It took me just a couple of minutes to find the bill in question, read up on it and find that most of the claims made in this article are incorrect.
It's not "rushed through parliament in 24 hours", it's been in a process since at least December 2020. The 'without a judge' part is strongly misleading:
(5) If subsection (4) applies, the applicant must:
(a) provide as much information as the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member considers is reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and
(b) not later than 72 hours after the making of the application, send a duly sworn affidavit to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member, whether or not a warrant has been issued.
Subsection (4) is about immediate threats.
The AAT's decisions "are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia" (Wikipedia).
I'm most curious about what they mean by "ADDING" data...
Does this mean the police can create a social media account in your name? Imagine for instance that they suspect one of your family members of tax evasion. Can they create a fake social media account or email account registered to you, and impersonate you for the sake of entrapping someone else? Like hey uncle, love your new car, got any hot accounting tips? I don't even see anything in these laws that says the person whose data they're accessing has to be the target of the investigation.
Imagine if at any time in any chat, even with your partner or parent or child, you couldn't know whether you were actually talking with them or a government agent, perhaps because someone they know is tangentially suspected of a crime - without the matter even being brought before a judge. Terrifying. This is how societies turn into places where everyone is completely fearful of saying anything at all.
The law generally allows the state to abuse its people in all kinds of ways. That’s the social contact: that abuse is seldom, and when it occurs the abuser gets punished. If it occurs enough then usually something big socially occurs, like a revolution.
This is an important piece of legislation - however OP doesn't provide the best link (it's a blog post from a company that sells encrypted email service?).
This should be a helpful - it's a list of politician speeches when the bill was debated in parliament.
Australia is turning itself into a prison state. Citizens are allowed to go outside for maximum one or two hours, total surveillance, unconstrained searches of the property... About the same set of rights as a supermax prison inmate has, it looks like.
Depends what state you are in from what I've seen in news reports. States that failed on COVID have lost their freedoms (quarantine/lockdown) since the hospital system is under strain. If you are in 5 of the 7 states (not NSW/ACT, VIC you probably have the most freedoms out of many developed countries right now.
edit: found information about emergency authorisation
Here's the bill under discussion [1] :
This article states that it brings in new warrants, and makes no mention of "without a judge's warrant" [2].
Perhaps the original article is keying off of:
"(aab) to establish procedures for certain law enforcement officers of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission to obtain warrants and emergency authorisations" [3]
"emergency authorisations" would appear to not require a warrant, but it does include language of "it is not practicable in the circumstances to apply for a <warrant>" [4]
However, I'm not Australian, and definitely not a lawyer.
Can we change the URL of this post to a more normal news website?
The current one is a blog post from an email provider company, not a journalistic entity.
It has unnecessary hyperbole ("End of Human Rights"), and has a clear conflict of interest given that they provide secure email services and one of their main competitors (FastMail) is Australian. (though I do share their concerns)
My girlfriend is Australian, stranded abroad here in Germany like many other Aussies.
I’ve bern following the news from down under for quite a while. I have the nagging feeling that Australia is currently the Western country with the highest chance of turning into Gilead.
Interesting. I’m not from Australia but I thought the concept of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal interesting. It seems like a way to offload work from the main court system. According to Wikipedia it also does seem to have oversight by the Federal Court of Australia. [1]
While I agree that this seems like a massive overstep. The actual body seems similar to the FISA court in the US. There wasn’t any detail in the article but I would hope there is a massive audit trail on the ability to modify data or impersonate someone online.
Anyone have any additional details on the AAT’s effect on the average Australian citizen?
I guess my days as a paying customer of FastMail are coming to an end. I don’t expect to ever become a legitimate target of Australian law enforcement, but there is always abuse.
Agreed, which sucks because no other service out there is better at their prices. And I have everything important tied to that address. I have never been to Australia and don't ever plan to, but the fact that any government can legally plant data on my account and then try to prosecute me for it is scary as hell. Given that Australia and the US are part of the "Five Eyes", it's not a stretch to believe they can construct a case out of planted evidence and push it to the FBI as a joint investigation.
