C0055
主張
“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.”
原始來源： Matthew Davis
分析日期： 29 Jan 2026
原始來源
✅ 事實查核
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 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 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 Three Three New New Powers Powers : : * * * * 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].
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 ] ] : : This is confirmed across multiple sources [2], [3].
- - * * * * 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 ] ] 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].
- - * * * * 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 ] ] 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.
- - * * * * Account Account takeover takeover warrants warrants * * * * : : Allow Allow police police to to take take control control of of online online accounts accounts [ [ 2 2 ] ] 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.
* * * * The The " " Without Without Warrant Warrant " " Claim Claim - - MISLEADING MISLEADING : : * * * * 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.
The The claim claim states states police police can can act act " " without without a a warrant warrant , , even even if if they they ' ' re re not not suspected suspected of of committing committing any any crime crime . . " " This This is is partially partially misleading misleading : : 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].
- - 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, this review occurred in 2024-2025, AFTER the legislation was passed, not before.
- - 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 it ' ' s s not not practicable practicable to to apply apply for for a a warrant warrant [ [ 3 3 ] ] I cannot verify a pre-legislation government review that opposed the bill.
- - 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 ] ] . . This This is is confirmed confirmed across across multiple multiple sources sources [ [ 2 2 ] ] , , [ [ 3 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 ] ] . . 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 . . 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 Two - - Factor 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 two - - factor factor authentication authentication from from accounts 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 Government ' ' s s Own Own Review Review " " - - UNVERIFIED UNVERIFIED : : * * * * The The claim claim references references the the government government ' ' s s own own review review into into hacking hacking powers 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 Act ' ' s 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 ] ] . . However However , , this this review review occurred occurred in in 2024 2024 - - 2025 2025 , , AFTER AFTER the the legislation legislation was was passed passed , , not not before before . . I I cannot cannot verify verify a a pre pre - - legislation legislation government government review review that that opposed opposed the the bill bill . . 缺失的脈絡
* * * * 1 1 . . Warrant Warrant Requirements Requirements and and Judicial Judicial Oversight Oversight : : * * * *
**1.
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 ] ] . . 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 . . Warrant Requirements and Judicial Oversight:**
While the claim emphasizes warrantless surveillance possibilities, it omits that judicial officers must approve warrants under normal circumstances [1].
* * * * 2 2 . . The The Definition Definition of of " " Serious Serious Crime Crime " " is is Broader Broader Than Than Implied Implied : : * * * * 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 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 ] ] . . This This dramatically dramatically expands expands the the scope scope of of who who could could be be targeted targeted . . 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].
* * * * 3 3 . . Parliamentary Parliamentary Scrutiny Scrutiny Did Did Occur Occur : : * * * * This dramatically expands the scope of who could be targeted.
**3.
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 ] ] . . 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 ] ] . . Some Some amendments amendments were were made made in in response response to to House House of of Representatives Representatives concerns concerns [ [ 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].
* * * * 4 4 . . Labor Labor Voted Voted for for the the Legislation Legislation : : * * * * The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a detailed human rights scrutiny report [3].
A A critical critical omission omission from from the the mdavis mdavis . . xyz xyz source source is is that that Labor Labor supported supported the the bill 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 ] ] . . Labor Labor provided provided bipartisan bipartisan support support , , which which is is significant significant context context for for evaluating evaluating partisan partisan criticism criticism . . Some amendments were made in response to House of Representatives concerns [4].
**4.
* * * * 5 5 . . Statutory Statutory Review Review Found Found Serious Serious Implementation Implementation Problems Problems : : * * * * Labor Voted for the Legislation:**
A critical omission from the mdavis.xyz source is that Labor supported the bill.
A A 2024 2024 - - 2025 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 ] ] . . However However , , this this confirms confirms ex ex - - post post facto facto that that the the concerns concerns were were justified justified , , rather rather than than representing representing a a pre pre - - existing existing government government review review . . 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].
* * * * 6 6 . . Privacy Privacy Advocates Advocates Were Were Not Not Completely Completely Excluded Excluded : : * * * * Labor provided bipartisan support, which is significant context for evaluating partisan criticism.
**5.
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 ] ] . . 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 decision - - makers makers . . 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].
來源可信度評估
* * * * Original Original Sources Sources Provided Provided : : * * * *
**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.
- - * * * * Infosecurity Infosecurity Magazine Magazine * * * * : : Mainstream Mainstream cybersecurity cybersecurity / / tech tech publication publication [ [ 1 1 ] ] 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 Guardian Guardian Australia Australia * * * * : : Reputable Reputable mainstream mainstream news news outlet outlet [ [ 2 2 ] ] The criticism is substantively based on documented legislative provisions and is shared by many legal experts and civil rights organisations.
- - * * * * ACS ACS ( ( Australian Australian Computer Computer Society Society ) ) * * * * : : Professional Professional association association , , credible credible technology technology source source [ [ 3 3 ] ] However, the frame presents the legislation as exclusively a Coalition problem without acknowledging Labor's bipartisan support.
