This video was deleted from YouTube since they have such high ethical standards! NOT!!!!
Australia
Even the Left leaning THE CONVERSATION carried an article concerning the new law here in Australia, that seems to me, takes away even more of our freedoms and privacy. All this is occurring under a supposed CONSERVATIVE Federal government! Is this law truly meant to catch REAL criminals or is it to actually meant to spy on those citizens that may not swallow all the Kool Aid handed out by government? Personally, laws such as this only provides more reasons why many do not trust the government! With that said ‘A new law gives Australian police unprecedented powers for online surveillance, data interception and altering data. These powers, outlined in the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill, raise concerns over potential misuse, privacy and security.
The bill updates the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. In essence, it allows law-enforcement agencies or authorities (such as the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission) to modify, add, copy or delete data when investigating serious online crimes.
The Human Rights Law Centre says the bill has insufficient safeguards for free speech and press freedom. Digital Rights Watch calls it a “warrantless surveillance regime” and notes the government ignored the recommendations of a bipartisan parliamentary committee to limit the powers granted by the new law.
What’s more, legal hacking by law enforcement may make it easier for criminal hackers to illegally access computer systems via the same vulnerabilities used by the government.
What’s in the law?
The bill introduces three new powers for law-enforcement agencies:
- “data disruption warrants” allow authorities to “disrupt data” by copying, deleting or modifying data as they see fit
- “network activity warrants” permit the collection of intelligence from devices or networks that are used, or likely to be used, by subject of the warrant
- “account takeover warrants” let agencies take control of an online account (such as a social media account) to gather information for an investigation.
There is also an “emergency authorisation” procedure that allows these activities without a warrant under certain circumstances.
How is this different to previous laws?
Previous legislation, such as the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Telecommunications Act 1997, contained greater privacy protections. Those laws, and others such as the Surveillances Devices Act 2004, do permit law-enforcement agencies to intercept or access communications and data under certain circumstances.
However, the new bill gives agencies unprecedented interception or “hacking” powers. It also allows “assistance orders”, which could require selected individuals to assist government hacking or face up to ten years in prison.
Why do police argue this bill is required?
According to the Department of Home Affairs, more and more criminal activity makes use of the “dark web” and “anonymising technologies”. Previous powers are not enough to keep up with these new technologies.
In our view, specific and targeted access to users’ information and activities may be needed to identify possible criminals or terrorists. In some cases, law enforcement agencies may need to modify, delete, copy or add content of users to prevent things like the distribution of child exploitation material. Lawful interception is key to protecting public and national security in the fight of global community against cybercrimes.
How does lawful data interception work?
“Lawful interception” is a network technology that allows electronic surveillance of communications, as authorised by judicial or administrative order. There are standards (which means regulations and rules) for telecommunication and internet service providers to achieve this, such as those recommended by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
Law-enforcement agencies may require service providers to hand over copies of communications data, decrypted data, or intercepted data without notifying users. Service providers may also have to make available analytical tools such as graphs or charts of target behaviours.
What are the privacy concerns?
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and others have also raised privacy concerns. The bill may impact third parties who are not suspected in the investigation of criminal activities. In particular, the bill can authorise access to third party computers, communication and data.
The Human Rights Law Centre argues the proposed broad powers can potentially compel any individual with relevant knowledge of the targeted computer or network to conduct hacking activities. In some cases this may clash with an individual’s right to freedom from self-incrimination.
Enabling law enforcement agencies to modify potential evidence in a criminal proceeding is also a major issue of concern. The detection and prevention of inappropriate data disruption will be a key issue.
The implementation of the new warrants needs to be in line with Privacy Act 1988 which was introduced to promote and protect the privacy of individuals and to regulate Australian government agencies and organisations. Where some agencies may have exemption against the Privacy Act, it is important to balance between public safety and privacy impacts.
What are the security issues and impacts?
The Identify and Disrupt Bill is a part of an extensive set of Australian digital surveillance laws, including the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 (TOLA), and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015 (the Mandatory Metadata Retention Scheme).
Under the Identify and Disrupt Bill, access can be gained to encrypted data which could be copied, deleted, modified, and analysed even before its relevance can be determined. This significantly compromises users’ privacy and digital rights.
Modern encryption can be very hard to crack, so hackers often exploit other vulnerabilities in a system to gain access to unencrypted data. Governments too are reportedly using these vulnerabilities for their own lawful hacking.
Specifically, they depend on “zero-day exploits”, which use software vulnerabilities that are unknown to software vendors or developers, to hack into a system. These vulnerabilities could be exploited for months or even years before they are patched.
A conflict of interest may arise if law enforcement agencies are using zero-day exploits for lawful hacking. To protect citizens, we would expect these agencies to report or disclose any software vulnerabilities they discover to the software manufacturers so the weakness can be patched.