TIL Fastmail is an Australian company. I wonder if this bill applies to data hosted outside of Australia for international clients by a company based in Australia?
I'd really like to know what they have to say about this.
In what way was this bill "rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours"? The bill in question is dated 2020 and the committee was requesting submissions by 12th February[0]
You’re quite right, but it is exceptional that the bill passed the House of Representatives on the same day as its second reading speech, and passed the Senate on the following day [1]. This means that there was little time for debate and amendment within Parliament itself, including by minor parties [2] and independents [3] not represented on the committee that reviewed the first draft of the bill.
In similar news the well-known direct democracy of Switzerland just voted a new rule giving police similar surveillance powers without judicial oversight. So it's obviously the people wishing to be better surveilled and we're the outliers here.
That means the government and media successfully manufactured consent with the population.
A majority of the US supported the War on Terror. That was manufactured consent with thanks to the corporate press. It was only the outliers that protested from the beginning, only proven correct after 20 years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Afghanistan.
Now that this has ended, be on alert for the next campaign of fear that will be used to erode freedom and increase the surveillance state. Australia is a look at the near future of western "democracy" if they are successful.
That's unfair. People are exhausted. The world is too complex. We have almost no control of anything. People just want to eat, sleep and spend time with their family. They don't have hours a day to get up to speed on the most complicated new tech law that will just be rubber stamped by people who are supposed to represent our interests for campaign dollars. Some of these laws get push back and trend hashtags for a couple of days. Then the powers that be just try again in 2 months. And again, and again. You know, because of the children......
That's terrible news. I wonder how this will interact with ProtonMail (which I just switched to.)
On the other hand, I don't think you can draw your conclusion from those two examples. Also, other than the cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus, Switzerland isn't really a direct democracy, semi-direct at best. You'll notice they have representatives in a federal structure, despite having mechanisms for some direct democracy, and that's not for nothing.
I would expect as much, just based on how badly direct democracies have performed historically.
John Adams said, "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy."
In the past, democracy was viewed as a form of government that republics devolved into.
As an Australian, how concerned should I be about this authoritarian trend?
I've heard people saying that Australia is used as a test-bed for government policy. I've also heard the creep of China could be the cause of this trend.
I've seen how quickly a functioning country can dissolve (Syria, Ukraine, Hong Kong). Just how concerned should we be about this? And apart from voting, is there any kind of action that can be taken?
Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going.
> The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime.
How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts police testimony over accused
There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself.
States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it.
Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.
Well, the police can also temper with any other evidence all the time anyway.
So it is anyway about trust - and how to check reliable, if they deserve trust.
This is how I would choose, which places to visit.
Australia is still quite good on that list, as cases where the police officers for example - are the ones doing the kidnapping and ransoming and investigation about it all by themself, like it is common in other places - are still quite rare.
My experience with australian police officers are a friendly warning for me, for ignoring a red light while at foot. And a asshole police officer stopping and handing out a hefty fine for us, for not "deadstopping" at a stop sign at a empty roadcrossing at night - explicitely, because we were driving a backpackers car and not a local one (he said so)
Check the source, and try to verify it against any other information. I can't seem to find anything from a credible source to verify the extent this article claims
EDIT: since I can't directly reply - the article linked below directly contradicts the URL on the HN post - it clearly states that warrants would be needed. It is also political hyperbole and contains very few details about the actual bill. I recommend scrolling down to jpollock's response for credible sources.
In the U.S. we have the 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Anyways, the Fourth Amendment says nothing about alterations by LEAs to seized documents. That hadn't been invented yet, I guess, back in 1789. Though arguably Due Process requires a well-behaved justice system that wouldn't do that.
And the EU has GDPR. Which is intended to protect its citizens globally. It seems like AU parliament is doing their best to ensure their chartered companies be unable to serve European customers.
Over the past two years, Australian and New Zealand's governments have become great examples of how statism can take over so quickly. As an outsider, I feel really sad for people in Australia and New Zealand.
Reminds me of anti-free speech laws that was almost passed in France.
It was designed to help fight « hate speech ».
