Australian Police Given Covert Search and Hacking Powers 122
An anonymous reader writes "The NSW government of Australia has quietly introduced new police powers for covert home searches and covert hacking of computers. The suspect may not be notified of the covert activity for up to three years. These new powers are similar to those given to the UK police earlier this year. The new warrants can only be issued in the Supreme Court for suspected serious offences punishable by at least seven years jail — which includes computer crime offences."
If you enter my house (Score:0, Informative)
I KILL YOU
News response... (Score:1, Informative)
These new powers have been put in place to allow the police to intercept message-carrying kangaroos, a long time lifeblood of the criminal underworld. In response, crime syndicates have begun equiping their kangaroos with laser beams.
Never forget the past Australia: state, fed files (Score:5, Informative)
Any computer internet use will be a "computer crime".
Also recall the total force wide corruption. In Australia it *was* not who is corrupt, the only question *was* anyone not corrupt.
If
Political surveillance and the South Australian Police
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/wayward/ch7t.html [aic.gov.au]
The NSW STATE government IN Australia (Score:5, Informative)
This is a state law, not a federal one. The headline is misleading in that it contains the words "government of Australia" in that order. It still sucks, but it's not a national law.
Yawn (Score:2, Informative)
As has already been pointed out, it's under the same type of arrangements as other Australian agencies are subject to: Court ordered warrants. Not just any court, but the Supreme Court of NSW.
When applying for a warrant, the police must provide convincing reasons to the judge, and the contents of these warrants come out in court if a prosecution results. Somehow I don't think "he looks funny" is going to cut it.
I think this is a reasonable use of police powers, with suitable checks and balances in place
Re:Does not sound so bad (Score:5, Informative)
Oh really? If you were a New South Welshman, would you rethink that knowing these tidbits?
From the first [news.com.au] article:
And from the second [abc.net.au]:
If you think this is just tinfoil hat paranoia, perhaps you haven't heard of the Wood Royal Commission. There's good reason to be wary of the police of NSW, and I say that despite being someone who might not be alive today were it not for a detective's hard work.
What do they mean by "hacking" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does not sound so bad (Score:2, Informative)
At least they still have to ask for warrants.
In the US, evidently the FISA court couldn't rubber-stamp warrants fast enough, so now you can go a week before even applying for a warrant for a wiretap, and even if the warrant is denied (which historically is remarkably rare), they don't have to actually lift the wiretap until AFTER all appeals have been completed. And they don't have to destroy the tapes if the final appeal denies the wiretap.
But this is still NOT a positive step, IMHO. It's just not as bad as what other countries have done/are doing.
Re:Somebody should make programs to tell you (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know how Australian law approaches this, but in the US, you'd be guilty of reckless endangerment, and anyone, even a criminal who breaks into your house, who is injured by your traps can sue you for damages in civil court. He would, of course, have to show intention on your part (i.e., if you make the trap look unintentional enough, you might be OK, as long as no one who knows you testifies that you kept the situation dangerous for long periods of time).
A quick search leads me to "the law in England and Wales, .... There 'Offences Against The Person Act 1861 s 31' makes it an offense to set up a mechanical contrivance calculated to destroy human life or cause grievous bodily harm."
I think a better "trap" would be to have your computers automatically erase all the encryption keys in memory and shut down, the minute any intrusion is detected. Unfortunately, this won't help you against the police planting hardware keyloggers and other unpleasant stuff.
Re:The Cops should target one of their own or... (Score:3, Informative)
As a first step, the cops should target one of their own for secret investigation. Will they do it?
I agree with you, However there are two issues that come to mind
1) the mind set : police in australia will not arrest there own. http://blogs.news.com.au/news/crime/index.php/news/comments/policing_the_police/ [news.com.au]
2) Investigations into police can bring up more dirt then they can handle . http://www.theage.com.au/national/police-watchdog-sacks-own-investigator-20090304-8oic.html [theage.com.au]
How would Peter Costello or Nathan Rees react if they were targeted for such an investigation?
The investigators would be told to cease. The powers that be know that the damage would be too great.
Why don't the politicians confiscate the super annuation of corrupt politicians ? [abc.net.au] What prevents them passing such a law?
[sarcasm warning] What are you suggesting that they get denied there right? every politician knows that if they serve the time they get the rewards.
Also for a lot of politicians its there retirement fund, imagine if they got caught doing something naughty and they had to go into a nursing home with the great unwashed - (the horror)
And last of all, why are politicians around the world so intent on destroying the last shred of privacy of the Common man under the guise of terrorism? First USA (thanks Bush), UK, Australia, Germany and lastly even Canada. Why?
there bastards
Re:Yawn (Score:2, Informative)
So the NSW state police have been given the same powers that other state police forces/services and the Federal Police already have? Who cares?
As has already been pointed out, it's under the same type of arrangements as other Australian agencies are subject to: Court ordered warrants. Not just any court, but the Supreme Court of NSW.
When applying for a warrant, the police must provide convincing reasons to the judge, and the contents of these warrants come out in court if a prosecution results. Somehow I don't think "he looks funny" is going to cut it.
I think this is a reasonable use of police powers, with suitable checks and balances in place
Have you ever heard of THE YELDHAM SCANDAL? http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/yeldham.html [uow.edu.au]
basicly Mr yeldham was a pet supreme court judge that the police used when they wanted to do nasty things.
really juicy reading a quote " Mr. Yeldham, a retired supreme court judge in New South Wales committed suicide when he was subpoenaed to appear before a Royal Commission inquiring into police corruption and the protection of paedophiles."
Re:The Cops should target one of their own or... (Score:1, Informative)