From the article, it is implied that the the same tech visited multiple cameras to do maintenance, and plugged the same USB into each. This would make sense, as he would have been doing the same action to each camera.

The issue may be that fairness does not matter, but accuracy does. By your logic, when they set up a mobile speed camera, it would not be able to issue any tickets because it's unfair you went through 30 seconds before the camera was set up, and I went through 30 seconds after. The Australian laws are very different to the american ones, including using breath test devices for detecting people exceeding the Blood alcohol concentration, random roadside drug testing, and requirements

Besides which, from the article, they are discarding the fines from the cameras affected, they just need to hold the other fines to make sure they catch all the affected cameras, so they issue as many of the fines as possible.

They have already waived the fines from some machines they know are affected. They have then held all the other fines to make sure they are not issuing fines falsely. Once they have checked everything they will issue the fines from the cameras that were not affected.

And those fines are between $194 and $777 for normal vehicles and $272 and $1788 for trucks, so even every every fine was the lowest level, they are worth 1.358 million dollars. In addition to that, they have it automatically listed as to where the fine came from, so as they check the camera to ensure the new fines are ok, they can just release the existing ones as well, it isn't that much extra effort.

No, you get a fine for being 3km/h over the speed limit and demerit points, on a sliding scale. 12 demerit points lead to loss of license.
At 25km/h over the limit you automatically lose your license for a period.
At 45km/h over the limit you also lose the car for a period of time.

If you are speeding enough and there are sufficient aggravating circumstances you can be charged and go to jail.

Forgot one - Maybe they found it had too much of an effect on the phone (battery life, screen usage, heat, etc).

How do you know they didn't have plans to implement this? That sounds like post hoc ergo propter hoc. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Maybe the person that thought of the idea left Apple, and they couldn't find someone keen to work on it.
Maybe they got it up to a prototype, flaws there were bugs in the implementation, so they abandoned it.
Maybe they are still trying to get it so it works with all vehicles in all 196 countries
Maybe the general lawyers saw some other issue with doing this that would create a liability for Apple, so they advised them not to implement it.

The plantiff in this case is reaching, especially given the implications this will cause for the patent system.
Even if they do win, I would expect that Apple would appeal all the way up to the supreme court, given the problems it would cause. Oh, and when they do, you would see nearly every big company with patents filing amicus briefs to help, given the potential issues it would cause.

You are confusing two things
1) The way facbook finds out about it (their own algorithms, a public complaint or a government asking) with
2) Why they decided to comply (Their own process led them to believe this is the best option vs a legal requirement).

In this case, the government informed them of the problem, but they decided to act. They could have turned around and said no, we believe this is in the public interest to see (like they do in over a quarter of the cases), but in this case, they agreed with the government that it was best not for it to be on line. (and I agree with them).

Yep.

You have to turn up, get your name crossed off, and both receive and hand in the papers. What you do with those papers is totally up to you....

In theory, you can:
Leave them blank, and hand them in.
Write your own selection on.
Doodle all over the forms
Write a slogan on the form.
or vote formally, it is up to you.
The only things that are illegal are not turning up, voting multiple times, and encouraging people to vote informally (hence I am not advocating any of the other options).

The government has an obligation to ensure that everyone can vote, and it is reasonable. I went to one of the voting booths the morning of the election, and I think I waited a total of 10 minutes in the line. The worst I heard of was about an hour, and that was middle of the day.
They also provide a number of non-attendance options for those who have a 'reasonable' excuse for not voting in their home area on the day. You can absentee vote at another polling booth, you can pre-vote at certain centres that are set up. You can organise a postal vote, and post the vote in, you can go into an embassy and vote, and for those who are infirm, they send officials to places like nursinng homes and hospitals.... http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/w...
They are pretty reasonable on the reasons they accept on why you can't vote on the day as well.

It matters significantly. When police are dealing with a private compny there are a couple of different ways to approach it. Provide a order under a section of the law, and order the company to comply. In most cases, this would require a judge to hear arguments and issue an authorisation. OR Ask the company politely to do it, in which case the company can choose whether (or not) to comply. Because it is a private portal, no right to free speech exists (facebook can censor you for whatever reason they see fit). The second case is what appears to have occurred in this case. Facebook decided that everyone was best served by not having this played out on Facebook, so disabled the account to minimise the risk to the lady in question, her child, the police, any people that came to support her, and the public in general.. (can you imagine what could have happened if some of those people egging her on had turned up with guns of their own??) A better example would be You and a friend are living in a house... Your friend decides to do something illegal, and the police knock on the door. You answer\, and agree to let them in, at which point they see evidence that implicates your friend. Because you voluntarily let them in, that evidence is legally obtained.

Correct this isn't tax, it is Welfare. Basically the government is giving these people money because they are either un-employed or under employed, are retired or have a disability. The government is trying to determine if those people have been receiving more money than they should be by not declaring income. that aside, the information they are asking Ebay for is not that that detailed, and I wouldn't call it a gross invasion of privacy. . Basically they are matching the person to the ebay account and then confirming if they filled in a field saying they earnt this money. If so, no problems, if not, send to invesigators for further checking.

I am guessing in most cases they are restricted. The Australian laws, from memory, are related to child sex offenses committed by Australian citizens. The law was specifically designed to stop certain types of sex-tourism. I am happy for you to correct me if I am wrong about Australia.