It enable police to remove literally ANY content from the interne t as long as it was « hateful » of course there is no legal definition of hateful.
I think similar laws have been passed in Belgium and Germany.
I find it funny that has economic growth from the post war era is slowing down and climate change is accelerating our fundamentals rights and freedom are slowly being taken away from us ,bits by bits with more or less the same laws everywhere.
I'm not trying to answer your question as I don't know the full extent of this new law, but based purely on the article it's not hard to imagine the AU government can construct a case against a politically subversive but otherwise innocent person by planting illegal data/content on their cloud storage and social media accounts. The fact that they can do this with zero judicial oversight mean that it's not a question of "if" this will happen but "when".
[+] [-] 8372049|4 years ago|reply
It's not "rushed through parliament in 24 hours", it's been in a process since at least December 2020. The 'without a judge' part is strongly misleading:
Subsection (4) is about immediate threats.The AAT's decisions "are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia" (Wikipedia).
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
This is just the digital equivalent of a police officer being able to arrest you without a court order.
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28364140 - Aug 2021 (77 comments)
‘Extraordinary’ hacking powers pass Australian Parliament - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311722 - Aug 2021 (212 comments)
Australia is becoming a surveillance state - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139048 - Aug 2021 (423 comments)
[+] [-] 8372050|4 years ago|reply
The top commenter is throwaway created an hour ago
Curious how ranking works on HN. If that hasn't been answered already.
[+] [-] noduerme|4 years ago|reply
Does this mean the police can create a social media account in your name? Imagine for instance that they suspect one of your family members of tax evasion. Can they create a fake social media account or email account registered to you, and impersonate you for the sake of entrapping someone else? Like hey uncle, love your new car, got any hot accounting tips? I don't even see anything in these laws that says the person whose data they're accessing has to be the target of the investigation.
Imagine if at any time in any chat, even with your partner or parent or child, you couldn't know whether you were actually talking with them or a government agent, perhaps because someone they know is tangentially suspected of a crime - without the matter even being brought before a judge. Terrifying. This is how societies turn into places where everyone is completely fearful of saying anything at all.
[+] [-] azinman2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinjoshuak|4 years ago|reply
This should be a helpful - it's a list of politician speeches when the bill was debated in parliament.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary%20Business/Bills%20Legi...
For non-Australians, politicians with (LP) or (LNP) belong to the party in government.
For example, speech by government party member: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr...
Speech from opposition party (that still supported the bill):https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards...
Speech from a third party: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards...
[+] [-] smsm42|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 908B64B197|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xdeadb00f|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akra|4 years ago|reply
Its a tale of two opposing extremes.
[+] [-] hazza_n_dazza|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpollock|4 years ago|reply
Here's the bill under discussion [1] :
This article states that it brings in new warrants, and makes no mention of "without a judge's warrant" [2].
Perhaps the original article is keying off of:
"(aab) to establish procedures for certain law enforcement officers of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission to obtain warrants and emergency authorisations" [3]
"emergency authorisations" would appear to not require a warrant, but it does include language of "it is not practicable in the circumstances to apply for a <warrant>" [4]
However, I'm not Australian, and definitely not a lawyer.
[1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat...
[2] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/even-hacking-field-gove...
[3] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
[4] https://pinpoint.cch.com.au/360document/legauUio1949041sl318...
[+] [-] BoppreH|4 years ago|reply
The current one is a blog post from an email provider company, not a journalistic entity.
It has unnecessary hyperbole ("End of Human Rights"), and has a clear conflict of interest given that they provide secure email services and one of their main competitors (FastMail) is Australian. (though I do share their concerns)
I find @jpollock's links a good replacement.
[+] [-] camillomiller|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lox|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inter_netuser|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peytoncasper|4 years ago|reply
While I agree that this seems like a massive overstep. The actual body seems similar to the FISA court in the US. There wasn’t any detail in the article but I would hope there is a massive audit trail on the ability to modify data or impersonate someone online.
Anyone have any additional details on the AAT’s effect on the average Australian citizen?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Appeals_Tribuna...
