After watching the video below would you put your health and SAFETY in the hands of this man? NO FREEDOM FOR YOU! This scare campaign will NEVER end!
Australian Federal Government
Personally, I believe the only reason the Australian government is scrapping the French diesel subs for the nuclear is that there is a Federal election next year. These pollies only care for votes or so it seems. Diesel subs NEVER was a good idea! So, with elections looming the Australian government says we are now going nuclear! These are the same people that have crippled the economy and kept most of its citizens in house arrest for over a year!
‘The United States, the UK, and Australia on Sept. 15 announced a new trilateral security partnership for the Indo-Pacific amid rising Chinese assertiveness in the region.
The new alliance was announced by President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison during a joint virtual press conference from each of their capitals.
The first move under this partnership, called “AUKUS,” will be for the United States and the UK to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, according to a joint statement by the three governments.’https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/us-uk-australia-announce-new-security-partnership-amid-rising-chinese-influence_3999725.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-09-16-1&mktids=508f467f19adfe8d56d992ec9d22d0c7&est=pQ4jqnQ2w8eFKzalp3Efhmwzxa6DWa8JMiSwS%2BurMWUNpWZzAHmlZxjg5ZgL6bz2Kg%3D%3D
The Australian Federal Government does not allow doctors to prescribe other treatments such as Ivermectin so the citizen is being forced to take what Big Pharma sells. The UAP isn’t swallowing the Kool Aid and is fighting back.
There’s still hope for Australia!
‘UAP Chairman Clive Palmer says he welcomes the legal threats made by the head of the TGA, John Skerritt, against the Federal Leader of the United Australia Party, Craig Kelly.
“Any legal action against Craig Kelly or the United Australia Party will provide an opportunity to subpoena and cross examine John Skerritt and Greg Hunt about each of the 483 deaths which have been reported to the TGA and the 75 pages of over 46,000 reported adverse reactions.
“If John Skerrit seeks a legal confrontation by threatening to take Craig Kelly – a member of the House of Representatives who has sworn to protect all Australians – to court I am sure the truth will be revealed.
“All Mr Kelly did was publish the TGA’s own reports which all Australians have a right to know,” Mr Palmer said.
“The TGA report clearly highlights that the COVID-19 vaccine treatment has been responsible the deaths of 483 Australians and over 46,000 adverse reactions,” he said.
“We would welcome any chance to see Professor Skerritt cross-examined under oath so the truth can be heard about the vaccinations and the harmful effects they have on thousands of Australians.
“The United Australia Party would like to hold the Government to account for providing pharmaceutical companies with a full indemnity if they kill or cause harm to Australians being administered COVID vaccines,” Mr Palmer said.
“We would be questioning why the Government has given the pharmaceutical companies an indemnity for any claims related to the injuries and deaths their vaccines may cause.
“It should be concerning for all Australians that we don’t have the required one, three or five-year safety data for the use of this vaccine on humans or animals, and there has been no safety testing on pregnant women or children,” Mr Palmer said.
“History has shown that governments have often been wrong. That propaganda and cover-ups have often taken place. That millions have died because people in authority lack the courage and the proprietary to follow through with the principles and ethics of their calling,” Mr Palmer said.
“John Skerritt is incompetent and should resign from his position immediately.
“The Hight Court of Australia has reconfirmed the implied term in our constitution of political free speech.
“The United Australia Party is a registered political party under the electoral act and Craig Kelly is member of the House of Representatives and therefore has the right of free political communication with all Australians,” Mr Palmer said.’https://www.unitedaustraliaparty.org.au/uap-welcomes-legal-threats-from-tga-and-the-labor-party/
Vaccine passports create a two tiered society! This is HEALTH apartheid!!!! THE ONLY CHOICE WE THE CITIZENS HAVE ARE THOSE EXPERIMENTAL VACCINES THE GOVERNMENT HAS APPROVED. WE CANNOT USE INVERMECTIN OR HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE! NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE HERE!!! As the Premier of New South Wales said she doesn’t want to be around the UNVAXXANATED ! The UNVAXXANATED are in the eyes of the government UNCLEAN Lepers!!!
