ID is not about ‘who I am’ it is about ‘contract‘ with private actors who are not the Commonwealth of Australian Constitutional government. I sent you the link as evidence of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA in debased latin (not proper English) listed on the Washington D.C. Securities Exchange Commission and featured in my Social Contract as evidence that the nation state has being corporatised and this has caused a major breach to National Security that ASIO, ASIS and Home Affairs do not appear to have acted on. This escalates the public interest need for FULL DISCLOSURE to ensure the national security of our country. My links below in the public interest case.
Washington D.C. is a city state it is not the United States of America. It is the same independent status as Vatican City and the City of London. There was no response to this disclosure when the OAIC as a regulator they are tasked with reporting fraud and corruption.
This issue is of critical importance as it means our government (nation state) is corporatised and this invites stakeholders on to the board. This enables investors to provide equity funding which becomes a national security matter.
This is why I need to know who I am dealing with? I am not, as a responsible national, contracting with a US city state in Washington D.C., but my own legitimate government – Commonwealth of Australia government that is guided under the highest law in the land, the Australian Constitution. Why, this indicates national rules: constitutional rights, protections, services and common law. We are a sovereign nation where the power was transferred to the “the people”. It is not about ownership but nationhood. That is why I have asked you for Identity, not for any other reason but to understand who I am dealing with. The fact you refused to provide lawful identification in the same spirit of asking myself, suggests inequality firstly and secondly, concealment of the truth from myself.
I have real concerns of corruption and unlawful access to my data and this impacts my safety as many who have been erroneously targeted have been murdered or become sick ‘pneumonia’ for speaking the truth which is normalised in a democracy but criminalised in a totalitarian state.
I have given you my Social Contract to make clear I have an oath to adhere to the Commonwealth laws of my country and that my allegience is to the nation state not any corporate entity profiting from suffering and dis-ease. See critical links below that were sent to the OAIC and make a clear case in the public interest.
Bitchute videos were provided further opening me up to personal scrutiny as I was not believed when I presented ID. This series grew as I answered every letter on video and provided my comments. I provided ‘public interest’ videos’ as Reasons for a IC Review, unaware there was no intention of giving myself a IC Review, instead it further increased risk to myself as I had to make public who I am, my comments and concerns. These reasons were refused by Ji beom Jang and excluded. This raised my concerns.
The ID/contract issue has not been resolved with OAIC.
In the PMC FOI request I saw that my name was in DEBASED latin SUSAN CAREW which is evident in previous FOI’s is not proper English but symbolic writing appearing as my name but is actually a corporate person. This means that you are regarding me as a debtor (FOIDR) when I am a national of a country and no financial transactions should be happening under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. Taxes pay for the OAIC as a statutory body and there should not be any pecuniary interests or profiting from office, inclusive of receipt of equity financing. There should be no stakeholders, other than the community and Australian bodies. Thus, I am not contracting in a business-to-business relationship and the concerns I raised were: 1) I am not being fully informed or consulted with clear communication of OAIC identity and my status 2) data is being gathered and stored without consent 3) I am being denied access to FOI (refused IC Reviews) due to my sole status and refusal to contract.
This means as a national I am not getting access to information ‘about myself’ being held in order to correct the record as I am being falsely profiled and targeted which has impacting my life as I am denied entry to parliament (see below), I am denied Centrelink and had debt applied, I am denied access to Superannuation, my Medicare card has been ceased, and I hold concerns that my mother was not safe. I am concerned of data being shared and myself profiled, similar to a social credit system illegally.
My public interest case was provided to you when I described refused access to the Federal Parliament and false profiling. I was selected out of a queue by a man wearing a black mask who asked for my identity. I never take my bag into parliament as I don’t want to have to wait in line for the cloakroom, I have been going for years to Question Time. I noticed at the time no-one else in the queue was asked for ID, I was selected. I told him the licence was in the car. He asked where I was going. I said Question Time. It was the first sitting of the Albanese Government. I was removed from the line and refused entry into my own Parliament for the first time in my life raising the question – is this my parliament? I was told an Australian Federal Police (AFP) officer was not to let me in as if I had done something wrong. I came back the next day with ID signed off by a JP and was refused again by security and directed to the AFP as if a problem person. I was told by Wilson’s Security (parliamentary security) I had been banned from parliament for 2 weeks for protest and being thrown out of parliament. This is unheard of most are banned for 24 hours. Why two weeks? This was the length of Question Time. I was astounded that they told lies to keep me out. Wilsons Security is not a reputable security contractor and has many allegations of serious abuses in offshore detention of which Scott Morrison was the Immigration Minister (see below). Their contract was cancelled. So why were they chosen as security? I know I was falsely targeted and profiled and the fact they lied means anyone can be profiled and targeted on the basis of false allegations and data gathering by actors who are not working in the public interest. On later reflection I believe Artificial Intelligence scanned my face and it is likely I have a score allocated in a trialled Chinese Social Credit System.
