Aussie Cops Want Powers To Search Any Computer

goatherder23 writes in with news that the New South Wales cabinet has proposed new powers for police to search computers anywhere under a search warrant, and adds: "The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse are invoked to explain why police need the new laws, which have yet to be introduced into Parliament. Would someone please explain to them before this happens that all computers on the Internet are "networked" and that some computers may be found outside NSW (or even Australia)?" "Police Minister David Campbell says police are currently only able to search computer hardware found on a premises named in a search warrant. He says with the changes, they will be able to go a step further and search other networked computers, regardless of where they are located. 'What we know is that there are organized crime gangs who use the Internet and other forms of technology to hide their crimes,' he said."

Ineffective

[explosivejared (1186049)]

Any organized crime syndicate worth their weight is going to understand how to encrypt data and use hidden volumes. With the seven day limit, that only allows for a cursory search and not the kind of in depth forensic combing it would take to actually find actionable data. So in the end, the only people actually harmed of it are ordinary citizens who are having their rights abused by heavy handed searches.

Re:

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

Couldn't they just low-level image it and give the drives back? Then they can comb at their leisure. Not that I'm supporting the bill- it's obviously stupid and a horrifying violation of search and seizure rights. Any intelligent australian will be full-volume passphrase encrypting their drives from now on.. when the police start realizing that they can't do anything with anyone's data without their permission, they might just give up?

Re:

[rucs_hack (784150)]

Couldn't they just low-level image it and give the drives back?

No, they will want to keep the drives in case something changes in the analysis technology, and they can extract more information. When you live in an environment which has a vested interest in suspicion, niceties rarely get much attention.

Re:Ineffective

[denis-The-menace (471988)]

Then just clone the drives and give the suspect the copy and not the original HD.

Re:Ineffective

[Qzukk (229616)]

That would imply that the suspect has some rights and that the government doesn't strip the accused of every right they have as soon as the finger has been pointed. Don't know how Australia does it, but in the US, look at everyone who gets their gear seized either in a raid or crossing a border. Also look up "civil forfeiture" which gives the government the right to steal your property for its own profit without a crime having occurred.

Re:Ineffective

[c0p0n (770852)]

Couldn't they just low-level image it and give the drives back? [...]

Verbing weirds language.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz (655733)]

So in the end, the only people actually harmed of it are ordinary citizens who are having their rights abused by heavy handed searches.

And you assume that this is not the actual intent. Why?

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We *want* them broken. You'd better get it straight That it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Re:Ineffective

[AJWM (19027)]

Attribution where due, please. From Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which I heartily recommend. It makes especially good reading on a long train ride.

Re:

[superwiz (655733)]

Someone quoted this paragraph before while I was saying essentially the same thing as the grandparent. I recognized the quote right away from the rather unique Dr. Ferris attribution. I think this alone makes it clear that the whole thing is a quote from something. From what? Well, maybe trying to find who is Dr. Ferris will lead someone to finding who is John Galt. I left the by-line out on purpose. :)

Re:

[mentaldrano (674767)]

So that you can sleep the whole way.

Re:

[superwiz (655733)]

Ayn Rand psycho bullshit.

Don't you mean:

<foam at the mouth>Ayn Rand psycho bullshit.</foam at the mouth>

Re:

[superwiz (655733)]

Second to GWB, Carter's presidency is known for the worst handling of the economy in the known US history. I am not sure why you would pick him to handle your wallet.

Re:

[superwiz (655733)]

They never are... It's also not North Korea's fault that they had a famine. That's why 2 million died. Guess what? We had a famine just now. How many people died as its direct result?

Re:

[superwiz (655733)]

Are you seriously suggesting that if I asked Carter to hold onto my wallet that I wouldn't get it back, through incompetence or malice?

If he found some "worthy" cause (shouldn't be hard for a man with his connections), I doubt you'd see your money again.

Re:

[superwiz (655733)]

And I posit that it this sense of community that is forced (rather than occurs naturally) that creates red tape and regulations that try to precisely define that which we entrust the government to make us feel. We pick who we love, who we become friends with and towards whom we wish to be charitable. When this choice is made for us and forced on us at the threat of violence (the only tool available to a government), we lose our humanity and lose sight of the value of that which we hoped to force on oursel

Re:

[superwiz (655733)]

I just realized something that I should add to this:

By doing so you declare that you have a right to be a tyrant over your neighbor as long as enough of your other neighbors agree to share the benefits of your tyranny. This coalescence of power (and eventual rise of a hierarchy of the powerful) is how all tyrannies were established.

The only way out of it is to leave your neighbor alone to do as he pleases with his own property. If you wish to serve, do so. Find a way to be useful to those who you believe need your service. But respect your neighbor's right to stare at the sky or pretty girls while you do that. Do not demand that he serves as well. The key requirement for preserving freedom is that of making no intrusion on the freedoms of others. Again, if you wish to alleviat

Re:Ineffective

[gstoddart (321705)]

Any organized crime syndicate worth their weight is going to understand how to encrypt data and use hidden volumes.

I'm not entirely sure of that.

Are all criminals tech savvy? Do they have an IT department to take care of such things? How much does organized crime rely on computers and network technology?

