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."

Comments

Ineffective

[explosivejared]

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:Ineffective

[superwiz]

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

[gstoddart]

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

[rucs_hack]

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

[jc42]

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.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

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 ourself -- love, friendship and family. Who one choses to do business with is an individual choice. And need not be given up to an entity established for the purposes of common protection. Therefore, such an entity may not demand it. If you want to start boycotting stores which happen to not contribute as much to charity as your community leader thinks they should, you can feel free. But when you do that, you allow your community leader to usurp your individuality and, by doing so, abandon part of your ability (or at least willingness) to reason. If you give your community the power to shut down a store owner who does not contribute what you think they should to charity, you give your government the right you yourself do not have -- the right to intrude on the property of others. 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.

On a personal note, I went through 3 stages in life. I started as an overachiever. As a teenage rebellion, I turned to religion and embraced the values of living for the sake of others. And as the third stage, I decide to live for the sake of self-improvement despite the objections from others. I probably don't have to explain which of the stages was least productive and most destructive. The life for the sake of others at the sacrifice of myself was nihilistic. It made my talents irrelevant. It was an exercise in self-destruction. Such a life is a life of a tool -- not of a free-thinking individual.

As for your comment that Ayn Rand started with contempt for the weak... She was person of great intellect. She worked tirelessly and cared more to be recognized as correct by the brightest of the minds. She wrote because she wanted to improve the world. She has characters in her books who are not of great personal accomplishment who still wish to live life to the best of their potential. She admires them (a drifter who wants to continues to try to find work after his factory is out of business). She pities them when they fall prey to the talented exploiters (James Taggard's wife). Her attitude towards them is very human. She just doesn't wish to be told that all men must accept the fate of the untalented as their own. That's not contempt for the weak. It is love for virtue.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

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 alleviate suffering, don't expect to do it by forcing others into helping you. You may wish to do it on your own and hope that you'll end up leading by example, but if you allow yourself to exercise coercion of any kind for however great a cause, you'll permit yourself to enter the road to tyranny.

War on Data

[Chukcha]

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...

Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant for

[ArsenneLupin]

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:Global Police

[splutty]

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.

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

[Cathoderoytube]

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]

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.

Re:War on What, exactly?

[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.

Is it's their responsibility to ask...

[Thanshin]

...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]

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.