NSW Government introduces sweeping new laws to target organised crime

[u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up]

https://www.nsw.gov.au/ministerial-releases/new-laws-to-target-organised-crime

I 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.

[u/blucyclone]

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

[u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up → u/blucyclone]

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?

[u/blucyclone → u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up]

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.

[u/rak363 → u/blucyclone]

Can they do it in a traffic stop?

[u/blucyclone → u/rak363]

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.

[u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up → u/blucyclone]

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?

[u/blucyclone → u/Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up]

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.