However, they may instead choose not to report them and use the vulnerabilities for their own hacking. This puts users at risk, as any third party, including criminal organisations, could exploit these so-called zero day vulnerabilities.
It’s not an abstract concern. In 2016, the CIA’s secret stash of hacking tools itself was stolen and published, highlighting the risk of these activities. The Chinese government has claimed the CIA was hacking targets in China for more than a decade using these and similar tools.
Government use of hacking tools may result in worse cyber security overall. The warrant powers given to Australian law enforcement agencies may protect public safety and national interests, but they may also provide powerful means for adversaries to access government data.
This includes the data and online accounts of targeted individuals like state officials, which may significantly impact national security. This possibility needs to be considered in light of the passing of the new bill.
Whilst the justification of the bill for public safety over personal privacy can be debatable, there is no doubt that the security aspects should not be undermined.’https://theconversation.com/facebook-or-twitter-posts-can-now-be-quietly-modified-by-the-government-under-new-surveillance-laws-167263?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%207%202021%20-%202052920209&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%207%202021%20-%202052920209+CID_14f79fc7e1c3fc8e7645b9e3babf5ce0&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Facebook%20or%20Twitter%20posts%20can%20now%20be%20quietly%20modified%20by%20the%20government%20under%20new%20surveillance%20laws
‘Natural immunity appears to confer longer lasting and stronger protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization from the Delta variant compared to Pfizer-BioNTech’s two-dose vaccine-induced immunity, according to a new Israeli preprint study.
The new data could play a key role in determining whether people who have previously had COVID need to receive both doses of Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, Science reported.
In the largest real-world observational study comparing natural immunity gained through previous SARS-CoV-2 infection to vaccine-induced immunity afforded by the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, people who recovered from COVID were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms or be hospitalized.
The study, published Aug. 25 on medRxiv, was conducted in one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world using data from Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis, or about 26% of the population.
Researchers examined medical records of 673,676 Israelis 16 years and older — charting their infections, symptoms and hospitalizations between June 1 and Aug. 14, when the Delta variant predominated in Israel.
The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit, with Maccabi’s research and innovation arm, KSM, found in two analyses that people who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 but were vaccinated in January and February were six to 13 times more likely to experience breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to unvaccinated people who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Researchers noted increased risk was significant for asymptomatic disease as well.
“This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant,” the researchers said.
“It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute, told Science. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID-19.”
In one analysis that assessed more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID was 27 times higher among the vaccinated and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher, Science reported.
“The differences are huge,” said Thålin, although she cautioned the numbers for infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were small.
Scripps’s Eric Topol pointed out several limitations with the study, such as the inherent weakness of a retrospective analysis compared with a prospective study that regularly tests all participants as it tracks new infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations and deaths going forward in time.
Michel Nussenzweig, an immunologist at Rockefeller University who researches the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, said the Israeli study confirms laboratory findings from a series of papers in Nature and Immunity by his group, and a study by colleague Dr. Paul Bieniasz –– whose team published a preprint earlier this month showing polyclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 should be resilient to future SARS-CoV-2 variants and may confer protection against future sarbecovirus pandemics.
Nussenzweig said his group published data showing people who recover from a SARS-CoV-2 infection continue to develop increasing numbers and types of coronavirus-targeting antibodies for up to 12 months.
By contrast, Nussenzweig said, twice-vaccinated people stop seeing increases “in the potency or breadth of the overall memory antibody compartment” a few months after their second dose.
A closer look at the data reveals public-health communication may be overstating the vaccine’s effect on transmission and understating the scale and risk of breakthrough infections, the Intelligencer reported.
“The message that breakthrough cases are exceedingly rare and that you don’t have to worry about them if you’re vaccinated — that this is only an epidemic of the unvaccinated — that message is falling flat,” said Dr. Michael Mina, a Harvard epidemiologist.
“If this was still Alpha, sure. But with Delta, plenty of people are getting sick,” said Mina. “Plenty of transmission is going on. And my personal opinion is that the whole notion of herd immunity from two vaccine shots is flying out the window very quickly with this new variant.”
“We’re seeing a lot more spread in vaccinated people,” Topol said in an interview with Intelligencer, who estimated the vaccines’ efficacy against symptomatic transmission had dropped from 90% to 60% for Delta. Later, he suggested it might have fallen to 50%.
On Aug. 25, a large preprint study published by the Mayo clinic suggested the efficacy against infection had fallen as far as 42%.
“The breakthrough problem is much more concerning than what our public officials have transmitted,” Topol said. “We have no good tracking. But every indicator I have suggests that there’s a lot more under the radar than is being told to the public so far, which is unfortunate.”
