Tag: warrants | SpinSafe

Invasive computer warrants used six times in first year – Security

November 30, 2022/in Computer Security

The two Australian law enforcement agencies which last year won the right to take over computers obtained six warrants in the first year of the law’s operation.

Enacted last August, the controversial Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 gave the Australian Federal Police and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission three new kinds of warrants: the account takeover warrant, the data disruption warrant, and the network activity warrant.

Official reporting shows that two of each warrant type were issued in 2021-2022.

On Wednesday, the Attorney-General tabled the department’s Surveillance Devices Act 2004 annual report for the period 2021-2022.

The report stated that the AFP applied for, and received, two data disruption warrants in 2021-2022; while the ACIC and AFP each applied for and received one network activity warrant.

The account takeover warrant is reported by individual agencies. According to their annual reports, the AFP was issued two such warrants in 2021-2022, while the ACIC did not apply for any.

The Attorney-General report said that the older computer access warrants – which allow law enforcement to search computers for information relating to an offence – are much more common, with 18 such warrants requested in 2021-2022 (down five from 2020-2021).

Four computer access warrants were granted to the ACIC, 12 to the AFP, and two to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission.

By far the most popular surveillance warrant remains some kind of surveillance device, whether audio, data, video, tracking, or a combination of capabilities.

A total of 789 surveillance device warrants were issued in 2021-2022, mostly to the AFP which received 695.

Source…

Police and big tech clash on new digital warrants

March 2, 2021/in Internet Security

“Between 2018 and 2020, the AFP investigated several complex malware syndicates operating via ‘botnets’. A botnet can be described as a distributed network of computers infected by malware, which can be tasked by the malware syndicate to perform a variety of criminal activities, including banking fraud, ransomware and offensive cyber attacks, amongst others,” the AFP said in its submission to the review of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identity and Disrupt) Bill 2020.

“In many cases, the computers which form the botnet belong to innocent people or companies, who are unaware their computers have been infected and are being used for criminal activities.”

It said the current legal framework prevented the police from stopping a cyber attack that hit more than 53,000 Australians, costing an estimated $10 million to $50 million.

New police powers

“However, Australian laws do not currently permit this sort of action – as computer access warrant powers are designed solely to facilitate evidence-gathering,” the AFP said.

“The new data disruption warrant will give the AFP another option to dismantle and disrupt these criminal syndicates by frustrating their offending. The AFP could alter the malware to reduce its reach and impact, disrupt malware infrastructure, while systematically remediating victims.”

The bill would amend the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Crimes Act 1914 to give new powers to the AFP and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.

The amendments would introduce a “data disruption warrant” that would allow AFP and ACIC to access data on computers to disrupt criminal activity. It would also bring in a network activity warrant for the AFP and ACIC to collect intelligence on criminal networks online, as well as a takeover warrant to allow the AFP to take over a person’s online account to gather evidence of criminal activity.

The AFP said cybercrime costs the economy $1 billion annually and cited research that estimated 11 per cent of Australian computers were infected with malware, and 4.8 per cent of mobiles.

Twitter, in its submission, said the account takeover warrant, as currently written, would be divorced from standard due process…

Source…

South Carolina Supreme Court Says Cops Aren’t Getting Any No-Knock Warrants Anytime Soon

July 21, 2020/in Internet Security

Earlier this year, Louisville (KY) police officers killed an unarmed woman during a no-knock drug raid. Breonna Taylor was killed after her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, opened fire on SWAT officers Walker believed were criminals entering their home. The officers claimed they had announced their presence before entering. A 911 call placed by Walker — a licensed gun owner — indicated no warning had been given.

“I don’t know what happened … somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend…”

This completely preventable tragedy again prompted discussions of no-knock warrants and their use by law enforcement. This latest killing continued the long narrative of violent actions by drug task forces, who supposedly avail themselves of no-knock raids to increase the safety of officers and occupants. But all no-knock raids seem to do is increase the chance officers will provoke a violent reaction they can use to justify the killing of anyone on the premises. The raid that killed Breonna Taylor was a complete failure. The suspect being sought wasn’t in the house and no drugs were found.

A few small reform efforts targeting the use of no-knock warrants have been made. The Houston Police Department had no choice but to rewrite its rules after a no-knock raid ended with two citizens dead, five officers wounded, and two of those officers hit with multiple criminal charges.

A judge in South Carolina has taken it upon himself to step up and address the huge problem local law enforcement apparently isn’t quite ready to confront.

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald Beatty late Friday afternoon ordered state judges and magistrates to stop issuing “no-knock” search warrants to police.

[…]

Beatty’s order said that the majority of state search warrants in South Carolina are issued by magistrates, the lowest rank of judicial authority. But a recent survey, Beatty wrote, revealed that “most (magistrates) do not understand the gravity of no-knock warrants and do not discern the heightened requirements for issuing a no-knock warrant.”

It’s not a ban. It’s a moratorium. But it should decrease the chances someone in South Carolina will be needlessly killed by overzealous drug warriors. The short order issued by Judge Beatty says no no-knocks warrants will be approved until there are some clear ground rules in place.

IT IS ORDERED that a moratorium upon the issuance of no-knock warrants by all circuit and summary court judges of this state take effect immediately and remain in effect until instruction is provided to circuit and summary court judges statewide as to the criteria to be used to determine whether a requested no-knock warrant should be issued. This instruction will be provided by the South Carolina Judicial Branch.

It also points out that judges have been handling these requests carelessly. And this carelessness is killing people.

It further appears that no-knock search warrants are routinely issued upon request without further inquiry. In recognition of the dangers that the execution of no-knock warrants present to law enforcement and members of the public, and in order to ensure that these warrants are issued based upon the proper constitutional and statutory criteria,

I FIND it necessary to address the issuance of no-knock search warrants by circuit and summary court judges statewide.

It has been addressed. No-knocks are no-go in South Carolina until further notice. Cops will just have to do warrant service the old fashioned way — one that appears to be far less dangerous than the supposedly “safer” option.

Techdirt.