- - * * * * 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 . . 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 mdavis . . xyz xyz Source Source Assessment Assessment : : * * * * The The original original claim claim comes comes from from a a Labor Labor - - aligned aligned source source critical critical of of Coalition Coalition government 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 . . 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 Labor ' ' s s bipartisan bipartisan support support . . ⚖️
Labor 比較
* * * * Did Did Labor Labor Support Support This This Legislation Legislation ? ? * * * *
**Did Labor Support This Legislation?**
Yes.
Yes 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 ] ] . . 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 ] ] . . 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 ' ' s s Surveillance Surveillance Legislation Legislation History History : : * * * * 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.
The The Labor Labor government government ( ( 2007 2007 - - 2013 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 . . 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 : : 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.
- - 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 data disruption (modification/deletion) and account takeover capabilities are more intrusive than previous powers [3].
- - 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 However, the legislation's passage with bipartisan support suggests broad government acceptance of surveillance expansion, not uniquely Coalition policy.
- - 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 . . The The data data disruption disruption ( ( modification modification / / deletion deletion ) ) and and account account takeover takeover capabilities capabilities are are more more intrusive intrusive than than previous previous powers powers [ [ 3 3 ] ] . . However However , , the the legislation legislation ' ' s 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 . . 🌐
平衡觀點
* * * * Valid Valid Criticisms Criticisms : : * * * *
**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].
1 1 . . * * * * Warrant Warrant Safeguards Safeguards Were Were Inadequate Inadequate * * * * : : The The 2024 2024 - - 2025 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 ] ] . . This This validates validates early early concerns concerns about about insufficient insufficient safeguards safeguards . . 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].
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 cyber - - crime 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 ] ] . . 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].
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 ] ] . . 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.
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 ] ] . . Labor requested amendments and received some, then voted with the government to pass the legislation.
* * * * Government Government / / Law Law Enforcement Enforcement Justifications Justifications : : * * * * This makes it a cross-party policy failure (if one views it as problematic) rather than exclusively a Coalition initiative.
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 cyber - - enabled enabled crime crime " " including including dark dark web web criminal criminal activity activity [ [ 4 4 ] ] . . Law Law enforcement enforcement faced faced genuine genuine challenges challenges with with criminals criminals using using anonymising anonymising technologies technologies . . The claim's framing obscures Labor's responsibility.
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 ] ] . . Emergency Emergency authorisation authorisation without without warrants warrants requires requires urgent urgent circumstances circumstances ( ( imminent imminent violence violence / / damage 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 hacking / / data data disruption disruption powers powers have have been been introduced introduced in in other other democracies democracies : : - - The The UK UK ' ' s 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 Labor ' ' s s Role Role : : * * * * The The claim claim presentation presentation suggests suggests this this is is a a " " Coalition Coalition " " problem problem , , but but Labor Labor ' ' s s bipartisan bipartisan support support is is material 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 . . This This makes makes it it a a cross cross - - party 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 . . The The claim claim ' ' s s framing framing obscures obscures Labor Labor ' ' s s responsibility responsibility . . 部分真實
6.0
/ 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 . . However However , , the the claim claim makes makes several several misleading misleading statements statements : :
The legislation does introduce new police powers to access, modify, and delete data on devices and take over accounts.
1 1 . . * * * * " " Without Without a a warrant warrant " " * * * * - - Misleading Misleading . . Warrants Warrants are are normally normally required required , , issued issued by by judicial judicial officers officers , , though though the the threshold threshold ( ( " " reasonable reasonable suspicion suspicion " " ) ) is is low low . . Only Only emergency emergency authorisation authorisation ( ( imminent imminent violence violence / / damage damage ) ) can can occur occur without without a a warrant warrant . . However, the claim makes several misleading statements:
1. **"Without a warrant"** - Misleading.
2 2 . . * * * * " " No No warrant warrant even even if if not not suspected suspected of of crime crime " " * * * * - - Misleading 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 . . Warrants are normally required, issued by judicial officers, though the threshold ("reasonable suspicion") is low.
3 3 . . * * * * " " Reviewed Reviewed by by intelligence intelligence groups groups but but no no privacy privacy advocates advocates " " * * * * - - Incomplete 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 . . The The claim claim omits omits this this . . Only emergency authorisation (imminent violence/damage) can occur without a warrant.
2. **"No warrant even if not suspected of crime"** - Misleading.
4 4 . . * * * * " " Government Government ' ' s s own own review review into into hacking hacking powers powers " " * * * * - - Unverified Unverified . . The The INSLM INSLM review review that that found found problems problems occurred occurred after after passage passage in in 2024 2024 - - 2025 2025 , , not not before before . . I I cannot cannot find find evidence evidence of of a a pre pre - - legislation legislation government government review review that that opposed opposed the the bill bill . . 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.
5 5 . . * * * * Omits Omits Labor Labor Support Support * * * * - - Critical Critical omission omission . . Labor Labor voted voted for for the the legislation legislation , , providing providing bipartisan bipartisan support support . . The The claim claim frames frames this this as as purely purely Coalition Coalition responsibility responsibility . . Parliamentary committees (with human rights scrutiny) reviewed it, and civil society organisations made submissions.