[+] [-] ghoda|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yakz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morganvachon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afandian|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hughrr|4 years ago|reply
And no I’m not self hosting.
[+] [-] throwawayswede|4 years ago|reply
I'd really like to know what they have to say about this.
[+] [-] ChrisKnott|4 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joi...
[+] [-] sjy|4 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat...
[2] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
[3] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
[+] [-] soco|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gorwell|4 years ago|reply
A majority of the US supported the War on Terror. That was manufactured consent with thanks to the corporate press. It was only the outliers that protested from the beginning, only proven correct after 20 years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Afghanistan.
Now that this has ended, be on alert for the next campaign of fear that will be used to erode freedom and increase the surveillance state. Australia is a look at the near future of western "democracy" if they are successful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
[+] [-] snarf21|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guerrilla|4 years ago|reply
On the other hand, I don't think you can draw your conclusion from those two examples. Also, other than the cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus, Switzerland isn't really a direct democracy, semi-direct at best. You'll notice they have representatives in a federal structure, despite having mechanisms for some direct democracy, and that's not for nothing.
[+] [-] donatj|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mullingitover|4 years ago|reply
John Adams said, "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy."
In the past, democracy was viewed as a form of government that republics devolved into.
[+] [-] desertraven|4 years ago|reply
I've heard people saying that Australia is used as a test-bed for government policy. I've also heard the creep of China could be the cause of this trend.
I've seen how quickly a functioning country can dissolve (Syria, Ukraine, Hong Kong). Just how concerned should we be about this? And apart from voting, is there any kind of action that can be taken?
[+] [-] audit|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] maerF0x0|4 years ago|reply
> The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime.
How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts police testimony over accused
[+] [-] cryptonector|4 years ago|reply
States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it.
Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.
[+] [-] benbristow|4 years ago|reply
Don't worry, they won't let you in anyway.
Won't even let their own people in (or out) at the minute.
[+] [-] hutzlibu|4 years ago|reply
So it is anyway about trust - and how to check reliable, if they deserve trust.
This is how I would choose, which places to visit.
Australia is still quite good on that list, as cases where the police officers for example - are the ones doing the kidnapping and ransoming and investigation about it all by themself, like it is common in other places - are still quite rare.
My experience with australian police officers are a friendly warning for me, for ignoring a red light while at foot. And a asshole police officer stopping and handing out a hefty fine for us, for not "deadstopping" at a stop sign at a empty roadcrossing at night - explicitely, because we were driving a backpackers car and not a local one (he said so)
So all in all, I would probably visit again.
[+] [-] catsncomputers|4 years ago|reply
EDIT: since I can't directly reply - the article linked below directly contradicts the URL on the HN post - it clearly states that warrants would be needed. It is also political hyperbole and contains very few details about the actual bill. I recommend scrolling down to jpollock's response for credible sources.
[+] [-] nix23|4 years ago|reply
Since when is it legal in any democracy that the police can temper (modify, add) or delete proof? That's just beyond my understanding.
[+] [-] jliptzin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdkee|4 years ago|reply
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[+] [-] cryptonector|4 years ago|reply
Anyways, the Fourth Amendment says nothing about alterations by LEAs to seized documents. That hadn't been invented yet, I guess, back in 1789. Though arguably Due Process requires a well-behaved justice system that wouldn't do that.
[+] [-] jldugger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawayswede|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] celticninja|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asien|4 years ago|reply
It was designed to help fight « hate speech ».
It enable police to remove literally ANY content from the interne t as long as it was « hateful » of course there is no legal definition of hateful.
I think similar laws have been passed in Belgium and Germany.
I find it funny that has economic growth from the post war era is slowing down and climate change is accelerating our fundamentals rights and freedom are slowly being taken away from us ,bits by bits with more or less the same laws everywhere.
Very strange.
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|4 years ago|reply
'Data disruption warrant: gives the police the ability to "disrupt data" by modifying, copying, adding, or deleting it.'
What does it really mean? Can they now legally change what website says to me? Intercept and change what signal message says?
I am genuinely trying to understand what functionality hides behind this broad language.
[+] [-] morganvachon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamiscool8|4 years ago|reply