Australian Law Enforcement Wants The Right To Hack Computers

from the the-modern-wiretap dept

Tue, Mar 10th 2009 5:50pm — Mike Masnick

As technology changes, so does the demands of law enforcement officials to figure out better ways to spy on your use of that technology. For example, efforts to wiretap Skype conversations has been a popular subject among law enforcement around the world. Down in Australia, the police are now looking for the right to hack your computer. At the very least, it would require a warrant, but a judge could authorize the police to hack into your computer and monitor it for up to 7 days at a time and not tell the owners for up to three years (depending on the circumstances -- and it would require several approved extensions for it to last that long). Not surprisingly, this is rather controversial, and security companies in particular have made it clear they want no part of this (i.e., they won't create backdoors) and fully expect their products to block such hacking attempts. How long until new legislation is proposed that forces security vendors to change their minds about that as well?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: australia, hacking, law enforcement

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Brad Hubbard, 10 Mar 2009 @ 5:59pm

How long until new legislation is proposed that forces security vendors to change their minds about that as well?

About two days less than it takes someone to create a virus or malicious monitoring service that will exploit said back doors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2009 @ 6:05pm

Does Australia make it a point to recycle the US government's bad technology ideas?

This sounds rather like the intent of the (thankfully killed) Clipper chip.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2009 @ 6:32pm

These fools (Australian Law Enforcement) are making the classical mistake of unforscene consequences. They are assuming that computer systems are Windows not realizing that their action will advance Linux, BSD, and a dozen of other less known systems who great advantage is that not only are they not known but that they are almost impossible to hack. In the realm of data transmission there are codes and then there are codes within codes all of which can be employed within a network that to all outward viewers looks to be nothing but a simple Windows system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reboot the Gateway, 10 Mar 2009 @ 6:38pm

Who ?
Ha !
They just assume that such a feat is possible.
Never mind that some computers are more difficult ot hack than others ...
So who are they going to get to do this for them ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:07pm

I have one thing to say to them: Please, do - that would convert 90% of windows users to GNU/Linux users - which is uncrackable unless your deliberately cripple yourself.

Good fucking luck cracking SELinux!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
76% of all stats are made up on the spot, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:14pm

Re:
90% of those 90% wouldn't even be aware of what happend to them.

Dont be so confident about your OS. Given enough resources, your precious box will fall, but who is going to do it - cause certainly the cops do not the expertise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:16pm

might this be another attempt by the "majors" to see who downloads what? hum....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reboot the Gateway, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:22pm

I have heard of such a box
"Oh, the Aussie Law is the power in these waters, true enough. But there's no box as can match my OS for security."

"I've heard of one, supposed to be very secure, nigh unhackable... The Black Boxen."

"Well, there's no real box as can match my OS."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:31pm

Re: Re:
Ever hear of Tin Hat linux? Look it up. Oh, and yes, I can statistically prove how impossible it is to break into it. Naturally, I don't use javascript of flash on it.

The other alternative is to run linux on an old box with a few megs of ram - their viruses wouldn't run on it :P
Using a different chip architecture will help too.

But you might be right about those people not being aware - I have no experience with Australians, although I hear their elections are all won by FUD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:33pm

"About two days less than it takes someone to create a virus or malicious monitoring service that will exploit said back doors."

No kidding, how could anyone argue that exploiting said backdoors would even be illegal, considering they were put in place for the explicit purpose of allowing outside access. Afterall, it isn't illegal to enter someone's house if the door is unlocked (it's illegal to take something though).

If you are going to do that, lets just do away with security altogether and just say it is illegal to enter someone's computer without permission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:36pm

Just put up a Honeypot for them, lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reboot the Gateway, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:41pm

Re: Re: Re: unhackable
"I can statistically prove how impossible it is to break into it."

Do not be so naive. It would take quite a bit more resources than a simple winbox, but it is not impossilbe. Even the hardened versions of *nix can be overcome. The only truely secure box is one that is powered off and locked up in a vault to which there is no key, and even then ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Make My Day Law, 10 Mar 2009 @ 7:47pm

Re:
"it isn't illegal to enter someone's house if the door is unlocked "

Are you sure?
Are you providing legal advice?

