Slashdot Mirror
E-Crime Police Raid Melbourne Newspaper
beaverdownunder writes "Police from the 'E-Crime Squad' have raided The Age's offices in Melbourne today, executing a warrant in relation to an investigation following allegations of illegal access to the ALP (Australian Labor Party) database. 'Victoria Police E-Crime Squad is investigating the allegation personal details of Victorians were electronically accessed by a media outlet via a confidential political party database without authorization,' a police spokeswoman said. Last November, The Age revealed the Labor Party held the personal details of thousands of Victorians — including sensitive health and financial information — in a database that was accessed by campaign workers before the Victoria state election."
Whether or not the allegations are true I guess we can expect such attacks to happen on any media publicist that isn't friendly to the government..
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Police raids involving data are like eviction from physical buildings and should be done with some guarantee, but I can't say if they were right or too harsh from here. OTOH a database with such data ought to be encrypted and put offline short after it is not needed.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Ain't nothing that says "Labor Party held the personal details of thousands of Victorians" like a police raid because it is apparent that the Age had to have accessed that data to know about it.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
This is hilarious. There have been many reports of hundreds of cases of corruption in the Commonwealth Public Service which the AFP has refused to investigate.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service-keeps-fraud-cases-private-20110923-1kpdr.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/corruption-claims-dog-foreign-bureaucrats-20110923-1kpc7.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/federal-agencies-lack-firepower-to-deal-with-fraud-20111003-1l5dt.html
A guy reported corruption in the reserve bank but the AFP wouldn't investigate until he went on TV and forced them. Even now the Reserve Bank is being dragged to an investigation kicking and screaming.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/reserve-officials-in-evidence-coverup-20111004-1l7dr.html
http://www.theage.com.au/national/fresh-corruption-claims-rattle-rba-20111123-1nv2l.html
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rba-scandal-to-force-bribery-law-change-20110702-1gw9t.html
But the Labor Party has a leak and suddenly the cops are raiding the newspapers. What a joke!
I don't normally bribe officials, but when I do, I keep my press card on me.
I presume you then also approve of the News of the World fiasco in the UK, then?
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
I can't tell if this is superbly crafted flamebait or if you really are that ill informed. Reporters do NOT have the right to break the law. Employer's can absofuckinglutely NOT "authorize" an employee to break the law. They would be up on conspiracy/RICO charges.
Do you also believe what happened to News of the World was a great injustice? 'Cause I know about 60 million people who would strongly disagree with you.
The ALP acknowledges it. The Libs have a similar database. This is like the filing cabinet for correspondence in the local member's office, but electronic.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
I'm also very dubious about this response. It certainly seems like a self-destructive response by the Labour party effectively saying "We're storing your personal information and we'll prosecute anyone who tries to warn you."
That said I think the press need some limitation on how they act. Very few people would defend the choice of a newspaper to hack into peoples voicemails as acceptable (even if hacking is just entering the default code) and that's what has been going on in the UK.
I'm inclined towards a system that allows the press flexibility to break certain laws with a requirement to notify someone in advance. This is especially important as bloggers etc continue to further blur the definition of journalist. Obviously who that someone in, and how to avoid that stopping the investigation of governmental or police matters would need to be considered.
Well The Age are claiming that a whistle blower from the ALP logged them in to the database, so they didn't use stolen credentials and can't be be said to have stolen the information. I think they were pretty silly to access the database from their office systems. If they had viewed the database from the home of their informant would a case exist at all?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
There is a big difference though. Obtaining data from a public "confidential political party database" is hardly hacking. It's open on the Internet and since it's there, it's debatable if anyone has even broke the law!
Granted if there was some kinda of confidentiality statement on said database, then it may be a bit different but when you consider some parties aren't too smart around here (Australia), then I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't one.
Freedom of the press is like freedom of speech. I don't have the right to break into your house to speak freely.
The latest is that The Age has prevented the police from taking the computers through legal injunction. Nice to see that occasionally this kind of madness can be stopped sometimes.
Under Crimes Act 1958, Section 247B ("Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with intent to commit serious offence") one can claim they did not know access was unauthorised because no policy was stated as mentioned by the Australian Institute of Criminology amongst a variety of things. Also, it requires intent to commit another serious offence.
The Crimes Act 1958 Section 247G ("Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data") states that 'restricted data' is "...data held in a computer to which access is restricted by an access control system associated with a function of the computer." so if there is no access control governing access to the data then it's not restricted data thus no offence has been made against the section.
