What could possibly go wrong when the Abbott Government is creating Fortress Australia to protect us all from a veritable host of 'terrors'?

When the Abbott Government’s wider surveillance powers were passed by the Senate, the Australian public was being assured by both major parties that the sweeping ‘anti-terrorism’ legislation had built-in safeguards which would protect us all from over reach by intelligence agencies and police.

The good citizens of Tacoma in Pierce County, Washington, United States probably thought they were protected too. After all, didn’t the police need to get a warrant from a Superior Court judge?

The News Tribune article of 15 November 2014 shows just how easily a mockery can be made of surveillance laws:

Pierce County judges didn’t know until recently that they’d been authorizing Tacoma police to use a device capable of tracking someone’s cellphone.

Now they do, and they’ve demanded that police change the way they get permission to use their so-called cell site simulator.

From 2009 to earlier this year, the county’s Superior Court judges unwittingly signed more than 170 orders that Tacoma police and other local law enforcement agencies say authorized them to use a device that allows investigators to track a suspect’s cellphone but also sweeps cellphone data from innocent people nearby.

In August, the assistant chief of the Tacoma Police Department told The News Tribune that investigators never deployed the device — a cell site simulator, commonly known as a Stingray — without court authorization.

The newspaper since learned police never mentioned they intended to use the device when detectives swore out affidavits seeking so-called “pen register, trap and trace” orders allowing them to gather information about a suspect’s cellphone use and location…..

Neither the pen register orders nor the affidavits filed by law enforcement mentioned that police had a Stingray or intended to use it.

Instead, detectives used language commonly associated with requesting an order that would force a cellphone company to turn over records for a particular phone, and, where possible, the real-time location of the phone…..

The News Tribune 17 November 2014:

The Tacoma Police Department, which owns the Stingray, did not want to reveal it to the public. The FBI, which provided it, was leaning on the city to keep the technology secret. As a result, the judiciary that monitors investigations for constitutional abuses wasn’t aware of the kind of surveillance it was authorizing. However noble the motives, this was subterfuge….

But a Stingray — which employs technology known as cell site simulation — is so much more intrusive than conventional surveillance that it demands extra scrutiny. It pulls in cellphone transmissions from all callers in a given area and identifies the unique signatures of each phone…..

This could get spooky in a hurry. The Pierce County Superior Court now has another safeguard in place: Police must sign affidavits that they will not store data on people who are not targets of the investigation…..

Think this example of over reach is too far removed from Australia to matter? Think again…..

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on what is already occurring in Australia on 7 July 2014:

Australian federal and state police are ordering phone providers to hand over personal information about thousands of mobile phone users, whether they are targets of an investigation or not.

Fairfax Media has confirmed Australian law-enforcement agencies are using a technique known as a "tower dump", which gives police data about the identity, activity and location of any phone that connects to targeted cell towers over a set span of time, generally an hour or two.

A typical dump covers multiple towers, and mobile providers, and can net information about thousands of mobile phones.

The dumps are usually used in circumstances when police have few leads and can be a useful, powerful tool in tracking down criminals. But privacy advocates say that while they may be helpful to police, they also target thousands of innocent people and don’t have any judicial oversight.

In addition to no warrant being required to request a tower dump containing the mobile phone data of thousands of people to track down one or more criminals involved in a crime, privacy advocates also question what is being done to the data collected once an investigation is complete….

Some things you may not have known about 'electronic' voting options in NSW state elections

According to the NSW Electoral Commission iVote is technology assisted voting and has been used in a New South Wales general election and five by-elections since 2011 for certain classes of electors - those with impaired vision or a physical disability requiring assistance, the profoundly illiterate, persons living more than 20 kms from the nearest polling station and those out of the state on polling day.

Voting is done on the Internet using a standard web browser or by call centre operators taking phone votes. Originally the second voting method was by phone using a standard handset and DTMF tones, but this was changed after the 2011 general election.

The largest group of iVote users were electors voting outside NSW on election day (over 43,000).

Of those electors who registered to iVote, 4,239 or 8.30% did not eventually use this system to cast their vote and 1,438 or 2.90% did not vote at all.