What would you do, uninvited in a someones house, if you heard the slide action of a pump 12 gauge chambering a round?

You might need a change of shorts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kyros, 10 Mar 2009 @ 8:10pm

So the security companies might be forced to build backdoors...but what about open source? What if I do my own security? Sure, it's probably far from perfect, but it'd mess with the police newbs running keylogger installs remotely...

I suppose it all could end up being very entertaining =D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Donk240978, 10 Mar 2009 @ 9:47pm

It is illegal to enter a persons home, property or premises uninvited, regardsless of whether or not a door is unlocked... It's called Trespass...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
peter, 10 Mar 2009 @ 9:53pm

Re: clipper chip
haha..maybe they just told you it was killed???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sniff Your Own, 10 Mar 2009 @ 10:06pm

Re: Re: clipper chip
Will their backdoor clipper chip rootkit be able to spoof the likes of ethereal/wireshark?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dallas IT Guy, 10 Mar 2009 @ 10:42pm

Re:
"It is illegal to enter a persons home, property or premises uninvited, regardsless of whether or not a door is unlocked... It's called Trespass..."

and in Texas it will get you killed. Really. A homeowner can use deadly force in many, many situations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 11 Mar 2009 @ 5:28am

Re: Trespass
> Afterall, it isn't illegal to enter someone's
> house if the door is unlocked

Umm... yes it is. You can't just go walking around other people's homes merely because they don't lock the door.

Try it and see how fast you get locked up for breaking and entering, and then listen close as your lawyer explains to you that the "breaking" part isn't really about physically breaking a lock or door or window as most people think. It's a holdover from old English which means "breaking the close", the close being the threshold of a residence. So even if a door is wide open, if you cross the threshold without permission, you're breaking and entering the residence and you can-- and most likely will-- do time for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sajjon, 11 Mar 2009 @ 6:57am

Almost right
"Breaking the close" only refers to trespass of land: The common law trespass of unlawful entering upon the land of another. 187 S.E. 349, 350

"Breaking and entering" however does involve moving ANYTHING in order to enter a residence.

n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2009 @ 8:37am

Re: Re: Re: clipper chip
Are you seriously asking if Hardware can lie to software?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2009 @ 8:41am

Re:
they are almost impossible to hack.

That's pretty false. Scripting in some kernal commands on Linux is a lot easier than trying to land on a running Windows box and figure out where the right DLLs are in memory. Not, as you'll note, that that's stopped anyone from hacking Windows. You're saying Linux etc. are better because "no one knows about them," but security through obscurity is doomed to fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 11 Mar 2009 @ 1:39pm

Moving to australia
Sounds like I need to move to Australia and work for the law down there, a White-Hat would be in high demand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
VRP, 11 Mar 2009 @ 2:22pm

Re: Almost right
Some schools teach that every state sets their own [criminal] laws. And many judges in each state have their own independent interpretations thereupon. Even precedents get rev'd., or ignored, particularly by juries. So much for citations and common law!

VRP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
VRP, 11 Mar 2009 @ 2:29pm

Re:
More likely IMO, it'll spell the end of all computers. 95% of the computer owners will quickly destroy all their machines and storage devices. The remaining, will be laughed at, just as horse-and=buggy users are today.

VRP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2009 @ 6:09pm

Think I'll move there. seen britian?

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/uk-approves-pol.html

"The UK's Home Office is supporting a proposal that would allow British police or MI5 agents to hack home, office and other private computers without a warrant to intercept e-mail traffic and monitor a user's other computer activities."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2009 @ 8:05pm

Re: Re:
"but security through obscurity is doomed to fail."

and this is why microsoft is doomed to fail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reboot the Gateway, 11 Mar 2009 @ 8:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: clipper chip
As I recall, the clipper was for encryption, with a back door.
If the cops are going to hack your box so that they can look at all your porn, then you should be able to detect the additional traffic - no? How is some hardware encryption going to spoof the amount of traffic being monitored by a sniffer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2009 @ 8:02pm

Re:
"No kidding, how could anyone argue that exploiting said backdoors would even be illegal, considering they were put in place for the explicit purpose of allowing outside access. Afterall, it isn't illegal to enter someone's house if the door is unlocked (it's illegal to take something though)."

Wrong. That is illegal and called trespassing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]