Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#81

Post by Johnny555 »

ben_jones wrote: post #59
shusson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this stood out to me too. I don't really understand why a warrant would enable alteration. Copying I can wrap my head around, but alteration without oversight seems awful. Hopefully the warrant has more fine print than the journalist implied.

Probably legal completeness. Think about it, log in to a windows computer there is probably an event log that gets updated. While checking browser history the history may be altered. Installing surveillance applications would modify the machine. Etc.

Installing surveillance applications

Isn't this a huge problem? That the police can forcibly install surveillance applications in a news organizations computers.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#82

Post by vangelis »

electrograv wrote: post #74
ChrisSD wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unsure what your point is? You can make the same claims about criminals and indeed many people people do. Criminals are in fact normal people.

> Criminals are in fact normal people. Could you elaborate more on this claim? In an ideal world, criminal behavior is supposed to be defined as abnormal and unwanted behavior. * Is my definition of “criminal” for an ideal world way off target? * Or, are you mostly critiquing how non-ideal our current world is, and the injustice of many laws currently on the books? * Something else?

Most people are breaking some law, it just depends how vigorously we want to enforce the law against you.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#83

Post by rhcom2 »

electrograv wrote: post #74
ChrisSD wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unsure what your point is? You can make the same claims about criminals and indeed many people people do. Criminals are in fact normal people.

> Criminals are in fact normal people. Could you elaborate more on this claim? In an ideal world, criminal behavior is supposed to be defined as abnormal and unwanted behavior. * Is my definition of “criminal” for an ideal world way off target? * Or, are you mostly critiquing how non-ideal our current world is, and the injustice of many laws currently on the books? * Something else?

The majority of Americans have smoked pot, are a majority now criminals?

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#84

Post by gruez »

wccrawford wrote: post #58
shusson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this stood out to me too. I don't really understand why a warrant would enable alteration. Copying I can wrap my head around, but alteration without oversight seems awful. Hopefully the warrant has more fine print than the journalist implied.

Perhaps they had a ruling in the past that during accessing a computer, things got changed, like the logs. And so now they have to have that in the warrant so that they don't lose their case. It sounds stupid, but I could see it happening.

>Perhaps they had a ruling in the past that during accessing a computer, things got changed, like the logs

they don't have imaging tools and/or write blockers?

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#85

Post by peterkelly »

SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #8

I'm getting a bit sick of journalists acting like they should be above the law. This comes across as though it's an audacious abuse of authority for any law enforcement official to even think about stepping foot into a media companies office. No, you are subject to criminal investigation just like anyone else is. I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is perceived to be under attack…

And I'm getting a bit sick of my country committing war crimes and trying to cover them up (which was the subject of the story the raids related to).

I think it's more important for those responsible for the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians to be publicly held to account than for the government's "right" to keep those killings secret, even if the law favors the latter.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#86

Post by sansnomme »

noir_lord wrote: post #34
lettergram wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, working at a medical billing company standard practice was zero out drive, then drill. It was far less secret than that too

I work for a company that makes stone products. We still drill through drives and then bash them till the platters are dust. It doesn't take long and where our main site is people dumpster dive.

Stone as in rock? The hard stuff on the ground?

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#87

Post by vokep »

ben_jones wrote: post #59
shusson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this stood out to me too. I don't really understand why a warrant would enable alteration. Copying I can wrap my head around, but alteration without oversight seems awful. Hopefully the warrant has more fine print than the journalist implied.

Probably legal completeness. Think about it, log in to a windows computer there is probably an event log that gets updated. While checking browser history the history may be altered. Installing surveillance applications would modify the machine. Etc.

Seems the language needs to be specific then, or it allows for free manipulation of evidence.

Something like, allowed to copy and if that has an unintended consequence of modifying the machine, that is fine so long as evidence is not destroyed.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#88

Post by delinka »

mwill wrote: post #48

The raid was being live tweeted by an ABC editor, the tweet that stood out the most to me was this:[0] AFP: I’m still staggered by the power of this warrant. It allows the AFP to “add, copy, delete or alter” material in the ABC’s computers. All Australians, please think about that: as of this moment, the AFP has the power to delete material in the ABC’s computers. Australia 2019. [0] https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/s…

also "alter" - think "planting evidence"

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#89

Post by adventured »

jonny_eh wrote: post #6
woah wrote: post #2

Seems that other countries are fast following the example the US government set in aggressive enforcement of press censorship against Assange.

NVM Assange, look within our own borders: https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-war... https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-war...

Implying that one illegal example in San Francisco by local police, means that it is a common procedure in the US that is being applied "within our own borders," is absurd.

A given unit of police can do any given illegal thing, that doesn't make it common or mean that it's going to become common.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#90

Post by chopin »

wccrawford wrote: post #58
shusson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this stood out to me too. I don't really understand why a warrant would enable alteration. Copying I can wrap my head around, but alteration without oversight seems awful. Hopefully the warrant has more fine print than the journalist implied.

Perhaps they had a ruling in the past that during accessing a computer, things got changed, like the logs. And so now they have to have that in the warrant so that they don't lose their case. It sounds stupid, but I could see it happening.

But this isn't a way to do a forensic analysis. You just clone the hard drive. Anything else should not be able to stand up in court.

Afaik it is practice in rule-of-law countries to hand a clone to each party in the case.

Post reply on HN