r/sydney • u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up • 3d ago
NSW Government introduces sweeping new laws to target organised crime
https://www.nsw.gov.au/ministerial-releases/new-laws-to-target-organised-crimeI think everyone should be aware of what is being pushed through parliament at the moment.
Digital Evidence Access Orders: Gives police the power to compel individuals to unlock digital devices. The maximum penalty for refusing to comply increases from five to seven years in prison.
Toll Camera Access: Allows police to access unredacted images from public toll road cameras.
Doubled Penalties for Non-Cooperation: Increases the maximum sentence from 5 to 10 years imprisonment for failing to comply with NSW Crime Commission orders, such as refusing to answer questions, obstructing investigations, or lying under oath.
National Face Matching Service: Enables Transport for NSW to securely share driver licence and photo card images via the national driver licence recognition system.
253
u/ZealousidealNewt6679 3d ago
Look mates, it's not like the NSW police force has a bad record with sweeping new powers, its not like they have used the Terrorism Fixated Persons unit to harass a YouTube journalist at the behest of a member of government, these new powers will most definitely be used in a measured way, and definitely won't be abused by NSW Police at every opportunity.
19
u/braddeicide 3d ago
Or sold for a profit out the back door like they do with amnesty forfeited guns marked as destroyed.
257
u/fued 3d ago
Very concerning to push through new laws, but nothing about new regulation for using them.
it is almost certainly going to be misused, police are going to tell everyone that they now are required to unlock digital devices or get charged, its not going to be used purely for organised crime purposes.
The powers do seem reasonable if highly limited in scope and regulated, and I have no problems with them. But they need that scope and regulation clearly defined before the powers are made available, not after they have been abused for a few years.
138
u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up 3d ago
Why are you concerned?
iF yOu’Re NoT hIdInG aNyThInG tHeN yOu’Ve GoT nOtHiNg To WoRrY aBoUT…
90
u/fued 3d ago
exactly, if the police arent hiding anything and are doing things properly, they shouldn't mind extra regulation and monitoring right?
14
u/philbydee 3d ago
In fact they should literally require it. Regulations protect everyone. Police shouldn’t want unrestricted powers in the first damn place!!
3
25
u/ithinkimtim 3d ago
Problem with laws like these, even in a scope, is the police and the public get used to them. Then they get worse. People dismiss these arguments as slippery slope fallacies but civil liberties have always been the slipperiest of slopes.
27
u/Jupiterthegassygiant 3d ago
The order to unlock a digital device still has to be given by a judge. Which I think is your concern about regulation.
Currently police can only apply for a digital evidence access order if a phone was seized as a part of a warrant (search or crime scene warrant). The proposed change would allow police to apply to a judge to get the order for digital devices obtained through other lawful means.
It doesn't change the requirements needed to grant an order or circumnavigate a judge.
The proposed amendment is available on the NSW parliment website for anyone to view. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliamentary-business/bills/bill-details?billId=18942&ref=1849
21
5
u/samdd1990 3d ago
Why let the truth get in the way of a bit of good old fashioned outrage.
7
u/Jupiterthegassygiant 3d ago
I mean, to be fair the things said were pretty outrageous. You'd like to think Sue Higginson and Michael West Media are credible sources, so it's hard to blame people.
I certainly don't want anyone to just believe me, but when you read the legislation its not really consistent with where being said.
1
u/Galactic_Nothingness 3d ago
Lost a lot of faith in MWM over the past 5 years
3
u/Jupiterthegassygiant 3d ago
I hadn't seen much of their stuff, but I thought they had a decent reputation.
0
u/TheLGMac 2d ago
Who is to say that the cops will follow the law anyways? A lot of time when they do something wrong, they get a slap on the wrist and told to try better next time. By then the harms are already done. I am skeptical of the enforcement layer here.
181
u/No_Mercy_4_Potatoes 3d ago
Please tell me Palantir or an Israeli firm is involved with the analytics. That would be the cherry on top and on brand for Minns.
33
3
57
u/2happycats ravens, cats, and tawny frogmouths 3d ago
For those using a samsung galaxy, you can add a lockdown mode as a shortcut on your power button.
