Showing posts with label law enforcement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law enforcement. Show all posts

June 14, 2013

Law enforcement access to telecommunications data: neither secret nor new


In the wake of the furore over the leaking of details of the US Government’s electronic surveillance program, PRISM, reports emerged in the Australian media ‘revealing’ that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) are accessing phone and Internet records without a warrant. In response, the Australian Greens announced on 11 June their intention to introduce a Bill to ‘strengthen the regulation of data collection on Australians’ by requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant to access such information. However, warrantless access by police to communications data has been in place for over 15 years and reported in detail annually since 2008, meaning such access is neither secret nor new.

December 21, 2012

Australian gun laws

Image source: Wikimedia Commons
The recent mass shooting in Connecticut in the United States has led to commentators to again consider Australia’s approach to firearms controls following, in particular, the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre which involved the use of several assault rifles, and also the 2002 Monash shootings perpetrated with a semi-automatic pistol.

National agreements by Australian governments after each incident formed the basis of current regulatory controls.

March 21, 2012

Ombudsman’s report on covert operations

Image source: Australian Crime Commission
A report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman on the records of controlled operations held by Commonwealth law enforcement agencies, tabled on 13 March 2012, reveals the Ombudsman has continuing concerns that the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) is bypassing a review mechanism intended to provide appropriate external scrutiny of longer operations.

Controlled operations are covert law enforcement operations in which one or more persons are authorised to engage in otherwise unlawful conduct in order to obtain evidence of a serious criminal offence. They enable infiltration of criminal organisations by protecting participants from criminal and civil liability for engaging in certain conduct as a legitimate part of an authorised operation. For example, in order to remain credible when operating undercover on an illicit drugs investigation, a law enforcement officer may need to commit a related offence.

February 6, 2012

Independent Review of the Intelligence Community—interoperability still an issue?


Image source: Department of Defence
The findings of the recently released public version of the 2011 Independent Review of the Intelligence Community Report are largely positive. The report cites significantly greater access to information from overseas, improved capability, and increased performance among the variety of developments in the operations of Australia’s intelligence agencies in the ten years since 2001, and concludes that the significant investment in the agencies over that period has paid off. However, while the public version of the classified report is necessarily framed in broad terms, it is possible to read between the lines to identify some of the issues that are likely to have been expanded upon in the classified version. In particular, it seems that interoperability and cooperation between the Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) and other agencies making up the broader National Security Community is still in need of some improvement.