New sweeping legislation that authorizes officials from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and Australian Federal Police to target any suspected criminals online has passed through the country’s parliament with bipartisan support.
This law dramatically expands the hacking capabilities of the Australian authorities investigating suspected cybercriminals was passed through the country’s Senate.
On August 25, the Identify and Disrupt bill passed via the Senate and introduced three new warrants enabling the authorities to take unexpected action against suspected cybercrime activities.
These new warrants include authorizing the police to hack the personal computers and networks that belong to suspected criminals, seize control of their online accounts and identities, and even disrupt their data.
Karen Andrews, Home Affairs Minister, praised the wide expansion of powers available to Australian authorities that target cyber actors. She said:
“Under our changes, the AFP will have more tools to pursue organised crime gangs to keep drugs off our street and out of our community, and those who commit the most heinous crimes against children.”
While the government and opposition unanimously supported the legislation, Senator Lidia Thorpe of a minor party The Greens slammed this bill for speeding up Australia’s march down the path of becoming a ‘surveillance state.’ She said:
“In effect, this Bill would allow spy agencies to modify, copy, or delete your data with a data disruption warrant; collect intelligence on your online activities with a network activity warrant; also they can take over your social media and other online accounts and profiles with an account takeover warrant.”
“What’s worse, the data disruption and network activity warrant could be issued by a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal […] It is outrageous that these warrants won’t come from a judge of a superior court.”
While up to 60 amendments were made to the legislation after the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) recommended some changes to the new law, 10 of the security committee’s 33 suggestions were ignored.
These amendments added to the bill enhance regulatory oversight of the new measures, feature strong protections for the journalists, and sunset all these expanded powers after five years.
Nevertheless, calls for warrants to be approved exclusively by a judge were excluded from this legislation. The PJCIS also said that the issuance of warrants should be limited to offenses against national security including serious narcotics, money laundering, weapons and criminal association offenses, cybercrime, and crimes against humanity.
But, the finalized bill does not feature the amendments that reduce the scope of the offenses in this manner. The government has already pledged to revisit the PJCIS’s recommendations via a wide reform of the intelligence surveillance infrastructure.
Tim Wilson, shadow assistant minister of cybersecurity, described the PJCIS’ rejected recommendations as providing “an important constraint” on authorities exercising the new powers, saying:
“While we support the bill […] safeguards in this bill could go further, particularly in relation to the offenses this bill applies to.”
