Australian Police Given Power To Use Spyware

reek writes "An Australian newspaper has reported> that the contentious Surveillance Devices Act has been passed. The act will (according to the article) allow Federal Police to obtain warrants to secretly install spyware onto users computers enabling them to "monitor email, online chats, word processor and spreadsheets entries and even bank personal identification numbers and passwords.""

Comments

A Good Thing?

[fembots]

Now that this Surveillance Devices Act allows police to obtain a warrant, does that mean that information obtained unlawfully won't stand in the court?

I vaguely remember there's a country where it is illegal to obstruct surveillance by way of encryption. And you may be required to hand over all your passwords (if some are protecting legal documents like a Will) if the police decided to take a good look at you.

I can imagine a police listening to a phone conversation interrupts the suspects and requests them to speak in plain English.

Re:A Good Thing?

[Tackhead]

> Now that this Surveillance Devices Act allows police to obtain a warrant, does that mean that information obtained unlawfully won't stand in the court?

Information obtained unlawfully never stands in court. Because the Constitution is a living document that must be updated to take into account changing technologies, however, the definition of "unlawful" must change.

In brief, "Anything not nailed down is ours. Anything we can pry loose is not nailed down!"

Meantime, the US has had this since 2001, so it's not like Australia's move towards normalizing law enforcement techniques to modern standards is anything new.

Re:A Good Thing?

[myowntrueself]

"I vaguely remember there's a country where it is illegal to obstruct surveillance by way of encryption."

The UK, I believe?

Where its illegal to 'possess any information which might be useful to a terrorist'

Re:A Good Thing?

[zfusion]

I personally don't like the idea of the government using spyware but it is similar to wiretapping. My concerns are the following:

a. Would a corporation (MS) work with the feds to allow this software a backdoor to bypass security and be easily automatically installed on the system?

b. What precautions would be made to make sure this software didn't end up in the hands of others and spyware companies?

c. How are they going to get around more savvy users if firewalls are installed on the systems being monitored?

Not that I am looking to commit any crimes, but from things I've seen in the news lately, I worry about the future US government or any government abusing it's powers. On another note .. from what I hear about China, I could imagine hearing about the government there trying to implement this on all systems to try to make sure the average citizen isn't exposed to anti-communistic web material.

Re:A Good Thing?

[Le Marteau]

If I forget my passphrase, no matter how pissed the cops ge, it doesn't really make a difference.

I hope you can still say that when your cellmate starts referring to you as 'Shirley'.

Re:A Good Thing?

[jc42]

So it's now illegal in the UK to possess a street map of London?

After all, such a map could be very useful to a terrorist intent on terrorizing some place.

I was over there a few months back, and I saw lots of street maps for sale at the airport. I wonder if those vendors have been arrested yet?

Someone please tell me...

[WIAKywbfatw]

...that having software that (knowingly or unknowingly) blocks or removes this spyware isn't a crime...

Re:Someone please tell me...

[TeraCo]

I know some guys in the computer crimes squad of the NSW police, they aren't idiots, and they aren't scared of linux.

One of the parents is correct that they're likely to just get a warrant, pull your PC/laptop apart and put some kind of wacky hardware keylogger in there instead.

Re:Someone please tell me...

[pla]

Someone please tell me ... that having software that (knowingly or unknowingly) blocks or removes this spyware isn't a crime...

Well, of course it would count as a crime! Probably as simple as "tampering with evidence", but it wouldn't surprise me if they invented a special category of crime, over which we have no control, to deal with (for example) AdAware detecting and removing such software.

But... Why on Earth would you want to remove it?

Just fake it out, and you have carte blanche to commit whatever crimes you want, with the state's own "evidence" of your whereabouts to clear you at any given time...

"And how do you suppose my client committed this crime, when your own activity logs show him viewing... Um... homoerotic goat porn??? at the time of the crime?"


As an aside relating back to my first paragraph, I personally run AntiVir for precisely that reason... As a German company, they treat a US government sponsored virus (such as the FBI's Magic Lantern) the same as any other virus - Namely, they detect it, quarrantine it, and kill it. Unlike both Norton and Mcafee, which have publically stated that they will not detect any virii such as ML.

Re:Someone please tell me...

[LiquidCoooled]

If they have a warrant, and access to your computer, what the fuck are they messing around keeping it running for anyway, why haven't they just arrested you?

There is no secret piece of cross platform software available that can give 100% systeminfo without detection and be transparent to a clued up user.
There are however 100s of Windows only programs that can get so far inside the backdoor that even goatse is jealous, and STILL not be detected by a user ("Oh it was running a bit slow" they say as you nod slowly and sip your coffee whilst waiting for Adaware to finish its scan.)

btw, im a Windows user, not Linux - I merely pointed out the usual flaw in the plan.