‘Media release: New COVID-19 digital certificate simplifies proof of vaccination
9 June 2021
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC
Minister for the National Disability Insurance SchemeMinister for Government Services
Everyone who has received all required doses of their COVID-19 vaccination can now access the recently launched COVID-19 digital certificate.
Minister for Government Services, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC, said the new record makes it simple and easy for people to show their COVID-19 vaccination status.
“The COVID-19 digital certificate makes proof of vaccination accessible anytime, anywhere,” Minister Reynolds said.
“We’re also giving people control over the level of vaccination history they share, as the certificate only shows your COVID-19 vaccination status.
“Once your provider has reported both doses of an approved vaccine, you’ll be able to access your COVID-19 digital certificate online through myGov or in the Express Plus Medicare app.
“I’m encouraging all Australians to ensure you’ve linked your Medicare account to myGov.
“Linking Medicare to myGov is simple, and more than 10 million Australians have already completed this process.”
The Morrison Government is securing the health and safety of all Australians, and Medicare’s trusted systems are making this happen.
“We’re guaranteeing everyone in Australia can get free COVID-19 vaccinations and making sure you can easily show proof of your immunisation,” Minister Reynolds said.
“It’s all about making government services simpler for all Australians, and this new immunisation certificate is a great example.”’https://minister.servicesaustralia.gov.au/media-releases/2021-06-09-new-covid-19-digital-certificate-simplifies-proof-vaccination
‘A recent essay by Pete Shmigel on Flat White is a poignant reminder of how people who experienced tyranny behind the Iron Curtain have been among the first to fear the creeping authoritarianism of Western democracies in thrall to China’s brutal suppression of the Wuhan virus. Way back in the mists of time, I was living in New Delhi when Indira Gandhi declared a 21-month emergency in June 1975 to impose dictatorial rule. Overnight, the political and social atmosphere changed with a palpable sense of fear as political opponents were imprisoned and colleagues and neighbours turned into informants and snitches. My first academic article was on that experience. Two observations are worth recalling. We take freedom for granted but feel the sting of its absence when abruptly robbed of it. In a revealing statement, PM Gandhi said when the government had ‘allowed’ freedoms, but people had abused them, implying that liberties are in the gift of governments to dispense or withhold. I didn’t forsee that belief taking hold in almost all Western democracies within my lifetime, terrified by a disease of relatively moderate severity in the history of pandemics. Like frogs in water coming slowly to the boil, we have remained unconcerned as liberties were steadily stripped away and our attachment to freedom proved to be virus-thin.
The widespread proliferation of masks in public is part of the slow boil process. The pointlessness of the most common types of masks outside healthcare settings, unless you are unwell, is easy to show both on the science and visually with charts. The trajectory of infection curves is unaffected by imposing and lifting mask mandates: there is no visible inflection point on the slope to coincide with masks. ‘Don’t be selfish. For the sake of others, just mask up, it’s no big deal’, we’ve been admonished. Except their most potent result has been to normalise unquestioning and habitual obedience to diktats as citizens became subjects.
‘Grab a mask’ has been replaced with ‘get the jab’ as the metaphorical equivalent of the 100 degrees Celsius setting on the dial to bring the water to boil. Vaccines don’t stop infection and spread but reduce severe illness and death for the most vulnerable elderly group. According to 2021 data from Public Heath England, the unvaccinated over-50s are more than three times at higher risk of death from a Delta variant infection than the fully vaccinated. A recent Lancet study found vaccinated healthcare workers in a Vietnamese hospital were carrying 251 times the viral load in their nostrils as the unvaccinated. Dr Peter McCullough comments the vaccine transforms people into ‘presymptomatic superspreaders’. If – a big ‘if’ – this is replicated and confirmed, the vaccinated will pose the greater danger to others. Would digital certificates be used to keep them away from public spaces? Australian authorities haven’t bothered to justify vaccine apartheid despite similar transmissibility. Nor to explain what happens to those with naturally acquired immunity through infection that is both more effective and lasts longer.