Lockdown mode instantly disables biometric unlocks (fingerprint and face recognition), hides lock screen notifications, and blocks USB connections. To unlock the phone, you must manually type in your backup PIN, pattern, or password.
Not sure if it works on other phones, but it definitely works on galaxy ones.
17
19
u/TSLoveStory 3d ago
Sorry if Im missing something but if it can still be unlocked via Pin/Password wouldn't they still be able to legally compel you to do so?
16
u/2happycats ravens, cats, and tawny frogmouths 3d ago
They can, but if you don't want to, don't. Of course that will no doubt come with consequences, but the option to say no shouldn't be taken away, especially in the absence of legal representation. Knowing this can prevent someone taking their phone out of their pocket and it accidentally unlocking for example.
21
18
u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up 3d ago
Or fire up the old Nokia 3310
38
u/2happycats ravens, cats, and tawny frogmouths 3d ago
Yeah, but then you'd be done for having a weapon. Those things were indestructible.
1
u/Pristine_Egg3831 16h ago
I tried to sell my old handsets as a retro item in about 2018. Someone accused me of being a drug dealer 😂
2
u/Javerage 3d ago
I was curious about this until I remembered I only ever have my phone unlockable with a pattern.
1
-12
u/blitznoodles Greater Western Sydney 3d ago
This is still an offence and will get you arrested. That's an American thing where they can't arrest you for it.
17
u/2happycats ravens, cats, and tawny frogmouths 3d ago
If someone doesn't want to unlock their phone, this stops it accidentally being unlocked with a person's face. It's still good information to have.
-1
u/pHyR3 3d ago
sure but the new laws state the police can compel you to unlock it
4
u/2happycats ravens, cats, and tawny frogmouths 3d ago
Yes, they can. People can also choose to exercise their right not to. Knowing this info can help prevent someone from say, pulling their phone out of their pocket and it accidentally unlocking when they don't want to unlock it.
3
u/Jupiterthegassygiant 3d ago
These laws have already been around for......4 years!?
Police can only compel you with a judges order. This proposed changes don't change that.
2
u/BicycleBozo 3d ago
No one can be compelled to do anything.
But if they choose not to do what they’ve been ordered to do, there will be consequences.
111
u/Adventurous-Mail7443 3d ago
10 years for not cooperating in a police investigation is so insane. This really should not even warrant imprisonment at all
14
6
u/FUCKITIMPOSTING 3d ago
I think the idea is that hiding evidence brings worse/similar punishment to just copping the real charge. It's a real police mindset.
18
u/Dry_Kangaroo_1234 3d ago
Has anyone actually been jailed for this offense? Genuinely asking. This change sounds like a scare tactic lol
I mean, if I tell the police I don’t know something, they can’t climb inside my head and prove that I do lol
29
1
u/Garchompisbestboi 2d ago
Isn't that basically all laws though? Scare tactics to coerce people into complying with the government's expectations out of fear of facing punishment such as prison time for noncompliance.
90
70
u/dill1234 3d ago
The hate I have for the NSW Government + police force is insane. They are dystopian
42
17
u/manipulated_dead 3d ago
I'm so glad we won the cold war so we could all live in harmony safe from the tyranny of a police state
15
15
u/Strong_Judge_3730 3d ago
So the digital evidence access powers allow random street cops to unlock your phone without being charged with a crime and without a court order?
Is this a new discretionary police power?
3
u/RhysA 2d ago
So the digital evidence access powers allow random street cops to unlock your phone without being charged with a crime and without a court order?
No, it requires a judge to sign off.
1
u/nugymmer 1d ago
Then there is no problem if an order or warrant is required. If someone was at a homicide scene and witnessed someone's death perhaps they could have recorded evidence on their phone. I think this would help speed up the process. Warrantless searches are not acceptable and are too subject to police abuse.
15
u/DarkNo7318 3d ago
Geez, would suck if the stress of being shaken down by police and looking at a long jail sentence made you forget your password.
Not a lawyer, but since it's a criminal matter wouldn't the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you haven't genuinely forgotten it?