Re:Someone please tell me...

[Frymaster]

If they have a warrant, and access to your computer, what the fuck are they messing around keeping it running for anyway, why haven't they just arrested you?

because they're looking to get enough evidence to arrest you. all that is needed to get a warrant in most oecd countries is "probable cause". basically, the cops go to a judge and say "we have a guy who says a guy told him that person a might be a drug dealer. can we get a warrant?" and more often than not, the warrant is issued.

depending on the type of warrant, they can get a one time search and seizure, a wiretap on your phone or a passive listening device in your room. all this law in australia does is just add computer traffic to that list.

if you are concerned about your privacy and protecting it from the warrant system, you're about two hundred years late in complaining.

what's the big deal?

[SoupGuru]

The Surveillance Devices Act allows police to obtain a warrant to use software surveillance technologies

As long as they need to obtain a warrant first, I don't see the big deal.

Re:what's the big deal?

[Shadow Wrought]

Exactly. As long as due process is followed it is in the same realm as a wire tap or bug. It is when the due process bit is removed that we need to start worrying.

Re:what's the big deal?

[Telastyn]

I was going to post the same thing, until I realised that there's a subtle distinction. Phone tap warrants [to my knowledge] don't actually do anything to the alledged criminal's property. They place the tap at the CO, and listen in. Once the info leaves the ownership of the alledged criminal it's fair game [like their trash].

Actual property search warrants [to my knowledge] require the alledged criminal to be issued the warrant, and present for the search. The info in the computer though [assuming no internet connection] stays in the computer. Placing a keylogger on the machine without informing the owner seems to be a special circumstance to get around age old search warrant law.

It'd be much better if it limited the spying to internet connections.

[disclaimer: I am not austrailian, and I am not a lawyer, some assumptions might be wrong, and render the arguement moot.]

Re:what's the big deal?

[adjwilli]

Over 30,000 federal warrants were request last year. Only 32 were denied.

Re:Nice

[amrust]

I just hope they don't get Ad-Aware and Spybot "on board with the program", to where they won't detect them.

Whatever

[the_mad_poster]

Yea, OK. Because as the software companies have learned from their massively successful bout with game pirates (assuming you use "successful" to mean "it wasn't warezed before it even hit the bloody store shelf") you can effectively use a person's PC against them.

Whatever. Looks to me like the computer geek is just going to become a staple of the successful organized crime family in Kangaroo-land, that's all. You cannot put a skilled person in front of a computer and not have them figure out how to break your stupid protections and spyware and whatever else you want to try and pull over on them. If it's on my computer, and I have a reason to go looking for it, I'll find it, and I'll break it. Guaranteed. You cannot hide things from someone on their own computer.

Yet another technology that will have absolutely no effect on the big time criminals and will waste money catching the little guys that weren't really capable of getting away in the first place. In fact, I'm now taking bets on how long until someone figures out how to sniff out the signature and disable it.

Re:Whatever

[ajs]

"If it's on my computer, and I have a reason to go looking for it, I'll find it, and I'll break it. Guaranteed. You cannot hide things from someone on their own computer."

I disagree. Bad intrusion software is easy to detect. Good intrusion software is difficult to detect. Top notch intrusion software can exist for years under the nose of skilled people who are looking for it.

Also, what makes you think that the good stuff will be software? Ever wonder what all of that firmware on your video card does? If it just detected certain kinds trigger conditions (perhaps on the bus from certain kinds of ethernet packets being latched off of the network card) and responded by taking a screenshot and saving it into some unused header space in outgoing HTTP requests (hard to grab and re-write from the bus, but I'll bet you could do it)... how would you know? No disk activity. No increase in network usage. No software running on the main CPU...

Better yet, just put it in the network card... that market is totally cut-throat, so I'll bet that anyone who offered a network card manufacturer a large sale or two in exchange for some extra firmware... well...

"Yet another technology that will have absolutely no effect on the big time criminals and will waste money catching the little guys that weren't really capable of getting away in the first place."

Well, it will enforce a kind of evolution, right? The guys who manage (however they do it) to survive this kind of attack will win. That might not be the biggest fish.

Re:Nice

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

In the US all they have to do is copyright the spyware's protection mechanisms and then under the DMCA it would be illegal to circumvent that spyware.

Re:Great...

[Thud457]

• You bleeding heart liberal.
• If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
• Our law enforcement agents aren't fallible and human, they're angelic supermen invulnerable to temptation.
• This will only be used against BAD PEOPLE (You know they're bad because we told you they are).
• Why do you hate Amer^H^H^H Austrailia?!!!

What's wrong with the UK and Australia?

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Now this spyware issue, the banning ceremonial swords and toy guns, crime rates rising, and the security camera epidemic. How much freedom are the citizens of these countries willing to give up?