Over one thousand electors (1,335) registered to iVote during the 19 November 2011 by-election for the state seat of Clarence on the NSW North Coast and, most of these were first time uses of this voting system.

It has been proposed that the iVote system be used again for the March 2015 general election and during the September 2016 local government elections.

However, there are some issues with the iVote system that are not generally advertised by the NSW Government.

Below are excerpts from the Federal Government Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matter’s Second interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election: An assessment of electronic voting options, with my red bolding:

For example, the lost vote rate in the 2013 West Australian Senate race (1370 out of 1,348,797, slightly over 0.1%) was about the same as the demonstrated vote misrecording rate in Australia’s largest Internet voting trial, the NSW iVote project (43 misrecorded electronic votes out of 46,864, slightly under 0.1%) (PWC, 2011). The WA Senate incident received much more attention because it impacted an election outcome, not because the system was inherently much less reliable. Even more importantly, the paper-based Senate process retained paper evidence of the 99.9% of votes that weren’t lost; the iVote system produced no meaningful evidence of the correctness of any of the votes.

the ‘weak point’ in a paper-based voting system, resulting in a lost box of ballot papers, may lead to an unverifiable close result (such as in WA): but one ‘weak point’ in a wide-ranging electronic voting system has the potential to expose an entire election’s vote data to manipulation, corruption or attack, undermining the parliamentary system supported by the electoral process.

The NSW iVote system (outlined in Chapter 3) used in the 2011 state election had an average cost per vote cast of $74 compared to an average cost of all votes cast of $8.

While the iVote system is relatively secure, due to the fact that it utilises telephone systems for blind or low vision voting transactions and encrypted internet data architecture, the vote data on the voter’s computer or in the NSWEC’s servers is still open to potential manipulation.

In response to criticisms of the system’s security, the NSWEC has commissioned a third-party provider to strengthen the security of the system software prior to the 2015 state election, along with other hardware and data transmission improvements.

Vision Australia made a submission to the Joint Committee concerning telephone assisted voting during the 2013 federal election which included these observations:

It was anonymous, but not truly secret. People felt uncomfortable about verbalising their voting intentions to another person, and expressed the view that no-one else in the community would regard it as acceptable to be required to do this. Some clients in residential facilities and other places with limited privacy also expressed concern that their conversation with the call centre staff would be overheard and their voting intentions revealed…..

Clients who had voted using the iVote system in the NSW 2011 election were especially aware of the lack of independence involved in using the call centre option.

Some clients noted that they had no way of verifying that their voting intentions had been notated accurately and lodged correctly. While they did not necessarily mistrust the call centre operator, they were nevertheless aware that any human-mediated process introduces the possibility of errors, and such errors are more likely to occur when the process becomes complex, such as when a voter is voting “below the line”.

OVERCOMING INDIGENOUS DISADVANTAGE 2014 report released 19 November 2014

M e d i a R e l e a s e

Wednesday 19 November 2014

Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision

OVERCOMING INDIGENOUS DISADVANTAGE 2014

The 2014 Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage (OID) report released today shows some positive trends in the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, with improvements in health, education

and economic outcomes. However, results in areas such as justice and mental health continue to cause concern.

The report shows that, nationally, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians:

• economic outcomes have improved over the longer term, with higher incomes, lower reliance on income support, increased home ownership, and higher rates of full time and professional employment.

However, improvements have slowed in recent years

• several health outcomes have improved, including increased life expectancy and lower child mortality.

However, rates of disability and chronic disease remain high, mental health outcomes have not improved, and hospitalisation rates for self-harm have increased

• post-secondary education outcomes have improved, but there has been virtually no change in literacy and numeracy results at school, which are particularly poor in remote areas

• justice outcomes continue to decline, with adult imprisonment rates worsening and no change in high rates of juvenile detention and family and community violence.

“It has been almost three years since the last OID report. For this report we made a concerted effort to increase the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Their input contributed to significant developments, including broadening the focus from overcoming disadvantage to improving wellbeing, and the inclusion of new indicators, such as Indigenous language revitalisation and maintenance, valuing Indigenous cultures (including experiences of racism and discrimination) and participation in decision making” said Peter Harris, chairman of the Productivity Commission and of the Steering Committee.

