Data Retention's Slippery Slope: Now Australian Police Want Warrantless Access To Bank Accounts
from the and-then-what? dept
As Techdirt has reported, data retention laws are being introduced around the world. One of the less obvious but most pernicious effects of this development is the banalization of surveillance it brings with it. People begin to find it normal that they are spied on by their government whatever they are doing, and accept without a murmur that the police can do so without a warrant. A good example of what this can lead to has surfaced in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW), where the police are pushing for new powers:
The NSW Police Force would no longer require a judge's sign-off to gain access to the bank statements of people they suspect are engaging in criminal conduct under a police proposal before the NSW government.
What's significant is that in the article quoted above, which appears in The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's new data retention laws are explicitly cited as a justification for the move:
The proposal would change the status quo, which requires a magistrate or registrar of a court to sign off on a "notice to produce" before police can force banking institutions to hand over documentation, such as a suspected criminal's bank statements.[The head of NSW Police's Fraud and Cyber Crime Squad] likened the proposal to the way telecommunications metadata -- such as the time a call was made, to whom, and for how long -- is sought from telcos, which requires only the sign-off a senior officer before companies, such as Telstra or Optus, divulge such information.
Although the request from the police has not been granted -- so far, at least -- it's a sign of where things are going. It's also a great demonstration of the slippery slope: once you agree that warrantless access to personal data is acceptable in one sphere, it's much harder to argue against it in other situations.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
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, banks, data retention, law enforcement, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just say no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fascists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colin Barnett is a cunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Colin Barnett is a cunt
NSW is so full of RWNJ cunts they even have the Gile to export them to the Northern Territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Warrants are hard!" -- Barbie police officer.
What wierd seance type !@#$ are these judges forcing well meaning cops to go through in order to get their warrants signed? I can see no other reason (other than the obvious "laziness" explanation) why cops around the world have come to this conclusion independently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Warrants are hard!" -- Barbie police officer.
"Accountability"
"Paper trail"
Police and government agencies really don't like the idea that they'd actually have to justify or defend their action to anyone else, ever, or that people would be able to know what they were doing or asking for.
No warrant also means that there's no limits, meaning they can do whatever they want, and search wherever they want, and anything they find is fair game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Warrants are hard!" -- Barbie police officer.
On an unrelated note we now have money for more toys for ourselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Warrants are hard!" -- Barbie police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about this instead:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Much as they both bluster when in opposition, once in power, all political parties will do what they want irrespective of the needs of the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No expectation of privacy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The long "reach" of the Law
Give a crook an inch and he'll try and get your bank account number.
...or, more up to date,
Give a crook a badge and he will steal everything you own, legally.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]