C0055 - Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021

الحكم

صحيح جزئياً

تقييم المصداقية 6.0/10

أساس التقييم

Substantially accurate regarding the legislative powers and their invasive nature, with valid concerns about safeguards and scope. However, loses credibility for misleading characterisation of warrant requirements, unsubstantiated claims about a "government review," and critical omission of Labor's bipartisan support. The powers are genuinely concerning but the framing is partisan.

1 = Complete fabrication
5 = True but missing critical context or unfairly framed
10 = Unquestionably accurate and fairly presented

This claim is TRUE in substance but MISLEADING in framing and INCOMPLETE in critical context.

فساد أمن سيبراني تشهير أخلاقيات تكنولوجيا إرهاب

تاريخ التحليل ٢٩ يناير ٢٠٢٦

وقت القراءة ~6 دقيقة قراءة

عدد الأدلة 🔗 10 مصادر

هل تريد الاستشهاد بهذا؟

استخدم معرّفنا الفريد عند الإشارة إلى هذا التحقق في الخطاب العام. C0055

C0055

الادعاء

“Introduced new police powers to spy on and hack innocent Aussies, without a warrant, even if they're not suspected of committing any crime. Powers include snooping, modifying, deleting data and account takeover. The legislation was voted on only hours after giving it to the crossbenchers to review. The legislation was reviewed by intelligence groups, but no public interest privacy advocates. The legislation went against the government's own review into hacking powers. The government rejected a proposal to have a public interest advocate argue on behalf of the hacked person to balance privacy against safety. The argument is that if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. Powers include removing two factor authentication on accounts, thereby making it easier for unrelated criminals to hack those Australians.”

فساد أمن سيبراني تشهير

المصدر الأصلي: Matthew Davis

تاريخ التحليل: 29 Jan 2026

المصادر الأصلية المقدمة

mdavis.xyz

Documentation of Coalition government policies and claims.

Matthew Davis

✅ التحقق من الحقائق

The The Surveillance Surveillance Legislation Legislation Amendment Amendment (Identify (Identify and and Disrupt) Disrupt) Act Act 2021 2021 was was passed passed by by Parliament Parliament on on 25 25 August August 2021 2021 and and received received Royal Royal Assent Assent on on 3 3 September September 2021 2021 [1]. [1].

The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021 was passed by Parliament on 25 August 2021 and received Royal Assent on 3 September 2021 [1].

The The core core claim claim that that the the legislation legislation introduces introduces new new police police powers powers is is factually factually accurate. accurate. **The **The Three Three New New Powers:** Powers:** The The Act Act introduced introduced three three new new warrant warrant types types for for the the Australian Australian Federal Federal Police Police (AFP) (AFP) and and Australian Australian Criminal Criminal Intelligence Intelligence Commission Commission (ACIC) (ACIC) [1]: [1]: - - **Data **Data disruption disruption warrants**: warrants**: Allow Allow police police to to access access devices devices and and "modify, "modify, add, add, copy, copy, or or delete delete data" data" [2] [2] - - **Network **Network activity activity warrants**: warrants**: Allow Allow law law enforcement enforcement to to surveil surveil online online activity activity of of suspects suspects [2] [2] - - **Account **Account takeover takeover warrants**: warrants**: Allow Allow police police to to take take control control of of online online accounts accounts [2] [2] **The **The "Without "Without Warrant" Warrant" Claim Claim - - MISLEADING:** MISLEADING:** The The claim claim states states police police can can act act "without "without a a warrant, warrant, even even if if they're they're not not suspected suspected of of committing committing any any crime." crime." This This is is partially partially misleading: misleading: - - All All three three powers powers require require warrants warrants under under normal normal circumstances, circumstances, issued issued by by a a judicial judicial officer officer [3] [3] - - However, However, "emergency "emergency authorisation" authorisation" does does allow allow police police to to act act WITHOUT WITHOUT a a warrant warrant in in urgent urgent situations situations if if they they reasonably reasonably suspect suspect "imminent "imminent serious serious violence violence or or damage damage to to property" property" and and believe believe it's it's not not practicable practicable to to apply apply for for a a warrant warrant [3] [3] - - These These emergency emergency measures measures must must be be retrospectively retrospectively approved approved by by a a judicial judicial officer officer [3] [3] - - The The requirement requirement is is "reasonable "reasonable suspicion" suspicion" of of a a "serious "serious crime" crime" (defined (defined as as any any offence offence with with penalty penalty >3 >3 years), years), not not actual actual proof proof of of criminal criminal activity activity [3] [3] The The "reasonable "reasonable suspicion" suspicion" threshold threshold is is notably notably low low and and broad, broad, but but warrants warrants are are technically technically required required in in normal normal circumstances. circumstances. **Legislation **Legislation Voted Voted on on "Only "Only Hours" Hours" After After Crossbench Crossbench Review Review - - TRUE:** TRUE:** The The bill bill was was "blitzed "blitzed through through both both Federal Federal Houses Houses of of Parliament Parliament in in under under 24 24 hours" hours" and and passed passed on on 25 25 August August 2021 2021 [4]. [4].