Ross Clark reports on a new Israeli study which found that ‘double-jabbed, previously uninfected people are 13 times as likely to get Covid’ as unvaccinated people with natural immunity through infection. The bigger long-term danger of lockdowns is their ready public acceptability will empower every wannabe social engineer, power-hungry politician and control-freak bureaucrat to impose draconian controls for their favoured emergency du jour.
Also, like deer caught in Covid headlights, we ignore other grave health costs with accumulating undiagnosed and untreated illnesses. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics monthly update on mortality shows that until 31 May this year, 3,475 more Australians died than the five-year average in 2015–19. That’s forty times more excess deaths in the first five months than Covid deaths in eight months of 2021. The worst affected were cancer, diabetes and dementia. Lockdowns impair the capacity of the health system to treat illnesses in a timely manner, with heightened distress and anxiety from isolation and loneliness, increased fear of contracting the illness by going to the GP or hospital, cancelled screenings for illnesses that are treatable if caught early and deferred operations. Yet no government or chief health officer will be held accountable.
Hell, no one has even been subjected to aggressive questioning by reporters. There’s no daily solemn agonising by politicians and CHOs about the tragic toll, the unacceptability of just one preventable death and the determination to pursue zero excess death. James Allan is right to ask if journalists are lazy or dumb in not challenging the growing gulf around the world between official claims and contrary data. Hysteria, hypocrisy and selective morality reign supreme, with the PM and state premiers in office but the health bureaucrats and police commissioners in power. At about the same time as the myth of US exceptionalism was buried in Afghanistan by the Taliban, the myth of Australia’s Covid exceptionalism has been felled by the Delta variant. Scott Morrison has used new modelling from the Doherty Institute to outline a multi-phase roadmap with 70 and 80 per cent adult vaccinations as key milestones. Given the wildly inaccurate original Doherty modelling in March 2020, why exactly should we have confidence in the new model?
With 3,668 new infections recorded on 23 August, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced Germany will stop using the infection rate as the metric for deciding if restrictions should be in force. They’ve been using 7-day thresholds of 35, 50 and 100 infections per 100,000 people to trigger openings and closures. Instead, Germany will monitor hospitalisations to assess if the health system is becoming overburdened. After two months of tightening restrictions and accelerated vaccine take-up, NSW’s daily ‘cases’ broke the 1,000 barrier on 26 August. Rather than accept lockdowns don’t work and vaccines are leaky, authorities blame insufficient public compliance with arbitrary and draconian but not always scientifically justified regulations. Who knew that watching sunsets should come with a compulsory health warning? Against all overseas experience, CHO Kerry Chant insists that vaccinating 16-39 year olds will ‘break the transmission chain’. Meanwhile Canberra recorded nine new Covid cases on 25 August, taking its total of active cases to 176 from 1 when the lockdowns were first brought in.
On Germany’s yardstick, this equates to a 14-day rolling average of just over 3 daily ‘cases’ per 100,000 people. Yet it’s concerning enough for the ACT to reject easing restrictions. In a new CIS/YouGov Poll, 22 per cent of Australians support lifting restrictions when all adults have been offered access to the vaccine. The Liberal Democrats at least have committed to this sensible policy.’https://spectator.com.au/2021/09/deer-in-the-headlights-frogs-in-boiling-water/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MDS%20%2020210909%20%20GK&utm_content=MDS%20%2020210909%20%20GK+CID_9aa12db88e8f0ed2a4e4535f2e9bd000&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Australia&utm_term=Deer%20in%20the%20headlights%20frogs%20in%20boiling%20water
Today at 11am I was watching Sky as the New South Wales Premier gave her daily scare talk on the Wuhan flu vaccines and there was a news report given across the bottom of the screen announcing that Australia would have a Covid Passport in a couple of weeks. This is Hitler’s Germany!
