10 ms·

The key example justifying the need for this bill is as follows: > A high risk Registered Sex Offender (RSO) was placed on the register for raping a 16 year ol

The key example justifying the need for this bill is as follows: > A high risk Registered Sex Offender (RSO) was placed on the register for raping a 16 year old female, served nine years imprisonment and is now monitored by Corrections via two ankle bracelets whilst out on parole. Victoria Police received intel that he was breaching his RSO and parole conditions by contacting a number of females typically between 13 and 17 years of age. Enquiries showed that he was contacting these females and offering them drugs in return for sexual favours. The suspect was arrested and his mobile phone was seized but despite legislative requirements he refused to provide his passcode. Due to an inability to access his phone as well as the fact that he used encrypted communication methods such as Snapchat and Facebook Messenger, Victoria Police was unable to access evidence which would have enabled them to secure a successful prosecution and identify further victims and offences. These are high victim impact crimes that are being hindered by the inability of law enforcement to access encrypted communications. The limited information reveals they identified some targets, which means they would know (some of) his Facebook and Snapchat account names. While the content of messages can be encrypted, the connection graph is not, so why couldn't Victorian Police request details of accounts the suspect's account had communicated with and request the parents of those users provide endpoint access to the encrypted chat history?

bkor 8y ago
From what I understood Whatsapp does regularly work with the police. The contents is encrypted. But you can easily monitor who communicates with whom. So if one person is unwilling, you can check if the other is willing. I find it more worrisome that going after one person is more important than the privacy of a huge group.
TomK32 8y ago
Why must we all open our communication just because of a few sick individuals who are already imprissioned or under surveillance?
- dangerface 8y ago
  I don't think the justification for spying on you is really why they want to spy on you.
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    Australia is terrified that its war crimes are going to be discovered in the next few years, and therefore there is a push on to make encryption unusable for the general public. If the general public knew what the ADF were doing, there would be bodies hanging from the flagpoles in Canberra. This move is a direct response to the fear that officials have, of Australians learning the truth about how the ADF is being used to effectively destroy civilisation in the Middle East and around the world. However, the truth is out there, and it will be known. The clock is ticking for those who have allowed us all to be conned into the lies and trickery of the so-called 5-eyes new world order.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      What's the connection between usable crypto and disclosure of these crimes?
      - fit2rule 8y ago
        If they have the ability to spy on every single communication, the chances of pulling off a leak are much, much lower. Wikileaks is still alive and running today because of encryption. Once this changes, we won't have transparent societies for anyone but the holders of the keys ..
        jMyles 8y ago
        Yeah, that's not completely unfair. I tend to think that leaks will always happen, regardless of communications media, surveillance, and encryption. But your point isn't entirely unfounded.
        cyphar 8y ago
- josefresco 8y ago
  You'd be surprised at what "a few sick individuals" can do to civilized society.
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    Especially when they are in power and can operate in unfettered secrecy, away from civil society - the only really truly effective governor of heinous human activities such as those enacted by the current mob of Australian politicos/oligarchs.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Kissinger, Cheney, Clinton, Bolton... I think we're past the point of surprise with this phenomenon.
ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
The timing of this story was incredibly suss. Right before they launched this campaign against encryption, and it just doesn't pass the sniff-test. Why can't they do some old fashioned police work and interview the girls? Get a warrant and physically monitor his movements to catch him visiting them, or them visiting him? You know... investigate. It's what we pay you to do. They don't get to treat every single one of us as criminals just because they can't be bothered getting off their arses and doing some work. If I tried to make that excuse to my boss (and I'm public sector like them), they'd laugh at me and tell me to get to work or find a new job.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  They also assume he's guilty whilst simultaneously claiming they have no evidence to demonstrate to a court that guilt. That's contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art.11).
  - J-dawg 8y ago
    That's a great point. The whole tone is "we know he is guilty but traditional policing methods have been unable to prove that, therefore we must have these additional powers to prove what we already know". Also... > Enquiries showed that he was contacting these females What are these mysterious enquiries? Why not follow up on those? If one or more of those victims was willing to give access to their devices/accounts they'd get the evidence they needed anyway.
    - orbat 8y ago
      > What are these mysterious enquiries? Why not follow up on those? I know this is a rhetorical question, but the answer is that the whole "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" angle is a façade. The real reason to implement any of this is to gain more power over the populace by making meaningful resistance of the government harder.
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    FTR, Australia long ago gave up any pretence to being an honest supporter of the UNDHR. It has breached it many, many times in recent years, and cynically covers this fact up by referring to the individuals involved as "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants" and "unauthorised arrivals" .. justifying a long list of heinous crimes committed against these individuals. Do not fool yourself: Australia is on a slippery slope towards a heinous future, and ignoring the UNDHR is one of the key steps it is taking towards that event horizon. It has never given a damn about the rights of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, by way of example ..
sgjohnson 8y ago
The justification is playing on people who don't know why encryption is necessary. It's nothing more than "but think of the children" crap.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
eat_veggies 8y ago
> encrypted communication methods such as Snapchat and Facebook Messenger neither of these are encrypted communication methods.
- gsnedders 8y ago
  FB Messenger has an encrypted mode (though I've never seen anyone use it!).
Quarrelsome 8y ago
just change the law so the law is allowed to hack his machine specifically in the case of collecting evidence in a case where there is fair reason to suspect. Get your evidence that way. Screen cap, key log. Oh but no, lets make it EVERYBODY's problem.
kstrauser 8y ago
> Due to an inability to access his phone as well as the fact that he used encrypted communication methods such as Snapchat and Facebook Messenger, Victoria Police was unable to access evidence which would have enabled them to secure a successful prosecution and identify further victims and offences. That's a textbook example of begging the question, huh. Without the alleged evidence, they don't know if they would have been able to get a conviction or not. It also presumes that none of the parents of those minor children would let police look at their kids' phones. If I were a parent in that situation and the police wanted to see what messages the accused had sent to my child, I've break the speed of sound on my way to the police station to hand it over. So all in all, what they intended was "OMG please think of the children". What I heard was "we have incompetent police who don't understand how the justice system is supposed to work".
BLKNSLVR 8y ago
>Victoria Police received intel that he was breaching his RSO and parole conditions by contacting a number of females typically between 13 and 17 years of age. Enquiries showed that he was contacting these females and offering them drugs in return for sexual favours That makes it sound as if they've got enough. Metadata Retention, which was legislated a couple of years ago, would be able to join the dots. Can't see the content, can match up sources, destinations, locations, and timestamps. Case closed - or at least it's up to a jury from there. It's like they're requiring a high definition video of a murder being committed before they can charge someone for the murder even though they've got the murder weapon, motive, opportunity, and all those other things that almost guarantee a conviction. Additional thought: What if the messages were deleted off the phone as soon as they were sent? Or accounts were added to the phone, messages sent, message deleted, account removed from phone? Like a smart criminal would do? The way they're desperately wanting this data makes it sound as if a lack of it could be used as defense evidence, which is NOT what the authorities would want at all. They've got enough to make a convincing case. A smoking gun is a luxury, not a requirement.