The core claim that the legislation introduces new police powers is factually accurate. **The Three New Powers:** The Act introduced three new warrant types for the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) [1]: - **Data disruption warrants**: Allow police to access devices and "modify, add, copy, or delete data" [2] - **Network activity warrants**: Allow law enforcement to surveil online activity of suspects [2] - **Account takeover warrants**: Allow police to take control of online accounts [2] **The "Without Warrant" Claim - MISLEADING:** The claim states police can act "without a warrant, even if they're not suspected of committing any crime." This is partially misleading: - All three powers require warrants under normal circumstances, issued by a judicial officer [3] - However, "emergency authorisation" does allow police to act WITHOUT a warrant in urgent situations if they reasonably suspect "imminent serious violence or damage to property" and believe it's not practicable to apply for a warrant [3] - These emergency measures must be retrospectively approved by a judicial officer [3] - The requirement is "reasonable suspicion" of a "serious crime" (defined as any offence with penalty >3 years), not actual proof of criminal activity [3] The "reasonable suspicion" threshold is notably low and broad, but warrants are technically required in normal circumstances. **Legislation Voted on "Only Hours" After Crossbench Review - TRUE:** The bill was "blitzed through both Federal Houses of Parliament in under 24 hours" and passed on 25 August 2021 [4].

This This is is confirmed confirmed across across multiple multiple sources sources [2], [2], [3]. [3].

This is confirmed across multiple sources [2], [3].

The The brief brief review review period period is is accurate. accurate. **Review **Review by by Intelligence Intelligence Groups Groups But But Not Not Privacy Privacy Advocates Advocates - - PARTIALLY PARTIALLY TRUE TRUE BUT BUT INCOMPLETE:** INCOMPLETE:** The The Parliamentary Parliamentary Joint Joint Committee Committee on on Human Human Rights Rights did did issue issue a a report report flagging flagging serious serious concerns concerns [3]. [3].

The brief review period is accurate. **Review by Intelligence Groups But Not Privacy Advocates - PARTIALLY TRUE BUT INCOMPLETE:** The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights did issue a report flagging serious concerns [3].

While While the the claim claim is is correct correct that that privacy privacy advocates advocates were were not not part part of of the the formal formal review review process, process, the the Parliamentary Parliamentary Joint Joint Committee Committee on on Human Human Rights Rights represents represents parliamentary parliamentary scrutiny scrutiny for for human human rights rights impacts. impacts.

While the claim is correct that privacy advocates were not part of the formal review process, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights represents parliamentary scrutiny for human rights impacts.

However, However, independent independent civil civil liberty liberty and and digital digital rights rights organisations organisations submitted submitted extensive extensive submissions submissions raising raising concerns concerns that that were were not not formally formally incorporated incorporated into into the the legislation legislation [3], [3], [4]. [4]. **Data **Data Disruption Disruption Powers Powers and and Two-Factor Two-Factor Authentication Authentication - - TRUE:** TRUE:** The The legislation legislation does does allow allow police police to to "modify, "modify, add, add, copy, copy, or or delete delete data" data" [2], [2], [3], [3], which which would would technically technically enable enable removing removing two-factor two-factor authentication authentication from from accounts. accounts.