Topol explained:
“I think the problem we have is people — whether it’s the CDC or the people that are doing the briefings — their big concern is, they just want to get vaccinations up. And they don’t want to punch any holes in the story about vaccines. But we can handle the truth. And that’s what we should be getting.”
Almost all calculations about the share of breakthrough cases have been made using year-to-date 2021 data, which include several months before mass vaccination began (when by definition vanishingly few breakthrough cases could have occurred) during which time the vast majority of the year’s total cases and deaths took place.
Two-thirds of 2021 cases and 80% of COVID deaths occurred before April 1, when only 15% of the country was fully vaccinated, which means calculating year-to-date ratios means possibly underestimating the prevalence of breakthrough cases by a factor of three and breakthrough deaths by a factor of five.
In addition, if the ratios are calculated using data sets that end before the Delta surge, that adds an additional distortion since both breakthrough cases and severe illness among the vaccinated appear to be significantly more common with this variant than with previous ones.
According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of Aug. 23, 11,050 fully vaccinated people with COVID breakthrough infection had been hospitalized or died.
Unfortunately, accurate and complete data on breakthrough cases is hard to assemble. That’s because the CDC announced on May 1 it was going to stop reporting all breakthrough cases, and instead report only cases occurring in those fully vaccinated that resulted in hospitalization or death.
States currently maintain their own databases on breakthrough cases with no consensus among the states on how breakthrough cases should be counted. In Michigan, between June 15 and July 30, 19.1% of COVID cases occurred in those who were fully vaccinated.
In Utah, 8% of new cases were breakthroughs in early June, but by late July, as Delta became more prevalent, 20% of COVID cases were breakthroughs, according to NBC News.
As The Defender reported Aug. 24, about 30% of the new COVID cases in Los Angeles are breakthrough cases. The number is up from 13% in July and 5% in April.
As of Aug. 17, more than 12,500 fully vaccinated Massachusetts residents had tested positive for COVID and an additional 18 had died, NBC Boston reported.
According to CDC documents leaked to the Washington Post, there were, as of July 29, 35,000 symptomatic breakthrough cases being recorded each week — about 10% of the country’s total. Presumably many more breakthrough cases were asymptomatic, which would drive the number even higher.’https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fully-vaccinated-pfizer-more-likely-get-delta-than-natural-immunity/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4dce9ceb-7b67-486d-a8d7-8ec65a3a293e
I was talking to a Cardiologist the other week and he had never heard of THE GREAT RESET! Sadly, many people are ignorant of what the politicians and elites of this world are doing.
I thought Hitler was dead! However, if Hitler is dead, is Australia doing Hitler’s bidding from the grave? It seems that the CCP isn’t considered as much of a threat as the ordinary Australian citizen! Now, ‘With Labor’s support, the Australian government passed a law giving police unprecedented powers to spy on anyone they deem a criminal suspect online. They can also interrupt their data, and take over their accounts.
The bill was rushed through parliament and passed in 24 hours.
Despite worries about the low bar for who can issue a warrant and the government’s failure to adopt all of the protections proposed by the bipartisan joint committee on intelligence and security, the Senate passed the identify and disrupt bill on Wednesday, WION reports.
The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 (Identify and Disrupt Bill) provides three new types of warrants that allow the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to edit and erase data, take over accounts, and spy on Australians who are suspected of being involved in criminal networks.
These three additional authorities to combat online crime:
- The ability to “disrupt data” by modifying, copying, adding, or removing it is granted by a data disruption warrant.
- A network activity warrant permits the authorities to gather information from devices or networks used or anticipated to be used by those who are the subject of the order.
- Account takeover warrant: permits the police to seize control of an internet account (such as social media) in order to obtain information for an investigation.’https://milnenews.com/2021/09/04/australia-police-given-power-to-hack-citizens-devices-and-collect-or-delete-their-data/
Allowing the unborn to be born is a tragedy to some people in today’s society. Simply put, ABORTION is MURDER and these people who support abortion are therefore for MURDER! However, the grace of the Creator God even forgives and saves murderers! Saul of Tarsus is an example. The following is a dialogue concerning a “heartbeat’ bill in the state of Texas.
‘The US state of Texas has passed a law protecting unborn children in the womb by making abortion illegal from six weeks into pregnancy.
The so-called ‘Heartbeat Act’ was signed into law back in May, however on 1 September, the US Supreme Court ruled not to block the law after abortion providers and lobby groups campaigned against it.
Christian Concern’s chief executive Andrea Williams debated journalist Hilary Freeman on GB News about the new law. Shockingly, Hilary commented, “I can’t see the difference between what’s going on in Afghanistan and what’s going in Texas. … A six-week-old fetus is not a child, a heartbeat doesn’t mean anything … it’s like a parasite really, when you’re pregnant. … Before we’re born, we’re not human.”
