The Minns government is set to introduce new laws into New South Wales parliament, so that the power NSW police has to require people to provide access to their digital devices, in order to a facilitate scan and download of their content on execution of a warrant and at threat of prison, is available during more routine arrests, roadside stops and other lawful detentions.
The October 2022-enacted digital evidence access order regime provides that police can obtain a DEAO when executing search and crime scene warrants, and if the subject of the order refuses this, then it’s an offence carrying up to 5 years prison time. And as the section containing this criminal offence notes, this measure overrides the common law right against self-incrimination.
However, once NSW police officers have obtained access to a suspect’s phone, they don’t simply scroll through the owner’s latest social media posts, as rather, they employ a device and software developed by Israeli digital forensics company Cellebrite that once connected to a civilian’s phone downloads its entire content, including all deleted messages and images.
I feel like I’m missing info here. Do they need a warrant for this? Or is this some weird thing where they are able to arbitrarily generate a warrant to do this as needed?
I wonder if graphene will end up having a minimalist shadow profile that you can log into full of benign text and stock photos. The danger here is that cellbright might might find a way to escape that I guess.
It says in the first paragraph
To be fair that is a very poorly written paragraph
Reading through the article it kind of sounded like they currently need a warrant but they’re looking to change it to a free-for-all. Though I may be wrong because it is kind of confusing.
The argument is the DEAO is basically a warrant anyway, it needs to be signed off on by the same authorised officers (magistrates, registrars, etc).
All a warrant does is grant the legal authority to go looking for the device. If a cop sees you filming a murder on your phone and arrests you they can already seize your device without a warrant. So a warrant wouldn’t grant any more authority than the cop already has at that time.
Probably deliberately confusing. They assume we know what a DEAO is for one.
https://catronsimmons.com.au/digital-evidence-access-orders/
This was somewhat helpful. Right now it needs to be as part of a court issued warrant.
Honestly, decriminalisation of drugs will solve 90% of the shit they are trying to fight.
The article is deliberately a lot of things imo, none of them good. It’s not written by a lawyer btw, important to note that.
The point about the warrant is the only thing that matters here, and I’d argue it’s meaningless when we are taking about lawful seizure.
A warrant provides you with the legal authority to search for the device, inside a private residence for example. When a cop witnesses a crime and sees that a device is relevant to that crime they can seize it without a warrant. In that case the idea of getting a warrant is superfluous and only a thing because the DEAO law explicitly says so.
They will still need to apply for the DEAO from the same kind of judicial officer that would sign their warrants to get into it.
It does say what a DEAO is in the second paragraph.
From a science field, that is in no way how you ever define an acronym. I could assume but assumed knowledge is hardly ideal here.