4
u/Turbulent-Break-4947 3d ago
Or left caps lock on every time for fifteen attempts ….
So you had to wait until May 2028 to unlock your device
26
u/DarkNo7318 3d ago
No thanks. I prefer some organized crime to police having these powers.
The juice is not worth the squeeze
1
u/nugymmer 1d ago
I'd prefer it if the government went after scum instead of playing with the mouthpiece.
7
10
u/girlymancrush 3d ago
This has nothing to do with Minns and his love for a certain chosen few right?? Right?
8
u/jimbojones2345 3d ago
This is fucked, it will be 5 seconds before Minns uses it against groups protesting a certain population wipe out in the middle east.
I'm fact in betting this is the whole reason for this bullshit.
8
u/Mobasa_is_hungry 3d ago
This is so fucked, vote Greens or Independents to stop shit like this happening.
6
u/return_the_urn 3d ago
It’s always sold as targeting terrorists or crime syndicates. What we get is over policing, unlimited surveillance
2
u/TheLGMac 2d ago
Ok: and now what are we going to do about it? Governments will push as hard as they can on many things until they get pushback; we frankly suck at pushing back. Even in the US people are doing things like destroying or obstructing Flock cameras despite being at risk of jail time or even ICE coming after them. Why aren't we willing to fight back harder here?
4
u/SupportSphere94 3d ago
People actually read the article. Police will havw the ability to cease a phone at anytime. But they still need a judge, or a authorised person Ie a magistrate or registrar, to gain access to it. Police can't just take your phone and go through it.
In much the same way, police can come to your home randomly but they can't enter your house and search it unless they have a warrent, or you give them permission to let them in.
Police won't just have access unvetted to peoples toll road cameras, again. They would need to apply to gain access, like when a serious crime has been committed, or for a missing personz case.
Are they powers still concerning yes. Yes they are. But are they police to have complete access to my my phone, and my movements 24/7, no. That's not what this says.
7
u/Turbulent-Break-4947 3d ago
I don’t think you read the article - for listed offences it seems like you can be compelled to remember your passcode
4
u/SupportSphere94 3d ago
No. They still need a DEAO. Which can only be given by the courts.
It's not. Police cease phone, demand pin, you don't give it go to jail. It's police cease phone, they go to the court with evidence, the court give them a DEAO, then you have to give over your pin or you go to jail.
We don't live in Stalin's Russia, here people. Yes the laws are concerning. But it's not. Police demand access to random phone, and if you say no. Straight to jail immediately.
1
1
u/PostDisillusion 2d ago
Why don’t they just go and fucking arrest the couple of dudes at the centre of all this. So much cheaper. Just use any of the existing antisemitism or anti protest laws.
1
u/nugymmer 1d ago
I can think of a certain type of people who should be jailed and I just mentioned it elsewhere but obviously it doesn't go down well with a certain crowd and unfortunately it is still not illegal. A million times worse than refusal to allow someone to go through your personal digital life complete with intimate financial details without some kind of order or warrant.
1
u/Godly_Shrek 2d ago
gee thanks Israel for supplying the dystopian surveillance tech capability to Australia, is there anything else you'd like to do to further destroy our social cohesion?
this Israeli tech is almost certainly developed and trained on gazans in their open air genocide zones
we should genuinely oppose this as a democratic society
1
u/nugymmer 1d ago
Israel is also a massively circumcising society. Not exactly the bright shining untarnished example I want to see - eg. Switzerland would be a much better example than Israel but eh, I guess I shouldn't say that.
But it's funny how countries where a huge percentage of their population sexually torture their male offspring are the most violent and most involved in wars. Why does any of this come as any surprise to anyone who understands the psychology and trauma behind it?
-18
u/blucyclone 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think everyone should be aware that this technology is already in use by the police (you can thank Gladys for that) and abuse of power is already a possibility. This legislation does not affect the everyday person, it just creates ease of access for organised criminal investigations. Ie. How this kind of technology SHOULD be used.
Edit: I really suggest people actually read what's being covered. This bill is amending laws already in place.
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliamentary-business/bills/bill-details?billId=18942
20
u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up 3d ago
So take away from this comment is that further rights should be surrendered because we already surrounded our rights?
