4 ms·

These "data disruption warrants" are the most interesting to me: > Data disruption means adding, copying, deleting or altering data held in a computer. This ca

These "data disruption warrants" are the most interesting to me: > Data disruption means adding, copying, deleting or altering data held in a computer. This can only be done in order to frustrate the commission of offences or determine relevance of data. To assist disruption, a warrant can also authorise other facilitative activities, such as entering specified premises, using electronic equipment to obtain access to data, removing a computer from premises, copying data that has been obtained, and intercepting if necessary to carry out the things authorised in the warrant. A data disruption warrant also allows the officer to take actions to conceal the access and the activities, allowing the warrant to be conducted covertly. > Data disruption warrants can be used to affect data offshore with the consent of an appropriate consenting foreign official (if the location of data is known or can be reasonably determined). They can also be issued internally in an emergency situation, and subsequently authorised by a Judge or AAT member. They can also permit the officer to seek assistance from a person with knowledge of a computer or a computer system to help in carrying out the warrant. - https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/national-security/lawful-access-telecommunications/surveillance-legislation-amendment-identify-and-disrupt-bill-2020/data-disruption-warrants https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio... So they can get a warrant to come into your house while you're not home and put a keylogger in your keyboard USB cable, or put a bug on the UART of your router, etc. Or just hacking your cheap Netgear router with one of the hundreds of vulnerabilities that exist. Scary shit. Sounds like they're pretty drunk with power. Does Australia really have a capable offensive security group like the NSA to pull these sorts of things off, though?

zomiaen 5y ago
They're a member of the FIVE EYEs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
- tpoacher 5y ago
  For a second there, I thought I was reading omnipedia instead. Scary stuff.
cinquemb 5y ago
Well as long as they leave their back doors on these systems open for the rest of us, i think its ok :P Would love to distrubute zk-chain validators via self replicating router malware lol
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
> So they can get a warrant to come into your house while you're not home and put a keylogger in your keyboard USB cable, or put a bug on the UART of your router, etc. Or just hacking your cheap Netgear router with one of the hundreds of vulnerabilities that exist. That's actually not that weird. If you are a suspected criminal and a judge give a warrant targeting you specifically, it's quite natural the police can now gather information on you by any mean possible. It's not warrant-less, it's not mass surveillance, it sounds like regular police work. Or am I missing something?
- ben_w 5y ago
  Not being a legal expert, I can’t tell where the boundary is between enabling legitimate police work and giving (accidentally or deliberately) the police the power to plant fake evidence, the latter being what some of this sounds like. But, I’m not a legal expert, and “sounds like” is a way to make very large mistakes when looking outside of one’s own domain of expertise like I’m doing here. (Also doesn’t help that I hear about stories like this from people who don’t like them, so I get a potentially biased first impression).
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    They could always do that: once they have a warrant, they can search your house and pretend to find physical evidences in it.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Indeed they could. However the linked page says: > A DATA DISRUPTION WARRANT enables the agencies to “add, copy, delete or alter” data on devices. With the exception of the word “copy”, this makes it seem like the plan is to make it not merely possible but also legally acceptable for anyone given such a warrant to create/place that evidence (or delete things to make real data look incriminating by lack of context). Again, I really know I can’t trust my interpretation of any legal text, all I can say is it does sound bad to an outsider like me.
  - 5y ago
_kbh_ 5y ago
Scary shit. Sounds like they're pretty drunk with power. Does Australia really have a capable offensive security group like the NSA to pull these sorts of things off, though? They do but the real question is whether its appropriate to source intelligence from a place like the NSA when the outcomes are meant to be used by the police.

zomiaen 5y ago

They're a member of the FIVE EYEs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

tpoacher 5y ago
For a second there, I thought I was reading omnipedia instead. Scary stuff.

cinquemb 5y ago

Well as long as they leave their back doors on these systems open for the rest of us, i think its ok :P Would love to distrubute zk-chain validators via self replicating router malware lol

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

> So they can get a warrant to come into your house while you're not home and put a keylogger in your keyboard USB cable, or put a bug on the UART of your router, etc. Or just hacking your cheap Netgear router with one of the hundreds of vulnerabilities that exist. That's actually not that weird. If you are a suspected criminal and a judge give a warrant targeting you specifically, it's quite natural the police can now gather information on you by any mean possible. It's not warrant-less, it's not mass surveillance, it sounds like regular police work. Or am I missing something?

ben_w 5y ago
Not being a legal expert, I can’t tell where the boundary is between enabling legitimate police work and giving (accidentally or deliberately) the police the power to plant fake evidence, the latter being what some of this sounds like. But, I’m not a legal expert, and “sounds like” is a way to make very large mistakes when looking outside of one’s own domain of expertise like I’m doing here. (Also doesn’t help that I hear about stories like this from people who don’t like them, so I get a potentially biased first impression).
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  They could always do that: once they have a warrant, they can search your house and pretend to find physical evidences in it.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Indeed they could. However the linked page says: > A DATA DISRUPTION WARRANT enables the agencies to “add, copy, delete or alter” data on devices. With the exception of the word “copy”, this makes it seem like the plan is to make it not merely possible but also legally acceptable for anyone given such a warrant to create/place that evidence (or delete things to make real data look incriminating by lack of context). Again, I really know I can’t trust my interpretation of any legal text, all I can say is it does sound bad to an outsider like me.
- 5y ago

_kbh_ 5y ago

Scary shit. Sounds like they're pretty drunk with power. Does Australia really have a capable offensive security group like the NSA to pull these sorts of things off, though? They do but the real question is whether its appropriate to source intelligence from a place like the NSA when the outcomes are meant to be used by the police.