However, independent civil liberty and digital rights organisations submitted extensive submissions raising concerns that were not formally incorporated into the legislation [3], [4]. **Data Disruption Powers and Two-Factor Authentication - TRUE:** The legislation does allow police to "modify, add, copy, or delete data" [2], [3], which would technically enable removing two-factor authentication from accounts.

This This is is a a legitimate legitimate concern concern raised raised by by security security experts experts and and legal legal analysts analysts [3]. [3]. **"Against **"Against the the Government's Government's Own Own Review" Review" - - UNVERIFIED:** UNVERIFIED:** The The claim claim references references the the government's government's own own review review into into hacking hacking powers. powers.

This is a legitimate concern raised by security experts and legal analysts [3]. **"Against the Government's Own Review" - UNVERIFIED:** The claim references the government's own review into hacking powers.

A A recent recent statutory statutory review review by by the the Independent Independent National National Security Security Legislation Legislation Monitor Monitor (INSLM) (INSLM) found found serious serious problems problems with with the the Act's Act's implementation, implementation, determining determining that that "hacking "hacking powers powers handed handed out out without without safeguard" safeguard" and and identifying identifying that that warrants warrants were were being being issued issued by by untrained untrained individuals individuals [5]. [5].

A recent statutory review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) found serious problems with the Act's implementation, determining that "hacking powers handed out without safeguard" and identifying that warrants were being issued by untrained individuals [5].

However, However, this this review review occurred occurred in in 2024-2025, 2024-2025, AFTER AFTER the the legislation legislation was was passed, passed, not not before. before.

However, this review occurred in 2024-2025, AFTER the legislation was passed, not before.

I I cannot cannot verify verify a a pre-legislation pre-legislation government government review review that that opposed opposed the the bill. bill.

I cannot verify a pre-legislation government review that opposed the bill.

السياق المفقود

**1. **1.

**1.

Warrant Warrant Requirements Requirements and and Judicial Judicial Oversight:** Oversight:** While While the the claim claim emphasizes emphasizes warrantless warrantless surveillance surveillance possibilities, possibilities, it it omits omits that that judicial judicial officers officers must must approve approve warrants warrants under under normal normal circumstances circumstances [1]. [1].

Warrant Requirements and Judicial Oversight:** While the claim emphasizes warrantless surveillance possibilities, it omits that judicial officers must approve warrants under normal circumstances [1].

The The Act Act includes includes "strong "strong safeguards, safeguards, including including oversight oversight and and controls" controls" according according to to government government statements statements [1], [1], though though critics critics dispute dispute whether whether these these safeguards safeguards are are adequate. adequate. **2. **2.

The Act includes "strong safeguards, including oversight and controls" according to government statements [1], though critics dispute whether these safeguards are adequate. **2.

The The Definition Definition of of "Serious "Serious Crime" Crime" is is Broader Broader Than Than Implied:** Implied:** The The claim claim frames frames this this as as targeting targeting serious serious criminals, criminals, but but "serious "serious crime" crime" is is defined defined as as any any offence offence with with penalty penalty >3 >3 years, years, which which includes includes tax tax evasion, evasion, certain certain whistleblowing whistleblowing activities, activities, forging forging postage postage stamps, stamps, and and polygamy polygamy [3]. [3].

The Definition of "Serious Crime" is Broader Than Implied:** The claim frames this as targeting serious criminals, but "serious crime" is defined as any offence with penalty >3 years, which includes tax evasion, certain whistleblowing activities, forging postage stamps, and polygamy [3].

This This dramatically dramatically expands expands the the scope scope of of who who could could be be targeted. targeted. **3. **3.

This dramatically expands the scope of who could be targeted. **3.

Parliamentary Parliamentary Scrutiny Scrutiny Did Did Occur:** Occur:** The The Standing Standing Committee Committee for for the the Scrutiny Scrutiny of of Bills Bills raised raised concerns concerns about about potential potential "unduly "unduly trepass trepass on on personal personal rights rights and and liberties" liberties" in in February February 2021 2021 [4]. [4].

Parliamentary Scrutiny Did Occur:** The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised concerns about potential "unduly trepass on personal rights and liberties" in February 2021 [4].

