brisk

It turns out the difference between what devices work for 000 on Vodafone and those that don't is quite literally a 1.3 Kilobyte text file!

That's the 'fix'.

This file has the VoLTE 000 settings for Vodafone.
Whereas Optus and Telstra have had settings and support for the feature since at least 2017. 

Your device Does NOT need Android 13 or higher, nor a 'Custom ROM' (if on an older version).

Your device simply just needs a little more than the 1KB worth of settings for Vodafone's 000 'SOS' Network.

[...]

Reportedly Vodafone is also now moving to a more restrictive device 'whitelist' blocking 'unknown' capability devices, including some phones recently sold at Officeworks!

Seems TPG/Vodafone is trying to improve how the list 'looks' whilst not actually addressing the problem and punishing consumers in the process.

NACC boss Paul Brereton has a disturbing history of giving misleading information. How much more evidence of poor behaviour is needed for him to resign?

If you’ve been around, you might’ve noticed that our relationships with programs have changed.

Older programs were all about what you need: you can do this, that, whatever you want, just let me know. You were in control, you were giving orders, and programs obeyed.

But recently (a decade, more or less), this relationship has subtly changed. Newer programs (which are called apps now, yes, I know) started to want things from you.

Police now want to drop charges against a man they arrested last year for wearing a F*** Israel F*** Zionism t-shirt. But the man, Andrew Brown, wants his day in court. Michael West reports on a big test for free speech.

Related to a class action regarding privacy violations in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

You can apply if you:

• held a Facebook account between 2 November 2013 and 17 December 2015 (the eligibility period)

• were in Australia for more than 30 days during that period, and

• either installed the Life app or were Facebook friends with someone who did.

Try this link to see if the company has records of you or your friends logging into the Digital Life app. If there are, you should be able to use the “fast track” application.

Australia’s national children’s commissioner has seen “nothing” to address the gaps in community for young people that will be created by the teen social media ban, as well as an absence of support for vulnerable children.

Weeks after the social media minimum-age legislation passed parliament last year, commissioner Anne Hollonds aired her concerns that restricting under-16 teens from having accounts on social media could exacerbate existing inequalities experienced by young Australians. 

“The new social media ban for kids must surely now be the trigger to mitigate the risks of further isolating children in vulnerable circumstances and to address the systemic failings leading to escalating mental health disorders,” she wrote in December.

A year later, with Hollonds set to finish her term and just six weeks to go until the ban’s December 10 introduction, the commissioner told Crikey she still hasn’t seen anything that would address these concerns.

“There are plans and frameworks and strategies in place, but, to my knowledge, there’s nothing particular that’s been brought in to address the gaps when the social media ban comes along.”  

Hollonds said she’s worried the ban will adversely affect children who already struggle to find connection and belonging at school, citing LGBTQIA+ children, those with mental health problems, neurodiverse children, children with disabilities and complex needs, and children who live in regional and rural areas.

Earlier this week, Communications Minister Anika Wells met with mental health groups to coordinate their response to the impending ban. Some of those groups have also released online resources to help teens prepare. Minister Wells’ office did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

Hollonds — who said she was “surprised” by the government’s commitment to the ban and wasn’t formally consulted about it — is not opposed to age-based restrictions for children and believes it will have some benefits. 

She said she has long supported introducing safeguards to prevent young children from being exposed to online pornography and harmful content: “I accept there does need to be guardrails to better protect our children from harmful content,” she said. 

Rather, her concerns stem from the focus placed on the ban and its purported benefits, and the lack of attention given to other aspects of children’s wellbeing.

“The ban has been presented as a solution to mental health problems and bullying. It’s seen as a fix, but it’s certainly not a fix,” she said. 

“Now that we’ve decided to have the ban, to do it this way, I think we also need to have a good, hard look at the unmet needs of our most vulnerable citizens.”

Hollonds said there’s been a spike in interest in children’s welfare since a series of recent reports of systemic failures in Australian childcare centres, but governments have repeatedly failed to enact serious reforms.

She said various inquiries have made more than 3,000 recommendations over the past decade and a half, but many have been ignored. Her 2024 report, “‘Help Way Earlier! How Australia can transform child justice to improve safety and wellbeing“, drew from these to make the case for “transformational change” to improve children’s wellbeing by reforming how kids are treated in the criminal justice system.

Above all, Hollonds said that children’s welfare reform has stalled because the federal government doesn’t have someone directly responsible for it — Australia does not have a federal minister for children. 

Until then, she explained she’d like to see governments get on with implementing “evidence-based recommendations” because there are a lot of issues that the ban won’t fix. 

“The prime minister says, ‘No-one left behind.’ Well, these kids are being left behind,” Hollonds said. 

Hollonds’ successor, Dr Deborah Tsorbaris, will begin in the role on November 17.

Anthony Albanese says Palestinian children are taught to hate. My daughter’s first trip home proves otherwise.

If Australia can remove people from its jurisdiction whenever a court decision becomes politically inconvenient, then the very idea of the rule of law is weakened. The High Court has already ruled that indefinite detention is unlawful. Offshore exile, purchased with billions, is little more than an attempt to sidestep that ruling while pretending compliance.