
Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster - playpause
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-48522729
======
mwill
The raid was being live tweeted by an ABC editor, the tweet that stood out the
most to me was this:[0]

 _AFP: I’m still staggered by the power of this warrant. It allows the AFP to
“add, copy, delete or alter” material in the ABC’s computers. All Australians,
please think about that: as of this moment, the AFP has the power to delete
material in the ABC’s computers. Australia 2019._

[0][https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136124130204442624](https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136124130204442624)

~~~
shusson
Yes this stood out to me too. I don't really understand why a warrant would
enable alteration. Copying I can wrap my head around, but alteration without
oversight seems awful. Hopefully the warrant has more fine print than the
journalist implied.

~~~
wccrawford
Perhaps they had a ruling in the past that during accessing a computer, things
got changed, like the logs. And so now they have to have that in the warrant
so that they don't lose their case.

It sounds stupid, but I could see it happening.

~~~
chopin
But this isn't a way to do a forensic analysis. You just clone the hard drive.
Anything else should not be able to stand up in court.

Afaik it is practice in rule-of-law countries to hand a clone to each party in
the case.

~~~
doomjunky
Forensic analysts must use read-only adapters to clone hard drives.

------
peterkelly
What we saw today was a very real, very visual, and very public display of the
power the AFP (Australian Federal Police) are prepared to use to intimidate
journalists and their brave sources who worked to expose war crimes. They did
this by walking into a building and demanding access to sensitive information
held by a news organisation, which had no choice but to comply with the
warrant.

But that's not what scares me the most.

What _does_ scare me is the very real prospect of all this being done
silently, without any visibility or awareness of the journalists or their
employers, without any knowledge of the public, and without any
accountability, via electronic spying. The recently-introduced Assistance and
Access legislation [1] enables the AFP and intelligence agencies to legally
compel tech companies to secretly insert backdoors into their products or
services in order to spy on any target, subject to the approval of the
Attorney General.

One day this law will be used to collect the same type of information the AFP
collected today, without the news organisation, journalists, sources, or
public even being aware of it. And anyone unfortunate to find themselves as
the recipient of such a technical assistance/capability notice under this law
will face jail time for telling anyone about it.

The warrant executed today included the power to "to add, copy, delete or
alter other data" [2]. Why, in particular, did they have the power to "alter"
data? And what "alterations" might they make in combination with [1] which we
will never know about?

[1]
[https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2019/fa190200278-do...](https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2019/fa190200278-document-
released.PDF)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136126140882440193](https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136126140882440193)

~~~
SuperNinjaCat
I'm quite sure there was a bill passed by parliament allowing federal police
and/or security services to "to add, copy, delete or alter other data" when
carrying out investigations (and I think this was before the Assisted Access
bill was passed to my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong though).

This struck me as strange since this goes against the very fundamentals of how
people are trained to carry out digital forensics on an individuals devices. I
remember studying forensics a little and remember lecturers stating how damn
careful they must be, as the data they collect must not be contaminated in any
way for it to be admissible in court.

------
jMyles
Reminds me of this crazy clusterfuck unfolding in San Francisco:

[https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-
war...](https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-warrant-to-
monitor-a-journalists-phone-before-raiding-his-apartment/)

~~~
_jal
They look different to me. Australia is flexing its anti-speech authority,
asserting the power to control what its subjects are allowed to talk about. My
hometown cops are engaged in a much more quotidian abuse of power.

Which is not to say ransacking Carmody's place wasn't egregious - it was.
Watching the circular firing squad composed of the Mayor, the police chief and
the cop-union attack dog just leaves me rooting for injuries.

But ultimately it is a stupidity eruption caused by the cops' arrogant
attempts to control their own (garbage) reputation. Our cops are criminals,
but not part of a national strategy to shut down speech.

~~~
Datenstrom
> Our cops are criminals

I spent a year working as a cop and I can assure you that cops are in fact
normal people. Like any organization or group there is a tribal aspect to it
and they will certainly close ranks and attempt to protect their own; however,
that is organizational not individual. There is a larger cultural issue
involved that drives such misguided organizational behavior.

