FTA: “…agencies can take control of a person’s online account to gather evidence about serious offences without consent, as well as add, copy, delete or alter material to disrupt criminal activity and collect intelligence from online networks.” (emphasis added)
How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?
>> How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?
> Does this break the chain of trust of evidence? How can any evidence, therefore, be admissible?
Just as advocatus diaboli: If you add a message to a bigger scale drug supplier in the name of one client, you could request an earlier delivery to some location of your choice. This would add content, but not plant any evidence - as the evidence would be the supplier handing you "the keys to the truck". I know nothing about australian law, but i am tempted to think that courts could burn serious time on such a case.
Of course this is dangerous b.s. to have in legislation.
Because the deception is aimed at other criminals and not a court.
derpnet.com
Criminal A: Drugs for sale wholesale
Criminal B: I will buy pls
Criminal A: Bring $1m to crossroads at midnight
Criminal B: OK
[Criminal B robs bank, gets caught, cops read social]
[Cops take over account]
Criminal B: I got the money, can we do 11:30 << written by cops
Criminal A: Sure, I will be there with drugs
...
Criminal A: Just pulling up
Criminal A: Oh no
The cops impersonated Criminal B to deceive Criminal A but as long as they are truthful with the court about this it's legal. Please do not read this as an endorsement of cops' truthfulness or this law.
This presumably does add a defense if you are ever dragged in front of a court accused of posting fruity things through your own account. You can argue that since government agencies have the power to do that as well now, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did it.
A list of credit card numbers could be modified so that, for example, real people are not affected, and/or to add "watermark" card numbers that identify the precise origin of the dataset if it is ever used.
Hopefully there are strong guards against modified data being used to entrap, and also against modified data being used as evidence.
(I'm not yet sure whether these policies are sensible; just trying to figure out the legitimate uses for these powers rather than assuming the worst, although the latter can also be useful to prevent bad outcomes)
FTA: "She pointed to Operation Ironside, the huge ANoM bust earlier this year that resulted in the arrests of more than 290 people, as a reason for the need for the new powers."
So a successful police operation NOW is evidence that more powers are necessary? What kind of logic is that?
Now they can start their investigation of a suspected criminal element in the Labour Party and any other annoying opposition. These powers are a ruling government’s dream, let alone their financial master’s.
I don't know how other Aussies feel about this, but to me this is so atrocious I just had to join HN to discuss it.
This is sufficient motivation to abandon my Australian citizenship entirely and move to a country that is not dominated by totalitarian-authoritarian policies designed to impede the progress of a free and open society.
This policy is clearly designed to make sure another Assange-type situation does not happen again.
Australians need to learn to watch their (digital) back with even more care and attention than previously. We do not have the rights we think we do.
Australia really went off the deep end now in 2021. Horrible mentality with cops who refuse to give their names going around knocking on doors asking if people know about protests being formed. What the actual fuck.
If you follow the NSW and Vic twitter feed for the daily COVID numbers, your post reads exactly like those bots that say something along the lines of "that's it, I'm denouncing my citizenship".
It gets a bit boring, and if you're doing this from a new, green, account, I'm going to assume you're an antagonist account trying to create division within the discussion.
These discussions aren't new, and they started with the AABill, and they've been discussed here for a while now - so why only now decide to "abandon my citizenship"?
A typically purile argument - "the other kids are doing it, why can't Australians also do it?" Just: no.
There are plenty of states that are still fighting this totalitarian-authoritarian effort. Austrian police can't modify peoples data online for their purposes.
Australians have got it too good to care about this sort of thing. Like western society and climate change, taking any kind of action gets in the way of enjoying the fucking weekend; don't be such a fucking downer. More sunshine I say!
> Australians have got it too good to care about this sort of thing. Like western society and climate change, taking any kind of action gets in the way of enjoying the fucking weekend; don't be such a fucking downer. More sunshine I say!
Nonsense. The problem is that the minority parties who oppose overreach like this are treated as dirty (Liberal Democratic Party) and the major parties all support crap like this. And we'll stay in this situation until the focus turns away from trying to ban recreational fishing[0] and steers back towards civil liberties. Of course, any mention of civil liberties today has you called an extremist in Australia by almost every single political party from Labour to the Greens.
