Slashdot Mirror
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."
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"?
A Human Right
you know, the more i think about this story, the more i realize that a global police/government force is almost necessary in our times. defining an act as legal/illegal solely based on physical location is, by and large, nonsensical.
sure, there are proximity crimes, but i'm talking about something unrelated to location. theft, for instance.
we can prosecute you if you steal while standing here, but we cannot prosecute you if you steal while you are standing there.
something is broken.
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?
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Here's another.
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 to say that these coups didn't result in their fair share of violence and suffering).
The enemies of Democracy are
"How much does organized crime rely on computers and network technology?"
One example comes to mind from the War on Some Drugs. On May 18, 1994, the Colombian authorities raided the offices of Jose Santacruz Londono, an associate of the Rodriguez brothers (big time Cali drug cartel guys), and confiscated an IBM AS/400 computer worth a $1 million. The AS/400 purpose was to sniff out moles within the drug cartel's organization. The cartel did this by housing a database of phone numbers of U.S. diplomats and agents based in Columbia, which was continuously correlated against the entire call log for Cali, which was leaked to the cartel by the local phone company. This setup effectively told the cartel who, when, and where anybody was using a telephone to contact drug enforcement personnel.
There was an article in Business 2.0, "The Technology Secrets of Cocaine Inc." by author Paul Kaihla. That's where I read about it originally. You may also find more reading online here: http://crimemagazine.com/06/calicartel,1021-6.htm
"It's one thing to talk about the poetry of machines. Quite another to listen to it for yourself."