Australia Takes a Hard Line Against Cybercrime and Passes a New Law Giving Law Enforcement Sweeping Powers
Table of Contents
- By Dawna M. Roberts
- Published: Sep 10, 2021
- Last Updated: Mar 18, 2022
In a bold effort to thwart illegal online practices, the Australian government passed a new law giving federal authorities expansive powers to take over personal accounts, interrupt services and intercept network activity.
What is Going On?
According to ITNews, the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 was passed through the Australian Senate on Wednesday and cleared the House of Representatives on Tuesday evening.
ITNews reports that “The bill grants the Australian Federal Police and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission new powers to combat serious crime enabled by anonymizing technology using three new warrants: network activity, data disruption, and account takeover.”
The bill gives law enforcement far-reaching powers, including the ability to take over someone’s online accounts, and without their consent, gather evidence, add, copy, or delete content in an effort to disrupt criminal activity.
“Passage of the bill was recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) earlier this month alongside 33 changes that sought to limit the potential use of the bill and improve oversight,” ITNews added.
What Changes/Recommendations Were Accepted?
Only 23 of the 33 recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) were taken into consideration. One was the criteria for issuing warrants was changed to “reasonably necessary, and proportionate” from “justified and proportionate.” Another significant change refers to the definition of “serious offense.”
ITNews points out that “Three PJCIS recommendations were rejected, including that PJCIS oversight be expanded to cover the use of the new powers and that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security oversight be expanded to the intelligence function of the AFP.”
In a statement to the public, Shadow Home Affairs Minister Kristina Keneally said, “These are significant recommendations made in a bipartisan fashion by the PJCIS, and I am pleased that the government has taken them up; in the form of legislative amendments to this bill.”
Additionally, she said that initially, the “extraordinary powers” given to federal law enforcement would be limited to offenses that carry a three-year or more prison term.
Initially, the PJCIS tried to “limit the legislation to only child abuse and exploitation, terrorism, the sale of illicit drugs, human trafficking, identity theft and fraud, assassinations and the distribution of weapons.”
Keneally commented that “The intelligence and security committee heard concerns from experts that this is too broad a focus for these powers and encompasses too many minor offenses, and that’s why Labor added additional comments to see that this bill is tied to serious offenses.”
Legislators of the bill say that additional changes will be needed over time. Critics call the new law “terribly flawed” and “problematic.” Senator Lidia Thorpe, one of the staunch critics, is concerned about the future of the country and where this legislation is headed.
To make her point, Thorpe added, “In effect, this bill would allow spy agencies to modify, add, copy or delete your data with a data disruption warrant; collect intelligence on your online activities with a network activity warrant; [and] take over your social media and other online accounts and profile with an account takeover warrant.”
The biggest issue is that these warrants don’t need to come from a judge or superior court. A member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal can issue them at will.
Supporters say these powers are necessary to catch and prosecute the criminals performing illegal activities online. It comes as a result of the 290 perpetrators caught and arrested during Operation Ironside, the huge ANoM bust earlier this year.
The threat of persistent, organized crime is what led to these decisions. The question is, will other countries like the U.S. one day resort to such extreme measures to aid in the discovery and capture of online criminals?