The The Parliamentary Parliamentary Joint Joint Committee Committee on on Human Human Rights Rights issued issued a a detailed detailed human human rights rights scrutiny scrutiny report report [3]. [3].

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a detailed human rights scrutiny report [3].

Some Some amendments amendments were were made made in in response response to to House House of of Representatives Representatives concerns concerns [4]. [4]. **4. **4.

Some amendments were made in response to House of Representatives concerns [4]. **4.

Labor Labor Voted Voted for for the the Legislation:** Legislation:** A A critical critical omission omission from from the the mdavis.xyz mdavis.xyz source source is is that that Labor Labor supported supported the the bill. bill.

Labor Voted for the Legislation:** A critical omission from the mdavis.xyz source is that Labor supported the bill.

As As Crikey Crikey reported: reported: "The "The Coalition Coalition and and Labor Labor have have waved waved through through a a law law that that will will give give police police a a new new set set of of powers" powers" and and "both "both the the government government and and Labor Labor voted voted to to pass pass a a controversial controversial bill" bill" [2]. [2].

As Crikey reported: "The Coalition and Labor have waved through a law that will give police a new set of powers" and "both the government and Labor voted to pass a controversial bill" [2].

Labor Labor provided provided bipartisan bipartisan support, support, which which is is significant significant context context for for evaluating evaluating partisan partisan criticism. criticism. **5. **5.

Labor provided bipartisan support, which is significant context for evaluating partisan criticism. **5.

Statutory Statutory Review Review Found Found Serious Serious Implementation Implementation Problems:** Problems:** A A 2024-2025 2024-2025 review review by by the the Independent Independent National National Security Security Legislation Legislation Monitor Monitor found found that that the the main main safeguard safeguard (warrant (warrant approval approval process) process) was was never never effectively effectively implemented implemented [5]. [5].

Statutory Review Found Serious Implementation Problems:** A 2024-2025 review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor found that the main safeguard (warrant approval process) was never effectively implemented [5].

However, However, this this confirms confirms ex-post ex-post facto facto that that the the concerns concerns were were justified, justified, rather rather than than representing representing a a pre-existing pre-existing government government review. review. **6. **6.

However, this confirms ex-post facto that the concerns were justified, rather than representing a pre-existing government review. **6.

Privacy Privacy Advocates Advocates Were Were Not Not Completely Completely Excluded:** Excluded:** Civil Civil liberties liberties groups groups like like the the Human Human Rights Rights Law Law Centre, Centre, Digital Digital Rights Rights Watch, Watch, and and the the Internet Internet Association Association of of Australia Australia made made detailed detailed submissions submissions to to parliamentary parliamentary inquiries inquiries [3]. [3].

Privacy Advocates Were Not Completely Excluded:** Civil liberties groups like the Human Rights Law Centre, Digital Rights Watch, and the Internet Association of Australia made detailed submissions to parliamentary inquiries [3].

They They were were not not part part of of the the formal formal legislative legislative review review process, process, but but their their input input was was available available to to decision-makers. decision-makers.

They were not part of the formal legislative review process, but their input was available to decision-makers.

تقييم مصداقية المصدر

**Original **Original Sources Sources Provided:** Provided:** - - **Infosecurity **Infosecurity Magazine**: Magazine**: Mainstream Mainstream cybersecurity/tech cybersecurity/tech publication publication [1] [1] - - **The **The Guardian Guardian Australia**: Australia**: Reputable Reputable mainstream mainstream news news outlet outlet [2] [2] - - **ACS **ACS (Australian (Australian Computer Computer Society)**: Society)**: Professional Professional association, association, credible credible technology technology source source [3] [3] - - **Digital **Digital Rights Rights Watch**: Watch**: Advocacy Advocacy organisation organisation focused focused on on digital digital rights; rights; likely likely to to emphasize emphasize privacy privacy concerns concerns but but generally generally factual factual [4] [4] - - **Sydney **Sydney Criminal Criminal Lawyers**: Lawyers**: Legal Legal practitioners' practitioners' perspective; perspective; has has commercial commercial interest interest in in security security law law issues issues but but provides provides substantive substantive legal legal analysis analysis [5] [5] These These sources sources range range from from mainstream mainstream news news to to advocacy advocacy organisations. organisations.