bkor 8y ago

From what I understood Whatsapp does regularly work with the police. The contents is encrypted. But you can easily monitor who communicates with whom. So if one person is unwilling, you can check if the other is willing. I find it more worrisome that going after one person is more important than the privacy of a huge group.

TomK32 8y ago

Why must we all open our communication just because of a few sick individuals who are already imprissioned or under surveillance?

dangerface 8y ago
I don't think the justification for spying on you is really why they want to spy on you.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  Australia is terrified that its war crimes are going to be discovered in the next few years, and therefore there is a push on to make encryption unusable for the general public. If the general public knew what the ADF were doing, there would be bodies hanging from the flagpoles in Canberra. This move is a direct response to the fear that officials have, of Australians learning the truth about how the ADF is being used to effectively destroy civilisation in the Middle East and around the world. However, the truth is out there, and it will be known. The clock is ticking for those who have allowed us all to be conned into the lies and trickery of the so-called 5-eyes new world order.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    What's the connection between usable crypto and disclosure of these crimes?
    - fit2rule 8y ago
      If they have the ability to spy on every single communication, the chances of pulling off a leak are much, much lower. Wikileaks is still alive and running today because of encryption. Once this changes, we won't have transparent societies for anyone but the holders of the keys ..
      - jMyles 8y ago
        Yeah, that's not completely unfair. I tend to think that leaks will always happen, regardless of communications media, surveillance, and encryption. But your point isn't entirely unfounded.
        cyphar 8y ago
josefresco 8y ago
You'd be surprised at what "a few sick individuals" can do to civilized society.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  Especially when they are in power and can operate in unfettered secrecy, away from civil society - the only really truly effective governor of heinous human activities such as those enacted by the current mob of Australian politicos/oligarchs.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Kissinger, Cheney, Clinton, Bolton... I think we're past the point of surprise with this phenomenon.