These are public interest questions of data gathering and false profiling the public due to politicised environments advancing a Technocracy with significant investments around the world without public referendum or informed consent. This places any member of the public at risk if they speak up democratically raising concerns about an agenda like Technocracy, New World Order, 5G, Covid-19, Artificial Intelligence, Vaccines, Bioweapons and corruption etc. In a dictatorship this becomes criminalised without trial or persons locked up in quarantine centres (not unlike concentration camps reminiscent of Nazi Germany). Innocently the people reveal their thoughts online, in social media and in public believing they are in a free and open society.
What appears to be happening via digitisation is that members of the public who innocently contribute to the public debate are quietly targeted, denied access, isolated, income cut off, assets stripped unaware that it is a form of covert persecution to punish them. They can become ‘targeted individuals’ on the basis of false profiling on the basis of compliance theologies not democracy of which every Australian believes they are living in. This is the public interest area of highest concern and raised repeatedly to OAIC who appear unable to speak to this or assure the public all our data is safe, not just personal data.
As I made clear to you I need to know your ID as you have an ABN and I can’t be sure you are who you say you are. You did not send me the legal document I requested but pointed me to links and offered assurances, this is insufficient and does not allay my concerns. This is why I did not consent for OAIC to continue the FOI with Department of Health and Aged Care and did not answer emails. I had not received confirmation ‘you were who you say you are’. Nonetheless you continued to liaise with DOH and issued a Directive for them to gather data on the falsified FOI changing the identifier to Susan Carew AND COVID-19, Susan Carew AND Coronavirus, my email address without consent. I had told DOH in 2023 to use only my name as the identifier, they added in Covid-19, why? All data gathered 12 documents (and more) was not consented to, nor staff names removed, nor deletion of duplicates and exemptions. The other ‘third parties’ were not authorised to look for data and it became evident that the search process was used by litigation and IT to do ‘broad searches’ as if trying to find data on myself due to concern of future litigation. This suggests awareness that unlawful activity is going on.
The process with Prime Minister and Cabinet (prior FOI) emailed 2 large tranches to OAIC but this information was withheld from myself. This appears to be data gathering for other purposes and not Freedom of Information as my right.
Why do FOI assistant commissioners and others have ABNs and links to organisations that were significant in the Global Reset. I raised these issues transparently. I am not satisfied. Employees of the OAIC should be full time employees of the public service to ensure they work for the Commonwealth of Australia not other actors or open to contracting with Department’s using ABNs. This can introduce compromise and conflicts of interest. This is significant in a sensitive area of Information Commissioner at a time where the digital Technocracy is being bankrolled by large global players worldwide interested in global control not freedom.
I hold concerns of the OAIC breaching the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and FOI Act 1982 refusing to honour my request of ‘no consent of data gathering my data at the OAIC’ or any department until I am clear ‘who is who in the zoo’ and that they not only work for the ‘public interest’ but have sworn an oath of loyalty to Australia and not working for foreign actors or getting kickbacks. This is critical for me to ensure my safety.
You engage in sleight of hand by assuring me with statements of protecting my personal information and assurances of non-disclosure when you demand personal information as part of ID via email or webforms. This is automatically IS disclosed to third parties as there is no privacy online. Your IT system is run through DEWR – Department of Workplace Relations as stated earlier, I believe highlighted in your report, they store data. We have telecommunications actors they store data and as we see with Optus this company is sold by China to Canada, all Australian telecommunication records. Even when we use our iPhones our location is being identified and contacts accessed. Our voice and face recognition is being detected without consent but use. The public are not fully informed.
I was a market analyst in my life and we gathered data for industry and we had to inform the public of filming and data and dis-identify data. . This is not happening as ‘information is the new gold’. It is fraught with all sorts of abuses. In addition, the IT industry is accessing all data by virtue of software products and then licencing software so they always have access. No public debate around this, no sense of social harm is being communicated. As the investments are too big and too much to lose.
The loss of privacy is the real loss when it is used against people. Particularly those ‘innocent’ and children. Please correct me if I am wrong. It has major human rights issues as actors who are not working in the public interest can use data to smear or harm people they consider ‘dangerous’. That word was used during Covid. It was untrue.