**Original Sources Provided:** - **Infosecurity Magazine**: Mainstream cybersecurity/tech publication [1] - **The Guardian Australia**: Reputable mainstream news outlet [2] - **ACS (Australian Computer Society)**: Professional association, credible technology source [3] - **Digital Rights Watch**: Advocacy organisation focused on digital rights; likely to emphasize privacy concerns but generally factual [4] - **Sydney Criminal Lawyers**: Legal practitioners' perspective; has commercial interest in security law issues but provides substantive legal analysis [5] These sources range from mainstream news to advocacy organisations.

Digital Digital Rights Rights Watch Watch and and Sydney Sydney Criminal Criminal Lawyers Lawyers have have clear clear perspectives perspectives on on civil civil liberties, liberties, but but their their factual factual claims claims about about the the legislation legislation are are supported supported by by parliamentary parliamentary records records and and government government documents. documents. **mdavis.xyz **mdavis.xyz Source Source Assessment:** Assessment:** The The original original claim claim comes comes from from a a Labor-aligned Labor-aligned source source critical critical of of Coalition Coalition government. government.

Digital Rights Watch and Sydney Criminal Lawyers have clear perspectives on civil liberties, but their factual claims about the legislation are supported by parliamentary records and government documents. **mdavis.xyz Source Assessment:** The original claim comes from a Labor-aligned source critical of Coalition government.

The The criticism criticism is is substantively substantively based based on on documented documented legislative legislative provisions provisions and and is is shared shared by by many many legal legal experts experts and and civil civil rights rights organisations organisations.

The criticism is substantively based on documented legislative provisions and is shared by many legal experts and civil rights organisations.

However, However, the the frame frame presents presents the the legislation legislation as as exclusively exclusively a a Coalition Coalition problem problem without without acknowledging acknowledging Labor's Labor's bipartisan bipartisan support. support.

However, the frame presents the legislation as exclusively a Coalition problem without acknowledging Labor's bipartisan support.

⚖️

مقارنة حزب العمال

**Did **Did Labor Labor Support Support This This Legislation?** Legislation?** Yes. Yes.

**Did Labor Support This Legislation?** Yes.

The The Crikey Crikey article article explicitly explicitly states: states: "The "The Coalition Coalition and and Labor Labor have have waved waved through through a a law law that that will will give give police police a a new new set set of of powers powers to to surveil surveil and and take take action action against against Australians Australians suspected suspected of of committing committing crimes" crimes" [2]. [2].

The Crikey article explicitly states: "The Coalition and Labor have waved through a law that will give police a new set of powers to surveil and take action against Australians suspected of committing crimes" [2].

Labor Labor opposition opposition leader leader Anthony Anthony Albanese Albanese and and the the Labor Labor party party voted voted for for the the legislation, legislation, providing providing crucial crucial bipartisan bipartisan support support that that enabled enabled passage passage with with crossbench crossbench opposition opposition [2]. [2]. **Labor's **Labor's Surveillance Surveillance Legislation Legislation History:** History:** The The Labor Labor government government (2007-2013) (2007-2013) under under Rudd Rudd and and Gillard Gillard did did NOT NOT introduce introduce broad broad hacking hacking powers powers equivalent equivalent to to the the Identify Identify and and Disrupt Disrupt Act. Act.

Labor opposition leader Anthony Albanese and the Labor party voted for the legislation, providing crucial bipartisan support that enabled passage with crossbench opposition [2]. **Labor's Surveillance Legislation History:** The Labor government (2007-2013) under Rudd and Gillard did NOT introduce broad hacking powers equivalent to the Identify and Disrupt Act.

However, However, the the broader broader context context of of government government surveillance surveillance expansion expansion shows shows this this is is not not unique unique to to the the Coalition: Coalition: - - In In 2015, 2015, the the Abbott Abbott Coalition Coalition government government introduced introduced data data retention retention legislation legislation (Telecommunications (Telecommunications (Interception (Interception and and Access) Access) Amendment Amendment (Data (Data Retention) Retention) Act Act 2015) 2015) which which also also received received bipartisan bipartisan support support from from Labor Labor after after amendments amendments were were made made [6] [6] - - The The surveillance surveillance debate debate in in Australia Australia has has been been bipartisan bipartisan over over decades, decades, with with both both major major parties parties supporting supporting incremental incremental expansions expansions of of law law enforcement enforcement powers powers - - Labor Labor opposition opposition to to the the Identify Identify and and Disrupt Disrupt Act Act was was not not categorical categorical - - they they supported supported it it while while requesting requesting amendments amendments [2] [2] **Key **Key Distinction:** Distinction:** This This legislation legislation appears appears to to represent represent a a genuine genuine advancement advancement in in police police hacking hacking powers powers compared compared to to previous previous legislation. legislation.