~~~
xenospn
I think the real problem here is that police, as an organization, has the
power to inflict real and considerable harm on those that try to "get in the
way". They're not doing sanitation or driving your bus - they can ruin your
life or just kill you.

~~~
_bxg1
Agreed. There's an elevated responsibility to be more than just "normal
people" when you have a gun and a badge. I don't think it's fair to paint in
broad strokes, but I do think it's fair to hold police to a higher standard,
especially when it comes to tribalism. When it becomes "us vs them" and "us"
has guns and state-sanctioned authority, that's a problem.

------
thrwaway5642
Australia has recently had an election that was won (quite unexpectedly due to
bad polling) by the incumbent political party (actually a semi-permanent
coalition but that’s irrelevant in this case).

Before the election, which the opposition was widely expected to win, there
talk of “land mines” being set for the expected new government, intended to
destabilise them early on.

In the past week:

* asylum seeker boats from Sri Lanka were intercepted. Boat arrivals are a big issue in Australian politics, and the timing would have placed a new government in a bind

* a flotilla of Chinese warships sailed into Sydney Harbour on a friendly visit catching the public and media by surprise. The visit was approved post-election by the Prime Minister, but was said to be in the works for a while. Again, this would have been a very difficult issue for a new government to deal with.

* These raids on journalists. The first raid, before the ABC was raided was actually on a journalist for News Corp Australia, which had been hostile to the opposition during the election. The optics would have looked terrible if they had won the election, and then their foes raided...it would have been portrayed as payback.

If these raids are really “just” post-electoral land mines firing, they’ll
stop soon enough, and won’t represent a fundamental shift in Australia’s
freedom of the press. If not, then there is real trouble ahead

~~~
lukevdp
Is there any evidence that these were “land mines”?

~~~
joshschreuder
If they were I don't see why the LNP wouldn't just call off the dogs when they
won the election.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Reminds me of the Guradian being intimidated over the Snowden leaks by being
forced to drill through their harddrives: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq)

~~~
lettergram
To be fair, working at a medical billing company standard practice was zero
out drive, then drill. It was far less secret than that too

~~~
pjc50
The point was not the method of destruction but that they were forced to do it
at all, on a questionable legal basis, on computers they were still using (not
disposing of).

~~~
Fnoord
> but that they were forced to do it at all

I'd like to underline this. The Guardian co-workers were _forced_ to perform
the entire deletion __themselves__ (!!!)

It is almost like a combination of some kind of forced, unpaid employment
(akin to "slavery"), shifting the blame ("you did it yourself"), or
retribution ("you abused it, you take care of it"). Very twisted.

~~~
heraclius
> The book, published next week, describes how the Guardian took the decision
> to destroy its own Macbooks after the government explicitly threatened the
> paper with an injunction.

They were “forced” but not in that sense. The Graun offered to do this
instead, and so GCHQ came along to watch. There is a problem but not with
forced labour.

------
stkdump
Ah yes, of course something military related. We had this moment in 1962:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_affair)

------
woah
Seems that other countries are fast following the example the US government
set in aggressive enforcement of press censorship against Assange.

~~~
jonny_eh
NVM Assange, look within our own borders: [https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-
francisco-police-got-a-war...](https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-
police-got-a-warrant-to-monitor-a-journalists-phone-before-raiding-his-
apartment/) [https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-
war...](https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-warrant-to-
monitor-a-journalists-phone-before-raiding-his-apartment/)

~~~
adventured
Implying that one illegal example in San Francisco by local police, means that
it is a common procedure in the US that is being applied "within our own
borders," is absurd.

A given unit of police can do any given illegal thing, that doesn't make it
common or mean that it's going to become common.

~~~
mdpopescu
Were they immediately arrested?

If not, that means it's "unofficial" (wink, wink) de-facto policy.

------
ianopolous
Also discussed in the Guardian:
[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/05/abc-offices-
ra...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/05/abc-offices-raided-by-
australian-federal-police)

------
djsumdog
It's important to note that Australia does not have a bill of rights. Victora
(Melbourne) has a Charter of Human Rights. Although Australian courts have
held freedoms of protest and press in the past, technically the Crown does
have the legal power to control and censor communications.

------
chrisseaton
Why are the BBC quoting the BBC's opinion on this? Are the BBC making a
political opinion statement about the police in another country?