Andrea responded: “A truly civilised society will look after women in unplanned pregnancies, but will also really care for their unborn children. … The big question is, what is our common humanity? What does it mean to be a human being?”‘https://christianconcern.com/comment/a-heartbeat-doesnt-mean-anything-being-pregnant-is-like-having-a-parasite/
I do not personally know this man but came across his YouTube channel accidently. I am not sure what brought this police invasion into his home but he handled it, I think, pretty good. The police here in New South Wales have gone Nazi as far as I can see. What’s next for the average Joe that is just going about his daily life? These Wuhan Flu Nazi Police actions are a precursor to much more invasion into the lives of the citizens in the very near future.
This is occurring NOW in Canada and will be in Australia soon!
‘Three evangelical pastors, along with several Jewish congregations, have filed a joint lawsuit with the Australian Federal Government, seeking an injunction against the New South Wales and Victorian Government’s current COVID-19 lockdown measures.
The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in the Federal Court, argues the state governments have selectively discriminated against religious groups in denying citizens the ability to congregate in Houses of Worship by arbitrarily deeming them “non-essential,” while allowing the public to gather elsewhere, such as in supermarkets and liquor stores.
The lawsuit will argue that Houses of Worship provide significant spiritual, psychological, and emotional support for communities, especially those who are suffering financially and psychologically from the impacts of the state government’s lockdown policies.
Furthermore, it will be argued that the governments’ indiscriminate selection of “essential” and “non-essential” venues under the Public Health Order is not supported by robust scientific or medical evidence.
According to the complaint, neither the NSW nor Victorian Governments have the constitutional or common law power to deny citizens their religious freedom which includes their ability to fulfill particular religious obligations and practices in their designated House of Worship.
Internationally renowned COVID-19 expert, Jayanta Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California has also provided an independent expert report in support of the action brought forward by the plaintiffs.
Lawyer Tony Nikolic said his clients were forced to appeal to the courts after the matter had been repeatedly ignored by the NSW state government, in particular.
“My clients have attempted to engage with the NSW and Victorian Premiers and their Ministers as well as various NSW, Victorian, and Federal Parliamentarians to have their grievances addressed in a diplomatic and respectful manner.
“Unfortunately, in the context of NSW, the NSW Government has been unwilling to engage with my clients in any meaningful dialogue. As a result, our only last venue for relief is the courts.”
Pastor Robert Ayoub, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said they have exhausted other options to no avail.
“Now we have. a legal option, where we take the matter to the courts and have it heard by a court,” Pastor Ayoub said in a recent interview. “We believe this is a respectful way to do things, and importantly, a legal way to do things.
“We’re not here to be vindictive, or dishonouring towards the government, we’re just seeking to be able to practice our religion freely, and we’re appealing to our government to allow. us to love our God and also love our neighbour, to love our community.”
The plaintiffs in the case have also backed The Moses Statement, an open letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the State Premiers, urging a reopening of churches across the nation.
The Moses Statement can be read and signed here.
The case will be heard in court later today.’https://caldronpool.com/breaking-religious-leaders-file-huge-lawsuit-against-state-governments-to-restore-freedoms/
Freedom as it was before the Wuhan flu is no where to be found! Australia is a POLICE STATE.
‘Monica Smit, who was yesterday arrested and later charged with two counts of incitement and three counts of breaching the Chief Health Officer’s directions, remains behind bars after refusing to sign bail conditions.
The strict bail conditions included a curfew and an order to abide by all the CHO’s directives.
Reignite Democracy, the organisation Miss Smit leads, put out the following statement:
Allow us to begin by saying that there has been enormous support for Monica from people not only in Australia but from all over the world…it’s been astounding! it’s a testament of everything that Monica stands for…. Being a voice for the people in preserving their god-given democratic rights. This is precisely why Monica has declined to sign the bail order. The solicitor stated that the bail conditions were some of the most onerous conditions he had ever seen and that some may have even been unconstitutional in their effect… The first consequence would be an immediate dismantling of Reignite Democracy Australia, which would then impact on every other similar website! Mani Shishineh of Legalbit Lawyers, an excellent and reliable solicitor, declared that “signing that bail order would have effectively put an end to democracy in Australia!.” Be assured that he’s working with an experienced barrister, Marcel White, that we feel privileged to also have on board! Both are ready and willing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court or even the High Court, as this will set an important precedent. Meanwhile, this means that Monica will be in custody for as long as 4-6 weeks! It’s important that you all know that Monica came to this decision of her own volition…for her, this was non-negotiable! Be assured that the RDA team are committed to keeping the website going, as it’s more important now than ever!
Monica has always focused on “solutions” and messages of hope! we leave you with this one. “fear is a reaction…courage is a decision!” Winston Churchill
Kind regards,
whatyareckon 