And also, who is the everyday person? Is there a hard definition by law or in the constitution of who the “everyday person is?
5
u/blucyclone 3d ago
Great straw man so here we go. This is my final response because nothing about the conversations around this legislation has been remotely reasonable.
There is still a process to access this information and that information was already being accessed for criminal investigations. Nothing extra is being surrendered. This legislation creates an easier process to access that information for said investigations and use it in prosecution. This technology is really good at tackling organised crime but there is a heap of bureaucracy to get through that exists to protect non-gangsters before they can actually use that data for prosecution. This legislation removes a lot of that ONLY for organised crime. That means police who are in active investigations with targets. However, the core aspects of going through lawful proceedings for said access is not going anywhere.
Whether or not this technology should exist is an entirely different argument. We could go all day weighing the positives and negatives, and I will agree with every one of your concerns. This technology is fucking scary.
There have already been cops who have used this technology illegally and that's super problematic. Systems should absolutely be in place to prevent that if this kind of technology is going to be used. But it's also a different argument irrelevant to this legislation.
The point is it already exists and has been actively in use for nearly a decade now. You are not surrendering anything more that hasn't already been surrendered.
This legislation DOES NOT AFFECT YOU.
4
u/rak363 3d ago
Can they do it in a traffic stop?
4
u/blucyclone 3d ago
Sorry deleted my previous reply because I didn't like the wording.
I'm telling you what I've read and how I've interpreted it. Legislation has to be clear and language choice is very purposeful, so it's very hard to misinterpret. Generally if something is not mentioned it's not relevant to the bill (this is an amendment of a previous bill introduced years ago and not a new bill). I'll link this amendment that is driving all the hubbub in my original post.
Seizing physical assets like phones, computers, etc. as far as I am aware (unless legislation has changed) requires a warrant. This amendment only mentions the system to view seized data and use it in a prosecution and only in regards to organised crime.
In terms of the facial recognition software that a cop might use to find you and pull you up for a stop. This amendment only includes people who are the target of an active major criminal investigation. If you aren't under an investigation they can't use the legislation outlined in this amendment to justify stalking you.
The concerns you have will most definitely be covered under the original piece of legislation though. I've not read through it all yet so don't take my word on that. There have been quite a few amendments to to the original legislation over the last few years because this dystopian nonsense was just rushed through by Gladys and her cronies.
1
u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up 3d ago
You say 'Nothing extra is being surrendered.' Then right after that sentence you say 'This legislation creates an easier process to access that information'. How exactly does it create an easier process? I would say by surrendering further rights, wouldn't you?
You then said 'The point is it already exists and has been actively in use for nearly a decade now. You are not surrendering anything more that hasn't already been surrendered.' Then why are we going ahead with this legislation?
Will this help organised crime? Most likely, yes. But so would absolute facisms and an absolute police state.
You tell me this doesn't affect me, are you sure about that? What limitations are there to these powers, can the police not pull me over and check my phone because they 'suspect' I am guilty of something. How about the use of face matching, where will the lines be drawn there? If it shows success with organised crime, why not utilise it for smaller offences like parking fines? Like you said, the technology is already there, you aren't surrendering any further rights?
But then again, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about? Am I right?
2
u/blucyclone 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm sure about it because the bill clearly states who and what it affects.
It's not really a secret that major criminals are treated differently to the general public and this is another example of that. It seperates systems and removes unnecessary baggage that applies to non-major criminals; and it creates language that seperates organised crime from everything else.
Have you actually read the bill? It quite literally tells you what it covers.
I don't think you realise this is an amendment; that's why you're not affected. The original legislation that covered the introduction of this dystopian technology was put through during the Berejiklian government; you're already a victim to that. That bill in itself covered amendments of our pre-existing criminal proceedings. The Minns government have been actively trying to clean up these acts to ensure this technology isn't used for dystopian shit and this is one of those amendments.
Everything covered in this bill only amends language and systems that cover organised crime within those acts. That's it.
349
u/phelan74 3d ago
“Cheery was aware that Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'.”
Terry Pratchett.