Mixed views on cops' email power

[F420]

Mixed views on cops' email power

 

New email, voicemail and SMS monitoring powers for Federal police and security agencies have caused a mixed reaction among civil liberties groups.

 

The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2004, tabled last week, includes text-based communications and stored voice messages in the definition of voice communications.

For police and law-enforcement agencies to access messages still on a telco's or ISP's servers and not yet delivered to the intended recipient, a telecommunications interception warrant will be required under the new laws, as opposed to the more easily obtainable search warrant.

"The interception warrant requires more safeguards than a search warrant," Electronic Frontiers Australia executive director Irene Graham said. "They can't get one for minor, petty stuff," she said. "It has to be serious crime."

 

The amendments cover similar ground to those in a package of anti-terrorist measures introduced in 2002, which failed to win majority support in the Senate.

EFA and other civil liberties groups opposed numerous aspects of the earlier legislation.

Although the EFA board was still examining the details of the proposed laws, Ms Graham said, it "looks like they've done it properly this time".

"The interception warrant provides much more protection for people's privacy than an ordinary search warrant," she said.

Council for Civil Liberties secretary Cameron Murphy said the laws meant the privacy of innocent parties could still be violated.

"This resolves the technical problems about receipt of email, but it still doesn't resolve the broadening of the power, and the reduction of personal privacy for people who may be innocently caught up in an investigation," Mr Murphy said.

"They could be family members or colleagues who have communicated with the subject of the investigation about some entirely unrelated matter." He said the amendments would make interception warrants similar to named-person warrants, which allow law-enforcement agencies to intercept any communication sent to a particular person.

"There's a different standard for that," he said.

"If you're going to protect people's privacy, our argument is it should be more specific; for example to intercept communications only between the subject of the warrant and other people involved in an investigation."

 

.. from the Australian

[WantDaChronic]

that is pretty freaky

 

wonder why noone bothered to comment :scratchin