The OID report is the most comprehensive report on Indigenous wellbeing produced in Australia. It contains accessible data for an extensive range of wellbeing measures as well as case studies of programs that have led to improved outcomes. “This report should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians or working in service delivery or program design,” said Commissioner Patricia Scott, who convenes the expert working group that advises on the report.

The report is a product of the Review of Government Service Provision. It is overseen by a Steering Committee comprising senior officials from the Australian, State and Territory governments, and supported by a secretariat from the Productivity Commission. This report is the sixth in the series, which traces its origins to the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 2000.

The full report can be found here.

On the same day the Productivity Commission report was released the Abbott Government walked away from another one of its 2013 election promises, according to The Australian, 20 November 2014:

THE national peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services NATSILS is angry at the Abbott government for “back flipping” on a pledge to consider introducing justice targets as part of the Closing the Gap policy agenda, a move which NATSILS along with many other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and organisations have long called for.

It comes after this week’s Productivity Commission Overcoming indigenous Disadvantage report revealed a shocking increase of nearly 60 per cent in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration rates over the last decade.

NATSILS Chairperson, Shane Duffy, said that confirmation from the Minister for indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, during question time in the Senate on Wednesday that the government would not be progressing with introducing a justice target, despite publicly supporting such in the lead up to the 2013 election, was a troubling development…..

Mr Duffy said that the development of Closing the Gap justice targets was not just about throwing more money at the issue, as the Minister had described it, but was rather about getting the policy settings right to affect real change and to make sure resources in the justice space are used most effectively.

“The high cost of incarceration combined with the fact that prisons actually offer little in terms of effective rehabilitation, means that addressing incarceration rates should be an economic priority for the Government and its budget bottom line,” Mr Duffy said.

“It is costing Australian taxpayers more than $795 million per annum just to maintain the current level of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander over-imprisonment, so to reiterate the sentiments of the Minister in recent days, we shouldn’t just keep throwing money down the drain.”

Brian Robins standing as an independant candidate for the Clarence electorate in March 2015 says he offers real choice

Photograph of Brian Robins from The Daily Examiner, 2 August 2014

Brian Robins media release, 18 November 2014:

LOCAL COMMUNITIES FIRST.

Former Clarence NSW State Emergency Service Executive Officer, Bryan Robins will stand as an Independent candidate for the Clarence Electorate in the 2015 State Election.
He said it was his disillusionment with the policies practised by the major parties that persuaded him to make his stand. "I feel disillusioned with this Government for its failure to deliver benefits to the Clarence electorate" he said.
"I'm also disgusted with the behaviour of a disturbing number of elected Members from both the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition". ICAC has revealed disgraceful behaviour and standards that indicate that both sides are as guilty as each other"
"People have had enough of poor party representation and their arrogance."

Mr. Robins said a strength of standing as an Independent was he could take his instructions straight from the people in this Electorate. " I don't have to ring head office in Sydney to be told how I'm supposed to feel about every issue. The locals will advise me and their views will be represented"
He said he had impeccible credentials as an Independent. "I've never been a member of a political party, I don't own any shares and Iv'e never been aligned to any faction or political interest group"

Mr' Robins moved to the Clarence Valley in 1982 to commence duties as the Executive Officer for what is now the Clarence-Nambucca Region of the SES, a position he served for over 20 years. Over those years I was privileged to develop close working relationships with communities across the Electorate.
"I had a senior Emergency Management role and I witnessed the electorate experience major floods, severe storms, bush fires and drought, man-made disasters....even a tornado in Tucabia"

Iv'e seen the area at it's best and also when under severe threat, and I have always admired the strength and resillience of the Community and its fierce determination to protect what we all recognise as one of the wonderful places to call home."

Mr. Robins has already announced his opposition to CSG mining in the Clarence Electorate. "Rightly so, the local communities simply don't want it"
He also encouraged the anti CSG Lobby to continue it's fight. I'm hopeful I can help them and join with them to continue to voice the message loud and clear" 
"It is already a huge issue"

"I look forward to meet with as many groups and individuals as possible in the coming months. I invite them to contact me"
For the time being, please phone 6642 8473 or email bryanandkerry@outlook.com.