Google’s personal data collection is not about your security

The key factor in verifying your identity is a device/item that is registered to your person’s name, e.g. a mobile phone.

The excuse is that this is for verification purposes, in particular a verification process that requires another action by the user, which is called 2FA (Two Factor Authentication), but this is not the only method.

Another way to authenticate a user is via a device called a keyfob where an example of this is a commercial product like the Yubikey, but the problem there is that the authorities do not have a ‘person’ attached to this.

Being under the umbrella of the ‘five eyes’ Google passes on information to the various three or four (or however many) letter agencies in order to populate the database in your name.

Now Google wants you to put in your home address.

Why not business address?

Why ‘must’ it be your home address?

Will Google send you the verification code to your home’s letter box?

How long will this take if we live in Papunya, in the Northern Territory, Australia?

We do not recommend you to supply Google or any other online entity your home address, where if they insist, seek alternatives to that corporation’s services.

Lawyer X, Nicola Gobbo the post Google removed

The above post describing Lawyer X or Informer 3838 as Nicola Gobbo was removed by Google, after it was published on 9th of December 2018, but not before it was read by many people.

Also, the Fairfax publication ‘The Age’ published in 2010, that lawyer Nicola Gobbo demanded $20 million, as seen in the screen capture within the post above, were all you had to do is put an X after the word lawyer.

It’s not rocket science.

In any event this revelation highlights the corruption of Australia’s judicature, which is not only limited to the state of Victoria.

The courts are no longer independent, as it has been exposed by the Lawyer X scandal, which was never meant to be public knowledge, where police have influence over court officials.

Therefore any person who has been convicted of a criminal offence (traffic or otherwise) most likely has been done so falsely.

Is this something the mainstream media has deliberately not mentioned, covering up Australia’s corrupt legal business?