Hacker News Reader

Comment by miles | Hacker News Reader

FTA: “…agencies can take control of a person’s online account to gather evidence about serious offences without consent, as well as add, copy, delete or alter material to disrupt criminal activity and collect intelligence from online networks.” (emphasis added)

How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?

View on HN

I was about to post the same extract and ask a slightly different question:

Does this break the chain of trust of evidence? How can any evidence, therefore, be admissible?

Digital / electronic evidence has always been on a bit of a shaky foundation, but this crumbles it to pieces.

I'm sort of hoping this is so badly conceived that it leads to a mistrial or ten and gets amended.. No chance of getting rid of it any other way :(

>> How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?

> Does this break the chain of trust of evidence? How can any evidence, therefore, be admissible?

Just as advocatus diaboli: If you add a message to a bigger scale drug supplier in the name of one client, you could request an earlier delivery to some location of your choice. This would add content, but not plant any evidence - as the evidence would be the supplier handing you "the keys to the truck". I know nothing about australian law, but i am tempted to think that courts could burn serious time on such a case.

Of course this is dangerous b.s. to have in legislation.

Because the deception is aimed at other criminals and not a court.

  derpnet.com

  Criminal A: Drugs for sale wholesale
  Criminal B: I will buy pls
  Criminal A: Bring $1m to crossroads at midnight
  Criminal B: OK

  [Criminal B robs bank, gets caught, cops read social]
  [Cops take over account]

  Criminal B: I got the money, can we do 11:30 << written by cops
  Criminal A: Sure, I will be there with drugs
  ...
  Criminal A: Just pulling up
  Criminal A: Oh no

The cops impersonated Criminal B to deceive Criminal A but as long as they are truthful with the court about this it's legal. Please do not read this as an endorsement of cops' truthfulness or this law.

This presumably does add a defense if you are ever dragged in front of a court accused of posting fruity things through your own account. You can argue that since government agencies have the power to do that as well now, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did it.

A list of credit card numbers could be modified so that, for example, real people are not affected, and/or to add "watermark" card numbers that identify the precise origin of the dataset if it is ever used.

Hopefully there are strong guards against modified data being used to entrap, and also against modified data being used as evidence.

(I'm not yet sure whether these policies are sensible; just trying to figure out the legitimate uses for these powers rather than assuming the worst, although the latter can also be useful to prevent bad outcomes)

> Hopefully

Lol. You misunderstand the Australian government's propensity for shitfuckery.

I have to agree. That's the most naive thing I've read today. Powers are always abused to a degree, and some more than others. In the "decent" corner of the world the police have less powers, and I think we can extrapolate from that alone.

Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4XR6lsQ3o

>> How is adding or altering data different than planting evidence?

I guess it's considered as an undercover/impersonation/honeypot job.

This is going to be used for entrapment 100% Before they had to enter your life as a stranger, gain your trust, and convince you to break the law.

Now, they can assume the identity of someone you already trust and persuade you to break the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com