‘Alongside skyrocketing new “cases,” infections and hospitalizations among the fully-vaccinated, Israel has announced it’s going to start pushing a fourth covid shot, which it claims will accomplish what the third shot — and the first two shots — could never achieve: the eradication of covid.
This is, of course, the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. How compliant, exactly, will the Israeli people be, given that their ancestors were once marched into Zyklon B death camps under nearly the same demanded obedience to authority? The vaccine holocaust is somehow fully embraced by about 80% of Israelis, none of whom seem to realize they are exterminating themselves under a globalist depopulation agenda. (This is called “auto-antisemitism,” by the way.)
But Israel isn’t the only nation declaring a never-ending pandemic. In Australia, now home to the most outrageous medical dictatorship on the planet, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews seems to have declared that unvaccinated people will be denied access to hospitals, doctors and health care services altogether. In his view, those who don’t take the vaccine should be cut off from civilization and denied everything, including groceries, health care services and presumably all forms of transportation.
In the USA, bioweapons mastermind Anthony Fauci is also pushing the idea of endless booster shots, perhaps requiring shots every five or six months.
Those world citizens who were gullible enough to go along with the initial requirement of taking two shots to be “fully vaccinated” are now finding themselves caught in a vaccine trap from which there is no escape. With each booster shot weakening their immune response, the consequences of obedience increasingly look like suicide. And the most obedient vaccine takers are setting themselves up for a high risk of death from future variants or outbreaks… which seems to be the whole point in all this.
Unless the people of the world peacefully rise up and reject the authoritarian nonsense, they will be subjected to a never-ending medical police state under the guise of a plandemic that perpetuates itself as fully-vaccinated individuals produce and shed highly infectious viral variants that keep killing people. As you might suspect, all blame will be placed on the unvaccinated, who are the scapegoats for this global depopulation biological weapons deployment.’https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-09-07-infinite-pandemic-multiple-nations-announce-never-ending-booster-shots-lockdowns-covid-compliance.html
The Australian Greens Party is a far left Marxist party as most if not all Green Parties are. The sad part of all this is that most of the major Australian political parties are going along with many of the Greens’ issues. The non-use of Ivermectin is just one of those issues!
‘The fight for press freedom continues with Sky News Australia subjected to hours of questioning regarding its editorial choices.
Sky News Australia Chief Executive Paul Whittaker opened the Senate Inquiry into Media Diversity by rubbishing accusations that the network deliberately peddled Covid conspiracy theories. Whittaker called the assertion, ‘frankly ridiculous!’
The inquiry was put together by a Greens MP from the far-left minor party that routinely criticises Sky New Australia’s centre-right position. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young chaired the inquiry accompanied by Labor Senator Kim Carr.
Senator Hanson-Young’s topic of the day was ‘Covid-Lies’, an idea that she repeatedly used interchangeably with unresolved political subjects that remain the topic of global debate.
The inquiry unfolded in a politicised atmosphere set up by Sarah Hanson-Young, whose personal website features a ‘take action’ talking point devoted to attacking Murdoch media.
‘In an embarrassing move, Senator Hanson-Young blocked Rebel News journalists Alexandra Marshall and Avi Yemini from covering the inquiry online – apparently violating her devotion to media diversity.
Senator Hanson-Young’s specific complaint about Sky News Australia revolved around it being ‘allowed’ to discuss Ivermectin on-air as a potential treatment for Covid.
After failing to correctly pronounce Ivermectin repeatedly throughout her questions, the Senator eventually resorted to calling it ‘horse wormer’.
“Do you accept that Sky News has created and published content that is either directly or indirectly promoted disinformation about Covid and Covid-Lies in relation to restrictions, health measures, cures?” asked Hanson-Young.
Sky News Australia replied to the entire day’s questioning with an official statement.