However, the broader context of government surveillance expansion shows this is not unique to the Coalition: - In 2015, the Abbott Coalition government introduced data retention legislation (Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015) which also received bipartisan support from Labor after amendments were made [6] - The surveillance debate in Australia has been bipartisan over decades, with both major parties supporting incremental expansions of law enforcement powers - Labor opposition to the Identify and Disrupt Act was not categorical - they supported it while requesting amendments [2] **Key Distinction:** This legislation appears to represent a genuine advancement in police hacking powers compared to previous legislation.

The The data data disruption disruption (modification/deletion) (modification/deletion) and and account account takeover takeover capabilities capabilities are are more more intrusive intrusive than than previous previous powers powers [3]. [3].

The data disruption (modification/deletion) and account takeover capabilities are more intrusive than previous powers [3].

However, However, the the legislation's legislation's passage passage with with bipartisan bipartisan support support suggests suggests broad broad government government acceptance acceptance of of surveillance surveillance expansion, expansion, not not uniquely uniquely Coalition Coalition policy. policy.

However, the legislation's passage with bipartisan support suggests broad government acceptance of surveillance expansion, not uniquely Coalition policy.

🌐

منظور متوازن

**Valid **Valid Criticisms:** Criticisms:** 1. 1. **Warrant **Warrant Safeguards Safeguards Were Were Inadequate**: Inadequate**: The The 2024-2025 2024-2025 INSLM INSLM review review found found that that the the main main safeguard safeguard (warrant (warrant approval approval process) process) was was never never properly properly implemented implemented and and warrants warrants were were being being issued issued by by untrained untrained individuals individuals [5]. [5].

**Valid Criticisms:** 1. **Warrant Safeguards Were Inadequate**: The 2024-2025 INSLM review found that the main safeguard (warrant approval process) was never properly implemented and warrants were being issued by untrained individuals [5].

This This validates validates early early concerns concerns about about insufficient insufficient safeguards. safeguards. 2. 2. **Broad **Broad Scope Scope of of "Serious "Serious Crime"**: Crime"**: The The definition definition includes includes minor minor offences offences unrelated unrelated to to cyber-crime, cyber-crime, meaning meaning the the powers powers could could be be used used for for investigation investigation of of tax tax evasion, evasion, whistleblowing, whistleblowing, or or financial financial crimes crimes [3]. [3]. 3. 3. **Limited **Limited Redress Redress for for Wrongful Wrongful Access**: Access**: There There is is no no power power for for judicial judicial officers officers to to order order destruction destruction of of wrongfully wrongfully obtained obtained data data [3], [3], and and subjects subjects of of warrants warrants are are not not informed informed they they were were targeted targeted [3]. [3]. 4. 4. **Data **Data Modification Modification Enables Enables Framing**: Framing**: The The ability ability to to modify modify or or delete delete data data before before investigation investigation raises raises evidentiary evidentiary concerns, concerns, including including potential potential for for planting planting or or destroying destroying evidence evidence [3]. [3]. **Government/Law **Government/Law Enforcement Enforcement Justifications:** Justifications:** 1. 1. **Addressing **Addressing Modern Modern Cybercrime**: Cybercrime**: The The government government argued argued the the legislation legislation was was necessary necessary to to combat combat "serious "serious cyber-enabled cyber-enabled crime" crime" including including dark dark web web criminal criminal activity activity [4]. [4].