I found the entire process dishonest and not in the public interest at all.
Through my dealings with the OAIC I feel my life was put more at risk. The tables below are from the Australian Government Organisational Registry.
It is clear that Principal organisations are the Commonwealth entities. I question the Commonwealth company given the Australian Constitution. This is 190 entities.
Secondary bodies increasingly invite private actors and should be scrutinised. They number 677 (very large).
The Other bodies total 437. So secondary 190 + 437 = 627 bodies that are likely ‘third parties’ leaving us with only 190 that are deemed the Commonwealth. The reason I conscientiously object to data gathering by third parties is they are profit oriented. They have not signed a oath to the Australian people or the Australian Constitution. As stated data is viewed as the new gold and means they can profit from confidential Australian data. If a person like myself writes reports on Covid-19 and this is considered a cash cow for private sector and governments, then my freedom of speech becomes a ‘threat’ or ‘risk’ when it is a duty of care. If Trans Pacific Partnership Agreements are made then any diminishing of profits means the government can be sued. This places pressure on suppression of dissent or opposition. This runs counter to democracy which is not only a right in this country it is ‘who we are’ as humans.
That is why I say you are putting my life at risk by directing other parties to collect data, particularly those inside the Department of Health and Aged Care. This is where I see major breaches of my privacy.
The reason for the FOI was to find out if information about myself had been picked up by third parties given that the political environment Australians find themselves in is clearly compromised and deaths are happening as I have explained.
I am aware that you have done deals with the Department of Health and Aged Care whereby you will gain the data if you agree to not disclose it to me, the Applicant. I find that highly concerning and it appears you are part of data gathering on your Resolve system.
Your organisation does not answer questions anywhere near adequately or clearly. Complaints have been expressed and no genuine attempt to clear up matters. I have written to Elizabeth Tydd and she has been silent. This does not create trust or a sense of being ‘heard’. It creates the opposite.
My PMC FOI letter raised concerns about searches and foreign actors in the government was not responded to. When the data was wrong on the subject heading you did not change it at my request. It was my email not your document, it should be an easy matter of changing the data on my request to match the attached letter. The letter was left out as ‘unacknowledged’, why?
The process was full of legalese and complicated. It was stressful at times and I had to do more work than OAIC to understand what was going on. The discretionary decisions to not continue with an IC Review appear a deliberate ‘rule of thumb’ it is not based on the untrue statements of ‘lacking in substance’. All my information was full of substance as I gave far more information than I received. I live the transparency and full disclosure I have asked for.
You can view this as part ofmy complaint there is much more. This is just to give you feedback again and for OAIC to re-think how the Australian public is being treated and that we deserve our privacy and Freedom of Information as it is typically about us and the government is answerable to the Australian people not stakeholders no matter corporate ideologies.
We are all in dark times. I do not dislike any person I’ve dealt with but can only hope behind closed doors there is some serious self reflection about what is being done in the name of the Australian people.
Every person deserves their privacy. If we create ‘zero tolerance’, ‘zero trust’ arising out of cyber realities created by the very actors forcing ID then we lose our friendly, happy society where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It is saddening that I feel to publish this post as my request to visit in person was ignored.
I am not confident at all my data is private nor my FOI rights backed up by the OAIC who are supposed to be the regulator. My hope is that something more fair and balanced arises out of this and my questions are answered and concerns clarified. I will be equally happy to write another blog making clear the issue was resolved. To-date it is definitely not resolved.
My mother can have the last word as I hold concerns she was ‘removed’. It is for her that I ask my questions in the public interest. My mother is your mother.
People think material success will bring happiness. They think status is critical. They want to make sure they have something to show for their lives. What if your life is your art gallery, what if your portrait is who you are on the inside? What master peace would you create? For everyone is GREAT as Dr Patch Adams said to we clowns in Russia. He was right. I do not see anyone that does not have the potential for greatness but not ‘greater than’ just realising they can access something truly wonderful within if only they believe.
We are here to be who we are. Many do not know who they are. Yet when you put a focus on finding out, your Happy Destiny becomes Unavoidable.
AI might be more logical but it has no emotional intelligence which is the core issue.
We do not need AI in healthcare as medicine is for relief not healing and AI cannot give the human touch which is needed.
We do not need a New World Order or World Goverment as leadership is compromised and profit is a core issue. The lack of empathy which is at the core of unwellness, is evident in healthcare as it is a profit centre and has been weaponised.
The public are in the best position to lead as they have common sense that the leaders don’t, particularly when asked as a group.