“We operate within the same legal framework as all media and are subject to both the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and the Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice.
“There is no evidence that Sky News breaches existing regulations or that the current regulatory framework is failing, or that further regulatory intervention is required.
“Indeed, it should be noted we have not been found in breach of the Codes of Practice for more than ten years.”
As a major news network, Sky News Australia maintains that it involves a wide range of discussion involving scientists, epidemiologists, GPs, pharmacists, researchers, chief health officers, politicians, doctors, and bureaucrats.
“But it now appears commonplace to discredit any debate on contentious issues as ‘misinformation’.
“So, the question becomes, why does a tech giant, YouTube, and faceless, nameless individuals backed by an algorithm, based in California, get to decide that holding governments and decision makers to account is ‘misinformation’? Why do they get to decide what is and isn’t allowed to be news?” added the official statement.
Despite insisting that Sky News Australia must only publish Covid information approved by the prime minister, state premiers, and the World Health Organisation – Senator Hanson-Young’s comments about Ivermectin proved inaccurate against the facts.
Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015. Its discovery led to the creation of an entirely new class of drugs for human use treating diseases and parasites. The potential for Ivermectin to assist with treating Covid was discovered because hundreds of millions of people around the world were using it safely under full FDA approval.
Its entry into the Covid conversation was heavily politicised by the American election. Ivermectin remains the subject of peer-reviewed studies, ongoing trials, and experimental use around the world – none of which involve horse paste.
Australia’s own Monash University in alliance with the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity proved that Ivermectin could kill Covid within 48 hours under laboratory conditions.
Globally speaking, the discussion on Ivermectin is far from over, with its off-label use against Covid widespread in Africa and South America. Public health experts, medical scientists, and South African health practitioners have banded together in a campaign to achieve formal approval for its use. There are similar stories in the Philippines and Latin America.
The World Health Organisation officially added Ivermectin to accepted clinical trials in March of 2021.
Senator Young’s main reasoning for wanting all discussion of Ivermectin banned was because it conflicted with official advice from the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It is difficult to find an example of this method being used to censor discussion on a media broadcaster.
Hospital admissions and injures associated with Ivermectin come from people consuming non-human approved animal treatments not the Ivermectin discussed in the studies. One could argue that governments banning the distribution of Ivermectin are the real cause behind these accidents.
Considering the ‘Ivermectin topic’ is central to both YouTube’s strikes and the Senator’s desire for stricter government regulation over the content of media broadcasters, it’s essential that this narrative is examined.
Ivermectin was not the only glaring inaccuracy brandished by those accusing Sky News Australia of misleading the public.
Labor Senator Kim Carr questioned Whittaker over a petition asking for a Royal Commission into media diversity.
This turned out to be ex-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s e-petition of ‘over half a million signatures’. The petition was earlier revealed to be riddled with computer-generated signatures and fake names, accounting to Sky News host Sharri Markson’s earlier investigation.
“Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has used this petition to launch a media inquiry into two ASX-listed companies; News Corp Australia and Nine Entertainment, to have a whole Senate inquiry into the media industry, so this petition is being used as the basis for policy formation,” explained Sharri Markson.
The fake names on Rudd’s petition included ‘this sucks’, ‘Nacho cheese’, and ‘Jesus Christ’ which were generated by off-shore bot accounts.
The inaccuracy of the petition and its subsequent failure to trigger a Royal Commission was not mentioned at the inquiry.
The Inquiry into Media Diversity played out like a witch trial against Sky News Australia specifically.
Several Sky News Australia hosts declined to partake.
“There’s only one reason why I didn’t appear at today’s Senate hearing. I will not be party to a witch hunt, nor waste my time in the services of satisfying the paranoid fantasies of a failed former PM. The Senate Committee on Media Diversity came about as a result of a petition organised by former PM Kevin Rudd,” said Rita Panahi on Alan Jones.
Anti-Murdoch voices have waged campaigns to cancel the network for many years – including the use of anonymous online trolls to harass advertisers.