Somehow I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of people running a crime family sitting around deciding if they need stronger encryption, or different protocols, or using hidden volumes. I just can't see someone involved in drug smuggling, or extortion, or human trafficking firing up their laptops to print the cover sheet for their TPS report. :-P

Maybe I'm totally wrong on this, and they're really dialed into these things. It just seems to damned bizarre to me as to almost be a sitcom.

Cheers

Re:Ineffective

[jc42 (318812)]

Somehow I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of people running a crime family sitting around deciding if they need stronger encryption, or different protocols, or using hidden volumes.

Of course this is silly. The people running a crime family are like the people running any other business. They make the high-level decisions. The mundane details are handled by the people hired to take care of such things. If you've got a few geek kids in the family, it's not hard to develop an appropriate IT operation. Your business data needs aren't really any different from any other business, and you can use the same software as everyone else.

How many CEOs have any clue about computers? Most of them never even touch a keyboard. Such things are for the hired help. It's no different with crime organizations. In fact, aside from externalities like the legality of their business, there's not really any difference to speak of.

War on Data

[Chukcha (787065)]

I expect that the "War on Data" will be as effective as the "War on Drugs", War on Terror", and "War on Poverty" have been. In other words, very successful at giving the state more control, more jobs, and more opportunities for corruption. Discuss...

Re:War on What, exactly?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Of course, for that is the real goal. What you are seeing are individual battles in the war on limits of government power. Every government, once formed, takes on a life of its own and seeks to increase authority, power and influence at the expense of personal liberty. Sadly, it is the natural order of things and the history books are rich with examples.
Government power is like acid. It will eat away at the vessel that contains (no matter how well constructed, see the American Constitution for example) it until it escapes. It will destroy those in its path.

I'm only an amateur student of history, but I am not aware of any instance where a government, once empowered, has relinquished those powers without force.

Re:

[oliverthered (187439)]

but I am not aware of any instance where a government, once empowered, has relinquished those powers without force.
Gandhi? of course you all know the reason they teach about Gandhi, it's to show you that there's another way except force that worked well once, so there's no need for you to get up in arms against the government if Gandhi didn't have to.

Re:War on What, exactly?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371)]

I'm only an amateur student of history, but I am not aware of any instance where a government, once empowered, has relinquished those powers without force.

Here you go. [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Here's another [wikipedia.org].

Three times in the past fifty years the military in Turkey has overthrown the government through force (and once without), only to subsequently relinquish power and restore democracy.

While the idea of a military who considers the stewardship of secular democracy to be their solemn duty is fascinating, I think the particular circumstances that lead to this being effective are fairly unique so in general I don't think it can work. Most coups don't work out that well for the people (which isn't

Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant for

[ArsenneLupin (766289)]

The proposed laws would allow police to search computers networked to those listed on a search warrant.

In a few words: Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant for all computers worldwide that happen to be on the Internet. Gosh, and you Aussies let such laws pass without torching the parliament building, and putting all heads who voted for it on a stake?

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

You'd expect that from a prison colony wouldn't you? :)

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

Before today you would have thought "Government Seeks Warrant to Search the Internet" was a headline from The Onion.

RTFS

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

...the New South Wales cabinet has proposed new powers for police to search computers anywhere under a search warrant, and adds: "The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse are invoked to explain why police need the new laws, which have yet to be introduced into Parliament...."

Read The Fucking Summary. Thank you.

Or, if you still don't get it: The laws have been proposed, not passed. There's still the chance that parliament will figure out the implications and reject the law, in favor of sanity.

Re:

[ArsenneLupin (766289)]

The laws have been proposed, not passed.

Oops, you're right. I was a little bit fast, sorry for that. Ok, so I'll just wait the necessary 2 or 3 weeks, and post it again when the law is passed.

There's still the chance that parliament will figure out the implications and reject the law, in favor of sanity.

Well, let's hope so, but given the Aussies' past performance on all matters Internet, I somehow doubt this... Unless the Australian people raise enough of a stink against this beforehand...

Networked?

[grassy_knoll (412409)]

From TFA:

The proposed laws would allow police to search computers networked to those listed on a search warrant.

So, if there's a cable modem / DSL in use when the computer is searched the entire subnet could be searched? How about the web servers of sites displayed in a browser?

How do these new regulations define "networked"?

Re:

[FST777 (913657)]

If history has taught us anything about the affinity politicians have with tech, the definition will probably be: "tied to each other using one or more electrical cables, wires or tubes."

That or there will be no definition at all. Law is usually very vague in defining things, they assume that those things will be sorted out in jurisprudence.

New part of police education?

[splutty (43475)]

So. If I understand this correctly, the newest addition to the curriculum of the police school will be:

Intahwebs Hacking 101: How to break into networked computers for dummies.

I don't quite get this bill, to be honest. There is almost never a fully open continuous connection between networked computers to begin with, and I seriously doubt that any sort of crime syndicate would be so stupid as to share directories over the internet or something equally dumb.

So the only thing I can possibly think of is them t

Options

[by Anonymous Coward]

Well, you can always move to the United States.