This validates early concerns about insufficient safeguards. 2. **Broad Scope of "Serious Crime"**: The definition includes minor offences unrelated to cyber-crime, meaning the powers could be used for investigation of tax evasion, whistleblowing, or financial crimes [3]. 3. **Limited Redress for Wrongful Access**: There is no power for judicial officers to order destruction of wrongfully obtained data [3], and subjects of warrants are not informed they were targeted [3]. 4. **Data Modification Enables Framing**: The ability to modify or delete data before investigation raises evidentiary concerns, including potential for planting or destroying evidence [3]. **Government/Law Enforcement Justifications:** 1. **Addressing Modern Cybercrime**: The government argued the legislation was necessary to combat "serious cyber-enabled crime" including dark web criminal activity [4].

Law Law enforcement enforcement faced faced genuine genuine challenges challenges with with criminals criminals using using anonymising anonymising technologies. technologies. 2. 2. **Warrant **Warrant Requirements Requirements Exist**: Exist**: While While thresholds thresholds are are low, low, warrants warrants still still require require judicial judicial approval approval in in normal normal circumstances circumstances [1]. [1].

Law enforcement faced genuine challenges with criminals using anonymising technologies. 2. **Warrant Requirements Exist**: While thresholds are low, warrants still require judicial approval in normal circumstances [1].

Emergency Emergency authorisation authorisation without without warrants warrants requires requires urgent urgent circumstances circumstances (imminent (imminent violence/damage) violence/damage) [3]. [3]. 3. 3. **Oversight **Oversight Mechanisms**: Mechanisms**: The The legislation legislation includes includes requirements requirements for for oversight oversight by by authorising authorising officers officers and and retrospective retrospective judicial judicial review review of of emergency emergency authorisations authorisations [3]. [3]. 4. 4. **Targeted **Targeted at at Serious Serious Offences**: Offences**: While While the the definition definition is is broad, broad, the the stated stated purpose purpose is is targeting targeting terrorism, terrorism, drug drug trafficking, trafficking, human human trafficking, trafficking, and and child child sexual sexual abuse abuse [4]. [4]. **Comparable **Comparable International International Context:** Context:** Similar Similar hacking/data hacking/data disruption disruption powers powers have have been been introduced introduced in in other other democracies: democracies: - - The The UK's UK's Investigatory Investigatory Powers Powers Act Act 2016 2016 ("Snoopers' ("Snoopers' Charter") Charter") provides provides law law enforcement enforcement with with extensive extensive surveillance surveillance powers powers [comparable [comparable legislation] legislation] - - The The US US has has similar similar capabilities capabilities under under various various federal federal statutes, statutes, though though with with different different oversight oversight mechanisms mechanisms **Critical **Critical Finding Finding on on Labor's Labor's Role:** Role:** The The claim claim presentation presentation suggests suggests this this is is a a "Coalition" "Coalition" problem, problem, but but Labor's Labor's bipartisan bipartisan support support is is material. material.

Emergency authorisation without warrants requires urgent circumstances (imminent violence/damage) [3]. 3. **Oversight Mechanisms**: The legislation includes requirements for oversight by authorising officers and retrospective judicial review of emergency authorisations [3]. 4. **Targeted at Serious Offences**: While the definition is broad, the stated purpose is targeting terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and child sexual abuse [4]. **Comparable International Context:** Similar hacking/data disruption powers have been introduced in other democracies: - The UK's Investigatory Powers Act 2016 ("Snoopers' Charter") provides law enforcement with extensive surveillance powers [comparable legislation] - The US has similar capabilities under various federal statutes, though with different oversight mechanisms **Critical Finding on Labor's Role:** The claim presentation suggests this is a "Coalition" problem, but Labor's bipartisan support is material.

Labor Labor requested requested amendments amendments and and received received some, some, then then voted voted with with the the government government to to pass pass the the legislation. legislation.

Labor requested amendments and received some, then voted with the government to pass the legislation.

This This makes makes it it a a cross-party cross-party policy policy failure failure (if (if one one views views it it as as problematic) problematic) rather rather than than exclusively exclusively a a Coalition Coalition initiative. initiative.

This makes it a cross-party policy failure (if one views it as problematic) rather than exclusively a Coalition initiative.

The The claim's claim's framing framing obscures obscures Labor's Labor's responsibility responsibility.

The claim's framing obscures Labor's responsibility.