ObsoleteNerd 8y ago

The timing of this story was incredibly suss. Right before they launched this campaign against encryption, and it just doesn't pass the sniff-test. Why can't they do some old fashioned police work and interview the girls? Get a warrant and physically monitor his movements to catch him visiting them, or them visiting him? You know... investigate. It's what we pay you to do. They don't get to treat every single one of us as criminals just because they can't be bothered getting off their arses and doing some work. If I tried to make that excuse to my boss (and I'm public sector like them), they'd laugh at me and tell me to get to work or find a new job.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
They also assume he's guilty whilst simultaneously claiming they have no evidence to demonstrate to a court that guilt. That's contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art.11).
- J-dawg 8y ago
  That's a great point. The whole tone is "we know he is guilty but traditional policing methods have been unable to prove that, therefore we must have these additional powers to prove what we already know". Also... > Enquiries showed that he was contacting these females What are these mysterious enquiries? Why not follow up on those? If one or more of those victims was willing to give access to their devices/accounts they'd get the evidence they needed anyway.
  - orbat 8y ago
    > What are these mysterious enquiries? Why not follow up on those? I know this is a rhetorical question, but the answer is that the whole "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" angle is a façade. The real reason to implement any of this is to gain more power over the populace by making meaningful resistance of the government harder.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  FTR, Australia long ago gave up any pretence to being an honest supporter of the UNDHR. It has breached it many, many times in recent years, and cynically covers this fact up by referring to the individuals involved as "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants" and "unauthorised arrivals" .. justifying a long list of heinous crimes committed against these individuals. Do not fool yourself: Australia is on a slippery slope towards a heinous future, and ignoring the UNDHR is one of the key steps it is taking towards that event horizon. It has never given a damn about the rights of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, by way of example ..

sgjohnson 8y ago

The justification is playing on people who don't know why encryption is necessary. It's nothing more than "but think of the children" crap.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

eat_veggies 8y ago

> encrypted communication methods such as Snapchat and Facebook Messenger neither of these are encrypted communication methods.

gsnedders 8y ago
FB Messenger has an encrypted mode (though I've never seen anyone use it!).

Quarrelsome 8y ago

just change the law so the law is allowed to hack his machine specifically in the case of collecting evidence in a case where there is fair reason to suspect. Get your evidence that way. Screen cap, key log. Oh but no, lets make it EVERYBODY's problem.

kstrauser 8y ago

> Due to an inability to access his phone as well as the fact that he used encrypted communication methods such as Snapchat and Facebook Messenger, Victoria Police was unable to access evidence which would have enabled them to secure a successful prosecution and identify further victims and offences. That's a textbook example of begging the question, huh. Without the alleged evidence, they don't know if they would have been able to get a conviction or not. It also presumes that none of the parents of those minor children would let police look at their kids' phones. If I were a parent in that situation and the police wanted to see what messages the accused had sent to my child, I've break the speed of sound on my way to the police station to hand it over. So all in all, what they intended was "OMG please think of the children". What I heard was "we have incompetent police who don't understand how the justice system is supposed to work".

BLKNSLVR 8y ago

>Victoria Police received intel that he was breaching his RSO and parole conditions by contacting a number of females typically between 13 and 17 years of age. Enquiries showed that he was contacting these females and offering them drugs in return for sexual favours That makes it sound as if they've got enough. Metadata Retention, which was legislated a couple of years ago, would be able to join the dots. Can't see the content, can match up sources, destinations, locations, and timestamps. Case closed - or at least it's up to a jury from there. It's like they're requiring a high definition video of a murder being committed before they can charge someone for the murder even though they've got the murder weapon, motive, opportunity, and all those other things that almost guarantee a conviction. Additional thought: What if the messages were deleted off the phone as soon as they were sent? Or accounts were added to the phone, messages sent, message deleted, account removed from phone? Like a smart criminal would do? The way they're desperately wanting this data makes it sound as if a lack of it could be used as defense evidence, which is NOT what the authorities would want at all. They've got enough to make a convincing case. A smoking gun is a luxury, not a requirement.