The BBC have always loved to report about themselves and often literally
interview themselves. It's not unusual for them to report about their own
report of an interview between themselves and one of their own executives. But
this is become really bizarre now.

~~~
johneth
What would you think about their transparency and impartiality if they didn't
report on a story they're involved in? That's why.

~~~
chrisseaton
They should let other people report on stories that involve themselves,
obviously.

~~~
johneth
The BBC reporting on stories about itself doesn't stop other people from also
reporting on stories about the BBC. Isn't that obvious?

~~~
chrisseaton
I didn't say it stopped them. I know it's possible for them to do it.

I said they should stop doing it. It's completely impossible to be even
remotely impartial reporting yourself. Isn't that obvious?

~~~
matthewmacleod
No, it’s totally non-obvious to me that this would be the case. It seems
frankly ridiculous that you would think they shouldn’t - particularly when
there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest partiality in this case.

The BBC news organisation often reports on statements or events affecting
themselves or other parts of the organisation. Most high-quality news sources
do the same. If anything, I’d actually expect them to be taking even more care
than normal to avoid bias when they do so.

~~~
chrisseaton
I disagree I’d prefer they recuse themselves, like any other professional with
a potential conflict of interest would.

------
shusson
For those who don't know, the ABC is funded by the government.

~~~
djsumdog
Funded in the same way the US government has grants for PBS and NPR or funded
in the sense it's partially or fully owned by the Australian government?

~~~
shusson
The ABC is funded mainly by the Australian government and appointments to the
ABC Board made by the government [1]. The funding is currently around $1
billion a year [2].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corpor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation#Corporation)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corpor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation#cite_note-
Current_Govt_Funding-65)

------
Paraesthetic
Just for any international friends. The ABC is a cesspit of communist
propaganda and leftist journalism unresearched or based in any science. Also
they are owned by the government, so the government can effectively do what
they want in this regard, they own it.

~~~
aussiecorrector
Neither part of the above comment is accurate. I’m on mobile at work but feel
it’s important to clarify that not only is the ABC independently rated as
highly factual, the government does not have direct editorial control. The
comment or above is also stating that the ABC is a communist cesspit at the
behest of a conservative government - i.e. nonsense.

------
SuddsMcDuff
I'm getting a bit sick of journalists acting like they should be above the
law. This comes across as though it's an audacious abuse of authority for any
law enforcement official to even think about stepping foot into a media
companies office. No, you are subject to criminal investigation just like
anyone else is.

I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is
perceived to be under attack. The outcry is always from other journalists.

~~~
cyphar
Australia does not have any constitutional protections of press freedom (or
freedom of speech for that matter). So draconian laws limiting press freedom
can be passed without any recourse for the public.

Being able to forcefully disclose a journalists sources would not be permitted
anywhere else in the world. We need reforms, not cow-towing to these
disgusting authoritarian tactics.

Not to mention that this is clearly political. This comes on the eve of an
election, and is related to articles published ~2 years ago. Not to mention
the most recent article in question described alleged war crimes by the
Australian military. But there's no legal investigation into that law
breaking, all that matters is that the whistleblower is arrested and made an
example of.

I hope we one day see an anti-corruption commission and pass laws protecting
whistleblowers and a free press. But it's going to be a long road.

~~~
soroushjp
I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, but there are at least
two important factual errors here:

* Australia does have an implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#Freedom_of_political_communication) * The federal election was on May 18, this search was on June 4th, well after the election. If anything, the AFP may have waited long enough to ensure this did not affect the election.

~~~
cyphar
> Australia does have an implied constitutional right to freedom of political
> communication

Yes, I am aware of that but it's simply not sufficient. While there are the
1992 interpretations, there has been significant evidence that the High Court
is handcuffed by the lack of language in the constitution about individual
freedom. There are also many subsequent cases where the protection was not
granted.

But lets not forget that "freedom of political communication" comes from the
fact that any Australian has the right to run as a political candidate and
discuss political ideas. It's already an incredibly stretched usage of the
intentuon of the _preamble_ of the constitution.

Lets also not forget that the Liberal government tried to make it a crime
(punishable with 5 years imprisonment) to post YouTube videos that have
government logos in them -- unless they constituted "genuine satire". The fact
that "freedom of political communication" didn't kill the idea from the outset
tells you how weak the protection really is.