There’s a difference between apathetic and powerless. Everyone I’ve talked to about this including my non-techie family all “care” and agree it’s total bullshit, multiple called/wrote in against it, but every single one of us knows nothing we do will ever stop or change anything.
What are we supposed to do exactly? Write in and have them completely ignore us? Protest in the streets.. oh wait that’s illegal now. Speak up online against them and have counter terrorism units push our mums down stairs?
ever thought about, idk, breaking those protest laws? This defeatist attitude is exactly how totalitarian states are established. God forbid people put down the hamburgers and actually fight for something though.
I am interested to hear what atlassian have to say about it, they have been quite pro-australian. But.. what effort do you think the AU police are going to put in to get the data out of your JIRA tickets?
Because if you want to punish Australia for it's poor laws that seems a weak lever to pull.
And if your concern is MITM between servers, virtual machines or clients- well USA has had sufficient inference, probably by government actors, that some big players instituted SSL inside the data centers- I presume after finding taps.
This is legislation to say they can do that sort of thing- it just seems to happen elsewhere but under some seal of secrecy. At least they acknowledge it.
Atlassian helped with the COVIDSafe app, and one of their founders came here and telling us to trust the government, they know what they're doing, they won't spy on us.
... and then the spy agencies requested access to said app data.
Atlassian products are varied across different jurisdictions. Chances are that if you’re using an Atlassian product in the USA, all your data is hosted in the USA too.
Their BitBucket Server to Cloud migration tools are atrocious. Gitlab actually provides a smoother migration process, as it migrates any Pull Requests as well as everything else that the Atlassian tools did.
Is this the same thing or related to Australian police having the power to compel (under threat of 10 years imprisonment to those who refuse) systems administrators to aid in investigations? I'm not Australian but seeing these sorts of laws being implemented in other commonwealth countries is concerning given how often they spread.
It's pretty much an extension of that law, which was already questionable.
As an Australian, with the minimal amount of the type of crime that these bills are said to be aimed at in comparison to other parts of the world (like those that actually have physical borders with other countries 'n' shit), it feels as if Australia is being used as a pilot country for the ratcheting (rat-shitting) up of this kind of control to (either or both) gauge public reaction and point to as an example of "well, they implemented it first, so there's precedent" for other five-eyes countries.
I really wonder how all of this will work out once we get the first brain implants.
Mobile phones are coming close to that but imagine police can add/remove/tamper with your memory at will…
I’d literally jump off a cliff before considering any kind of brain implant designed to be a computer interface that I wasn’t completely and legally in control of.
If it lets a computer read anything out of my skull it’s going to be 100% under my own control. Like open source, and legally protected from any of these kinds of laws.
The USA has things like the 4th and 5th amendments to protect from crossing that line, Australia’s law has no such inviolate rights.
I tried to tell people that this and worse would happen from the AABill but nobody actually cared. Even talking to a lot of tech-savvy people and tech-savvy lawyers, nope... at most, people raised an eyebrow but couldn't really care less.
If people don't actually care, what more can someone do :(
They won't care until the stories of ordinary people suffering the consequences start emerging. But if the state can portray any victim of this legislation as a criminal, even plant digital evidence that they were conducting criminal activity, then it'll still go unheeded.
What we need is good (investigative) journalism to keep the politicians and oligarchs in check. But the business model for that got destroyed and now we just have Murdoch and clickbait.
Apparently Murdoch isn't a fan of the recent 4 Corners story about the lawsuits against Fox for towing Trump li(n)es about "stolen election!!, so Imma go home and watch it, and I suggest you do too.
Readit News
How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?
Does this break the chain of trust of evidence? How can any evidence, therefore, be admissible?
Digital / electronic evidence has always been on a bit of a shaky foundation, but this crumbles it to pieces.
> Does this break the chain of trust of evidence? How can any evidence, therefore, be admissible?
