dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31
share rss forum feed


ashrc4
Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia
reply to Blackbird

Re: Australia won't back away from data retention plan

I would love to look at my archive.....especially if it were accurate.
I'd be more interested in it, if it could be used enmasse to do things like intern people these days.
Oh wait Asylum seekers, Muslims of interest.
The problem with this approach is that once they initiate such a proposal (intern) they also have to live with the consequence of doing just that.
Today ASIO plays a secondary role in investigating (clearing mainly) Asylum Seekers and most that don't pass are only detained until alternative arrangements can be made.
That political landscape has long since changed.
In some countries and sphere's the radicalization of some Muslim groups has well and truely taken the main focus.

Yet no allegations of doing anything other than gathering intelligence and archiving it seems to be worth mention at this time. Allowing, should protocol be followed, warrants/search orders etc. to look at a persons search history seems reasonable IMHO.

said by Blackbird:

left or right in their orientation, it becomes dangerous (as I noted earlier, profoundly dangerous) when an arm of the government is given power to manipulate data on a person's computer while that same government has the power to prosecute a person for what is on their system.

ASIO would also be given the power to install, delete and manipulate software on people's computers without their knowledge

Just to clarify are we not seeing the word "software".

I know this is not a draft from the legislation but to manipulate the content of someone's documentation or images would fall outside of this.
--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. "Dying to defend one's small piece of suburb...Give me something global...STAT!


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

said by ashrc4:

Just to clarify are we not seeing the word "software".

I know this is not a draft from the legislation but to manipulate the content of someone's documentation or images would fall outside of this.

I haven't read all of the document, but page 48 of the document at the getup.org link suggests they didn't have permissions but would be happy for it to change. "Authority for acts necessary to execute a computer access warrant"
About allowing previously prohibited actions, how much are they expecting?
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to ashrc4

said by ashrc4:

... Just to clarify are we not seeing the word "software".

I know this is not a draft from the legislation but to manipulate the content of someone's documentation or images would fall outside of this.

From the GetUp! text of the document (Discussion Paper)...

Page 10, section 11, para c:
quote:
Enable the disruption of a target computer for the purpose of a computer access warrant
Page 11, Section 17, para a:
quote:
Using third party computers and communications in transit to access a target computer under a computer access warrant
Page 48, Section 3.2, second and third paragraphs on page:
quote:
Subsection 25A(5) currently restricts ASIO from doing anything under a computer access warrant that adds, deletes or alters data or interferes with, interrupts, or obstructs the lawful use of the target computer by other persons. This prohibition operates regardless of how minor or inconsequential the interference, interruption, or obstruction may be.

To address this, section 25A could be amended so that the prohibition does not apply to activity proportionate to what is necessary to execute the warrant.
page 50, Section "Use of third party computers...", third para:
quote:
... it may be appropriate to amend the ASIO Act to enable a third party computer or communication in transit to be used by ASIO to lawfully access a target computer.
I suppose one could argue that this all only applies to legally forcing the turnover of encryption keys and the interception of data flow to/from the computer of an alleged criminal computer. But it seems to me that terms such as "disruption of a target computer", "using third party computers... to access a target computer", and lifting the prohibition against ASIO of action that "adds, deletes or alters data... of a target computer" all sound like the target computer and its software/data will be allowed to be remotely "messed with" by ASIO. This, coupled with the accusations over the years about ASIO's political agendas, are what I believe raise the concern about the thrust of the discussion paper.

Obviously, a great deal depends on the independence and judicial integrity of the warrant process, and how effectively it is policed. Perhaps that's no problem in Australia, but I'd not bet that way...
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775