Drama?

[Penguinisto (415985)]

Not 100% sure of how closely Australia tracks with US laws, but would this require a full search warrant, or a bench warrant, or ...?

(and do they have probable cause laws?)

IOW, they still have to prove their case before they can start poking about, yes?

(and now more than ever, we really need some tech-savvy law types to get their asses into judicial positions, no matter which country we're talking about...)

/P

What crime?

[muffel (42979)]

'What we know is that there are organized crime gangs who use the Internet and other forms of technology to hide their crimes,' he said."

If they can hide their crimes using the Internet, the crimes can't have been that bad in the first place?

Re:

[Hanners1979 (959741)]

If they can hide their crimes using the Internet, the crimes can't have been that bad in the first place?

You'd be amazed how many dead bodies you can hide in a series of tubes.

Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[QCompson (675963)]

I count three:
1. terrorism (boogedy-boogedy!)
2. kiddie pr0n (think of the children!)
3. fraud (oh no, my precious inbox is filled with spam!)

What's number four?

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[Sabz5150 (1230938)]

What's number four?

SCO.

Re:

[Chris Mattern (191822)]

I count three:
1. terrorism (boogedy-boogedy!)
2. kiddie pr0n (think of the children!)
3. fraud (oh no, my precious inbox is filled with spam!)

What's number four?

4. ???
5. Profit!

Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[Cathoderoytube (1088737)]

I guess it's worth noting that the law was just proposed, not actually passed. You could fill up a million pages on slashdot just with all the stupid bills governments all over the world table every day. So this is just playing on our guilty pleasure of ragging on any possibility of a law that would infringe on our rights, however unlikely they'll ever get passed.

Re:Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[hyades1 (1149581)]

There's actually a pretty good reason for having a good, old-fashioned uproar whenever something like this is proposed. It's called a trial balloon, and the reason it's floated is so the government of the day can judge the level of outrage they'll have to deal with if they try to pass a similar law. The usual method is to propose something as ridiculous as this, then work hard to enact a less draconian alternative that still manages to undermine civil liberties in a big way. The non-thinking majority of drones then nod their heads wisely and say, "Wow, we really dodged a bullet on that one, didn't we."

Not that I disagree with you about how much fun it is to ridicule these fascist half-wits, mind you. There's no rule that says you can't do something valuable and have a huge laugh at the same time.

Now, where did I put that crime?

[Red Flayer (890720)]

'What we know is that there are organized crime gangs who use the Internet and other forms of technology to hide their crimes

Yes, because when I (and my legitimate businessmen associates) want to hide my crimes, the first thing I do is post information about them on the internet. Because, of all places I could put my crimes in the hope of hiding them, the Internet is the best choice. It's not like law enforcement has the time to monitor all the tubes, after all, and even if they did, they can't check all

Is it's their responsibility to ask...

[Thanshin (1188877)]

...And their government to deny?

Or is it wrong that the police even asks.

I don't think they should be made responsible of analyzing the full ramifications of what they see as a chance to apply the law. Let them ask and politely deny the obviously idiotic proposition.

In other poice state news...

[Telecommando (513768)]

Criminals also use roads and sidewalks, therefore when searching a property for criminal activity all properties connected by roads or sidewalks to the suspect property should be searched as well.

Errrr...

[zaunuz (624853)]

right to search networked computers, not only the computers found on site.. in 99.9% of the cases these computers are connected to the intertubes, thus making the computers they'd be allowed to search spread pretty much over the entire world. And speaking of intertubes, i wouldn't be surprised if US States Senator Ted Stevens agreed with it. O.o

And next...

[kabdib (81955)]

The proposed legislation giving us X-ray Mind-Reading Super Powers will permit us to find out when people are thinking Bad Thoughts, anywhere! Criminals should give themselves up now!

Cop: "Yer unner arrest."

Perp: "What for? I haven't done anything."

Cop: "Dis machine here says you wuz gonna."

Perp: "You got me. It's a fair cop."

Not Safe

[famebait (450028)]

some computers may be found outside NSW

I think you missed a consonant there. "outside not safe work" doesn't even make any sense.

Wow...

[Arancaytar (966377)]

And I thought we had it bad here in Germany! At least our government only wants to spy on the computers of its own citizens, not the rest of the world...

Re:

[splutty (43475)]

A global police force already exists pretty much in the shape of Interpol. So really no need to go and invent one. Any sort of crime that goes beyond a country's borders pretty much ends up at Interpol, and through them at the police forces in the countries affected by the crime.

Global lawmaking however is going to be extremely hard, or even impossible, considering the many different ideas people have about freedom, censorship, crime in general (is marihuana legal yes/no), etc, etc.

Re:

[ArsenneLupin (766289)]

After all, an Australien cop breaking into a, say, Swiss computer, is just a criminal hacker and needs to be repelled.

Hihi, in the end it will not be that big of a difference from the usual scenario of a German tax investigator breaking into a, say, Liechtenstein computer...

Re:

[Anonymous Cowpat (788193)]

sounds like fun if the relevant cop can be identified - that's begging for arrest-at-the-airport if they go on holiday to the US having hacked into a computer there.