Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers

FTA: “…agencies can take control of a person’s online account to gather evidence about serious offences without consent, as well as add, copy, delete or alter material to disrupt criminal activity and collect intelligence from online networks.” (emphasis added)

How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?

Re: Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers

#5

Post by actually_a_dog » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 6:12 AM UTC

> “What’s worse, the data disruption and network activity warrants could be issued by a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – really?" she said.

> "It is outrageous that these warrants won’t come from a judge of a superior court that is appointed on their personal capacity.”

I'm having trouble with the terminology here, but does that mean that these types of warrants could be issued by the equivalent of a magistrate, rather than a judge?

Re: Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers

#6

Post by thefounder » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 6:21 AM UTC

miles wrote: post #4

FTA: “…agencies can take control of a person’s online account to gather evidence about serious offences without consent, as well as add , copy, delete or alter material to disrupt criminal activity and collect intelligence from online networks.” (emphasis added) How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?

>> How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?

I guess it's considered as an undercover/impersonation/honeypot job.

Re: Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers

#7

Post by __warlord__ » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 6:27 AM UTC

1MachineElf wrote: post #2

China Lite

china.au

Re: Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers

#8

Post by dannyw » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 6:28 AM UTC

actually_a_dog wrote: post #5

> “What’s worse, the data disruption and network activity warrants could be issued by a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – really?" she said. > "It is outrageous that these warrants won’t come from a judge of a superior court that is appointed on their personal capacity.” I'm having trouble with the terminology here, but does that mean that these types of warrants could be issued by the equivalent of a m…

yes.

Re: Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers

#9

Post by alfiedotwtf » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 6:47 AM UTC

I tried to tell people that this and worse would happen from the AABill but nobody actually cared. Even talking to a lot of tech-savvy people and tech-savvy lawyers, nope... at most, people raised an eyebrow but couldn't really care less.

If people don't actually care, what more can someone do :(

Re: Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers

#10

Post by BLKNSLVR » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 7:06 AM UTC

miles wrote: post #4

FTA: “…agencies can take control of a person’s online account to gather evidence about serious offences without consent, as well as add , copy, delete or alter material to disrupt criminal activity and collect intelligence from online networks.” (emphasis added) How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?

I was about to post the same extract and ask a slightly different question:

Does this break the chain of trust of evidence? How can any evidence, therefore, be admissible?

Digital / electronic evidence has always been on a bit of a shaky foundation, but this crumbles it to pieces.