Assuming parent is correct regarding there being no access control, the investigation is a fishing expedition, which has happened before to the Australian media and they've always seized far more then was required. If they aren't using encryption and data compartmentalisation by now. then they aren't really serious about keeping their sources confidential.
First link should be http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s247b.html
Why would you expect a political party (not the government, a party) to have your socio-economic details?
As the article says, they also capture health information and, as shown in this article from July they also record:
In just this post I've detailed that they're collecting information on people's:
- health
- finances
- stance on gay rights
- stance on the environment
- stance on abortion
I repeat, this is information collected by political parties to help them campaign; to help them win the next election.
It is not the government carefully collecting this information to provide a better public service.
This doesn't feel right. I can't quite put my finger on *why* but it just does. Perhaps someone else more eloquent can verbalise the reason.
Actually, here in the Netherlands, reporters can be freed from prosecution from breaking the law if in doing so, the greater good was served to report on some big issue that might otherwise have never been brought to light. For instance, a reporter who broke into an airport without authorization to show how sloppy the security was, was not prosecuted further after being charged. Note that breaking the law is still illegal, it's just that no penalty will be imposed.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Because of course interfering with a murder investigation of a missing schoolgirl in order to get some cheap headlines is exactly the same as reporting on whistleblower claims of dubious conduct by a political party. Right.
a turf war fought through other means?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-23/holmes-hacking-scandal-overblown/3687192
"As recently as last Friday, The Australian featured a front page story by its media diarist, Nick Leys, sub-headed, in lurid red, "The Age Hacking Scandal". It's a story which The Australian and the Melbourne Herald Sun have been following off and on for months. To read about it in those newspapers, you would think that this is a case of 'hacking' similar to the News of the World phone-hacking scandal."
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
The press have to obey all the same laws everybody else does. When they don't, they deserve the legal ramifications they get, same as the rest of us.
You're absolutely right, they are different. The trouble is that any freedom you give the press to skirt the law for noble investigation will also be used by them for gutter press purposes.
In the UK, even though the NOTW and other tabloids used phone hacking for all sorts of gutter press reasons, and the entire country is disgusted, there are still plenty of people arguing against putting restrictions on the press, because of those rare times they break the law for good.
I don't know what means should be used to distinguish between them. But I'm satisfied that in the UK at least the damage done by the press has far outweighed the good done by them. And thus I'd tend to go with the option of not allowing any special privileges when they break the law, no matter what the story.
A couple of thoughts about why anyone having a database with peoples finances, health and/or politics is a bad thing leap to mind:
In this case, the political party can tailor their marketing for you.
Aren't they supposed to be pushing their view of the world and trying to convince you it's the right one, not telling you what you need to hear to vote for them? Perhaps not a crystal clear distinction, but if the info in the db is used sneakily to more effectively manipulate you, then it's bad.
And any db with sensitive info can be used nefariously in other ways too. Health info could be used to deny insurance or raise the price for it. Political stance could be used to compile a hit-list (if not for actual assassination, then at least for digging up dirt for character-assassination should the need arise) of potential political adversaries.
The db could be leaked or the curators of it may turn bad if they weren't all ready.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily take The Age's word on this under the circumstances, but leaving that aside... I was not trying to draw any kind of similarity between the two scandals, perhaps I could have been clearer. My point was that the press is not above the law, and for good reason.
Am I the only one who saw the "allegation personal details of Victorians " bit and thought , 'but whats the deal they'll all be long dead by now'..before I read the whole article and realized it meant present day Australians , and not people living in 19th century Britain? Yes? Fair enough
...at least they had a warrant unlike some other countries we know...
"E-Crime Squad" Yes!!!! It can continue for another 20 years.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
In the US, free speech and free press are essentially identical. The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..." Presumably to reinforce that by "speech" they don't literally mean the spoken word only. The difference is mostly in connotation: free speech implies the right of any wacko to spout crazy, unfounded theories; free press implies the right of responsible journalists to bring light to evil behaviors.
Why would you expect a political party (not the government, a party) to have your socio-economic details?
As the article says, they also capture health information and, as shown in this article from July they also record:
In just this post I've detailed that they're collecting information on people's: - health - finances - stance on gay rights - stance on the environment - stance on abortion
Most likely this is information that the subjects have GIVEN to the party, either by answering door-to-door or telephone surveys, or from submissions to their local politician. For example, "I support gay rights; please vote for that."
They will then add the voter's name to their data base. All the political parties do this.
It's the usual story, if you don't want the information to be out there, don't tell anyone.
I don't normally bribe officials, but when I do, I keep my press card on me.
Stay corrupt, my friends.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.