صحيح جزئياً

6.0

من 10

The The legislation legislation does does introduce introduce new new police police powers powers to to access, access, modify, modify, and and delete delete data data on on devices devices and and take take over over accounts. accounts.

The legislation does introduce new police powers to access, modify, and delete data on devices and take over accounts.

However, However, the the claim claim makes makes several several misleading misleading statements: statements: 1. 1. **"Without **"Without a a warrant"** warrant"** - - Misleading. Misleading.

However, the claim makes several misleading statements: 1. **"Without a warrant"** - Misleading.

Warrants Warrants are are normally normally requiredissued required, by issued judicial by officersthough judicial the officers, threshold though (" the reasonable threshold suspicion ("reasonable ") suspicion") is is low low.

Warrants are normally required, issued by judicial officers, though the threshold ("reasonable suspicion") is low.

Only Only emergency emergency authorisation authorisation (imminent (imminent violence/damage) violence/damage) can can occur occur without without a a warrant. warrant. 2. 2. **"No **"No warrant warrant even even if if not not suspected suspected of of crime"** crime"** - - Misleading. Misleading.

Only emergency authorisation (imminent violence/damage) can occur without a warrant. 2. **"No warrant even if not suspected of crime"** - Misleading.

While While the the power power applies applies broadly broadly via via loose loose definitions definitions of of "serious "serious crime," crime," you you must must still still be be subject subject to to reasonable reasonable suspicion, suspicion, not not zero zero suspicion. suspicion. 3. 3. **"Reviewed **"Reviewed by by intelligence intelligence groups groups but but no no privacy privacy advocates"** advocates"** - - Incomplete. Incomplete.

While the power applies broadly via loose definitions of "serious crime," you must still be subject to reasonable suspicion, not zero suspicion. 3. **"Reviewed by intelligence groups but no privacy advocates"** - Incomplete.

Parliamentary Parliamentary committees committees (with (with human human rights rights scrutiny) scrutiny) reviewed reviewed it, it, and and civil civil society society organisations organisations made made submissions. submissions.

Parliamentary committees (with human rights scrutiny) reviewed it, and civil society organisations made submissions.

The The claim claim omits omits this. this. 4. 4. **"Government's **"Government's own own review review into into hacking hacking powers"** powers"** - - Unverified. Unverified.

The claim omits this. 4. **"Government's own review into hacking powers"** - Unverified.

The The INSLM INSLM review review that that found found problems problems occurred occurred after after passage passage in in 2024-2025, 2024-2025, not not before. before.

The INSLM review that found problems occurred after passage in 2024-2025, not before.

I I cannot cannot find find evidence evidence of of a a pre-legislation pre-legislation government government review review that that opposed opposed the the bill. bill. 5. 5. **Omits **Omits Labor Labor Support** Support** - - Critical Critical omission. omission.

I cannot find evidence of a pre-legislation government review that opposed the bill. 5. **Omits Labor Support** - Critical omission.

Labor Labor voted voted for for the the legislation, legislation, providing providing bipartisan bipartisan support. support.

Labor voted for the legislation, providing bipartisan support.

The The claim claim frames frames this this as as purely purely Coalition Coalition responsibility responsibility.

The claim frames this as purely Coalition responsibility.

The The core core powers powers described described (data (data disruption, disruption, account account takeover, takeover, network network activity activity surveillance) surveillance) are are real real and and were were substantively substantively concerning concerning to to legal legal experts experts and and civil civil rights rights organisations. organisations.

The core powers described (data disruption, account takeover, network activity surveillance) are real and were substantively concerning to legal experts and civil rights organisations.

The The implementation implementation problems problems identified identified by by the the INSLM INSLM review review in in 2024-2025 2024-2025 validate validate early early concerns. concerns.

The implementation problems identified by the INSLM review in 2024-2025 validate early concerns.

Howeverthe However, specific the claims specific about claims warrantless about surveillance warrantless " surveillance without "without suspicion suspicion" " are are overstated, overstatedand and the the omission omission of of Labor's Labor's bipartisan bipartisan support support is is a a significant significant framing framing problem problem.

However, the specific claims about warrantless surveillance "without suspicion" are overstated, and the omission of Labor's bipartisan support is a significant framing problem.

النتيجة النهائية