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 The implementation implementation problems problems identified identified by by the the INSLM INSLM review review in in 2024 2024 - - 2025 2025 validate validate early early concerns concerns . . However However , , the the specific specific claims claims about about warrantless warrantless surveillance surveillance " " without without suspicion suspicion " " are are overstated overstated , , and and the the omission omission of of Labor Labor ' ' s s bipartisan bipartisan support support is is a a significant significant framing framing problem problem . . The claim omits this.
4. **"Government's own review into hacking powers"** - Unverified.
最終分數
6.0
/ 10
部分真實
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 . . However However , , the the claim claim makes makes several several misleading misleading statements statements : :
The legislation does introduce new police powers to access, modify, and delete data on devices and take over accounts.
1 1 . . * * * * " " Without Without a a warrant warrant " " * * * * - - Misleading Misleading . . Warrants Warrants are are normally normally required required , , issued issued by by judicial judicial officers officers , , though though the the threshold threshold ( ( " " reasonable reasonable suspicion suspicion " " ) ) is is low low . . Only Only emergency emergency authorisation authorisation ( ( imminent imminent violence violence / / damage damage ) ) can can occur occur without without a a warrant warrant . . However, the claim makes several misleading statements:
1. **"Without a warrant"** - Misleading.
2 2 . . * * * * " " No No warrant warrant even even if if not not suspected suspected of of crime crime " " * * * * - - Misleading 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 . . Warrants are normally required, issued by judicial officers, though the threshold ("reasonable suspicion") is low.
3 3 . . * * * * " " Reviewed Reviewed by by intelligence intelligence groups groups but but no no privacy privacy advocates advocates " " * * * * - - Incomplete 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 . . The The claim claim omits omits this this . . Only emergency authorisation (imminent violence/damage) can occur without a warrant.
2. **"No warrant even if not suspected of crime"** - Misleading.
4 4 . . * * * * " " Government Government ' ' s s own own review review into into hacking hacking powers powers " " * * * * - - Unverified Unverified . . The The INSLM INSLM review review that that found found problems problems occurred occurred after after passage passage in in 2024 2024 - - 2025 2025 , , not not before before . . I I cannot cannot find find evidence evidence of of a a pre pre - - legislation legislation government government review review that that opposed opposed the the bill bill . . 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.
5 5 . . * * * * Omits Omits Labor Labor Support Support * * * * - - Critical Critical omission omission . . Labor Labor voted voted for for the the legislation legislation , , providing providing bipartisan bipartisan support support . . The The claim claim frames frames this this as as purely purely Coalition Coalition responsibility responsibility . . Parliamentary committees (with human rights scrutiny) reviewed it, and civil society organisations made submissions.
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 The implementation implementation problems problems identified identified by by the the INSLM INSLM review review in in 2024 2024 - - 2025 2025 validate validate early early concerns concerns . . However However , , the the specific specific claims claims about about warrantless warrantless surveillance surveillance " " without without suspicion suspicion " " are are overstated overstated , , and and the the omission omission of of Labor Labor ' ' s s bipartisan bipartisan support support is is a a significant significant framing framing problem problem . . The claim omits this.
4. **"Government's own review into hacking powers"** - Unverified.
📚 來源與引用 (10)
-
1
Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021
Home Affairs brings together Australia's federal law enforcement, national and transport security, criminal justice, emergency management, multicultural affairs, settlement services and immigration and border-related functions, working together to keep Australia safe.
Department of Home Affairs Website -
2
Tick and flick: Coalition and Labor give police even more hacking powers
A law giving police new powers to surveil and take action against Australians suspected of committing crimes has been waved through.
Crikey -
3
Australian Federal Government introduces "absurd" police powers
Over the last couple of weeks, you may have noticed a swarm of articles discussing the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021, which blitzed through both Federal Houses of Parliament in under 24 hours and was passed on 25 August 2021. It received Royal Assent on 3 Septem
Voice Lawyers -
4
Identify and Disrupt Act - Melbourne Activist Legal Support
Mals
-
5
Hacking powers handed out without safeguard, review finds
Innovationaus
-
6
Identify, takeover and disrupt - special powers of the AFP and ACIC
Inslm Gov
-
7
Australia's new mass surveillance mandate
Digitalrightswatch Org
-
8PDF
Data_retention_PLBIR_final
Austlii Edu • PDF Document -
9
New laws extend police power to hack suspects' personal computers
Police power has been extended, allowing the AFP and ACIC to take control of a person’s online accounts and add, copy, delete or alter data.
Stacks Law Firm -
10
Surveillance state incoming with Australia's "hacking" bill
Australia’s new “hacking” bill violates privacy and security, and is bound to have global implications.
Access Now
評分量表方法論
1-3: 虛假
事實不正確或惡意捏造。
4-6: 部分
有部分真實性，但缺乏或扭曲了背景。
7-9: 大致屬實
微小的技術性問題或措辭問題。
10: 準確
完美驗證且在情境上公正。
方法論: 評分通過交叉比對官方政府記錄、獨立事實查核組織和原始來源文件來確定。