The situation did not become serious until YouTube issued a strike against the digital arm of the media empire in July of 2021.
YouTube is a commercial earner for Sky News Australia with almost two million subscribers. Three strikes in 90 days results in an immediate and permanent suspension of the account, regardless of size.
Sky News Australia was forced to remove twenty-three videos that allegedly violated YouTube’s policy on Covid misinformation. The videos included content up to a year old.
“Specifically, we don’t allow content that denies the existence of COVID-19 or that encourages people to use Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus. We do allow for videos that have sufficient countervailing context, which the violative videos did not provide,” said a statement from YouTube.
The majority of the content in question fell under the banner of ‘opinion’ rather than news, but YouTube did not provide any further clarity for their strike.
To be clear, YouTube’s policies are not a statement of absolute fact, but a compliance order to keep the material on their platform consistent with the health guidance from various authorities – even if this information is contested or later shown to be false. Strikes are not removed if health information changes.
Sky News Australia Chief Executive Paul Whittaker pointed this inconsistency out to the inquiry. Whittaker also strongly rejected the claim that Sky News Australia promoted an anti-vaccination narrative.
“Sky News Australia strongly supports vaccination. Any claims to the contrary are false and a blatant attempt to discredit and harm our news service,” said Whittaker.
When Lucinda Longcroft, Director of Public Policy, Google Australia and New Zealand was asked to provide examples of left-wing content removed by YouTube, she took the question on notice.
“Our Covid-19 misinformation policies are applied equally to all YouTube content and channel owners,” said Longcroft, but did not offer any data to prove the point.
It is a widely held opinion that YouTube applies its community standards unequally to users, with many conservative accounts taken down while fringe accounts – such as domestic terror group Antifa – remain up.
“YouTube’s actions make clear that it is not a neutral platform, but a publisher selectively broadcasting content and censoring certain views, while allowing videos that are patently false, misogynistic, and racist to proliferate. […] With no transparency provided, Sky News took the proactive approach of removing a batch of videos, all published during 2020, from online platforms to ensure ongoing compliance with YouTube’s arbitrary editorial guidelines,” Mr Whittaker added.
Social Media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have become significant tools for political parties during election campaigns. As such, there is growing concern of foreign interference in Australian politics by these entities, especially when they brazenly remove elected members of parliament like Craig Kelly.
Platforms exist in a special legal limbo, where they are immune from prosecution regarding the third-party content they host on the proviso they refrain from engaging in publishing privileges. Under American Law, they are distinct from publishers and yet in the last few years they have made headlines for selective political censorship.
Whittaker insisted that the videos taken down by YouTube had no public complaints – which begs the question why they were flagged in the first place. He wrote to Google’s CEO in the hope of clarification, but received nothing in return, not even an acknowledgement of the query.
Australia’s media landscape has taken a bizarre path to this inquiry.
Chief among those leading the anti-Murdoch charge are full-time campaigner ex-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and occasional contributor ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. While the men come from opposing sides of politics, they share a history of unkind headlines enjoyed by readers at their expense.
The inquiry soon expanded to criticism regarding Sky News Australia allowing alternative discussion on Climate Change before accusing some of its hosts of racism.
This was swiftly followed by Hanson-Young asking Whittaker how many of his staff were female before elaborating that they were ‘rather young’. Her point was to suggest a power imbalance between young female producers and the more experienced network hosts.
Implying that young women are not capable of doing their jobs because of their age and gender is considered a sexist remark by most people. Whittaker was similarly bewildered by Hanson-Young’s line of questioning, pointing out that there is plenty of support for producers to do their jobs.
Inquiries are normally launched from an impartial basis so that the search for truth can be conducted without prejudice.
Sky News Australia has little hope of being treated fairly when several key people involved in the process have made it very public that they have a bone to pick with broadcaster.
This video was deleted from YouTube since they have such high ethical standards! NOT!!!!
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