Just as advocatus diaboli: If you add a message to a bigger scale drug supplier in the name of one client, you could request an earlier delivery to some location of your choice. This would add content, but not plant any evidence - as the evidence would be the supplier handing you "the keys to the truck". I know nothing about australian law, but i am tempted to think that courts could burn serious time on such a case.
Of course this is dangerous b.s. to have in legislation.
Hopefully there are strong guards against modified data being used to entrap, and also against modified data being used as evidence.
(I'm not yet sure whether these policies are sensible; just trying to figure out the legitimate uses for these powers rather than assuming the worst, although the latter can also be useful to prevent bad outcomes)
Lol. You misunderstand the Australian government's propensity for shitfuckery.
I guess it's considered as an undercover/impersonation/honeypot job.
Now, they can assume the identity of someone you already trust and persuade you to break the law.
So a successful police operation NOW is evidence that more powers are necessary? What kind of logic is that?
I don't know how other Aussies feel about this, but to me this is so atrocious I just had to join HN to discuss it.
This is sufficient motivation to abandon my Australian citizenship entirely and move to a country that is not dominated by totalitarian-authoritarian policies designed to impede the progress of a free and open society.
This policy is clearly designed to make sure another Assange-type situation does not happen again.
Australians need to learn to watch their (digital) back with even more care and attention than previously. We do not have the rights we think we do.
It gets a bit boring, and if you're doing this from a new, green, account, I'm going to assume you're an antagonist account trying to create division within the discussion.
These discussions aren't new, and they started with the AABill, and they've been discussed here for a while now - so why only now decide to "abandon my citizenship"?
I doubt it.
There are plenty of states that are still fighting this totalitarian-authoritarian effort. Austrian police can't modify peoples data online for their purposes.
Australians have got it too good to care about this sort of thing. Like western society and climate change, taking any kind of action gets in the way of enjoying the fucking weekend; don't be such a fucking downer. More sunshine I say!
Nonsense. The problem is that the minority parties who oppose overreach like this are treated as dirty (Liberal Democratic Party) and the major parties all support crap like this. And we'll stay in this situation until the focus turns away from trying to ban recreational fishing[0] and steers back towards civil liberties. Of course, any mention of civil liberties today has you called an extremist in Australia by almost every single political party from Labour to the Greens.
[0] http://www.sportingshooter.com.au/latest/proposed-animal-cru...
What are we supposed to do exactly? Write in and have them completely ignore us? Protest in the streets.. oh wait that’s illegal now. Speak up online against them and have counter terrorism units push our mums down stairs?
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Fortunately they removed Server licenses (you have to pay millions for the Datacenter ones or use Cloud) just in time for these new laws.
Because if you want to punish Australia for it's poor laws that seems a weak lever to pull.
And if your concern is MITM between servers, virtual machines or clients- well USA has had sufficient inference, probably by government actors, that some big players instituted SSL inside the data centers- I presume after finding taps.
This is legislation to say they can do that sort of thing- it just seems to happen elsewhere but under some seal of secrecy. At least they acknowledge it.
Where there is troves of data and schematics about various companies infrastructures
... and then the spy agencies requested access to said app data.
Source: I work for Atlassian, platform stuff
Make of that what you will.
So wherever the data is, the problem is still the same in my opinion.
As an Australian, with the minimal amount of the type of crime that these bills are said to be aimed at in comparison to other parts of the world (like those that actually have physical borders with other countries 'n' shit), it feels as if Australia is being used as a pilot country for the ratcheting (rat-shitting) up of this kind of control to (either or both) gauge public reaction and point to as an example of "well, they implemented it first, so there's precedent" for other five-eyes countries.
If it lets a computer read anything out of my skull it’s going to be 100% under my own control. Like open source, and legally protected from any of these kinds of laws.
The USA has things like the 4th and 5th amendments to protect from crossing that line, Australia’s law has no such inviolate rights.
If people don't actually care, what more can someone do :(
What we need is good (investigative) journalism to keep the politicians and oligarchs in check. But the business model for that got destroyed and now we just have Murdoch and clickbait.