There is a big difference between intercepting transmissions (passive) and hacking into PCs (active).
Would they change wiretapping laws to include 24x7 audio/video surveillance inside the suspect's home without their knowledge?
Laws like these; no matter how well the intent; fulfill the Orwellian nightmare.
Australian police may get license to hack
Summary
Part of a package introduced into parliament last week by Premier Nathan Rees would give police the right to apply for covert search warrants to access suspects' computers remotely.
Topics
The New South Wales Government has unveiled plans to give state police the power to hack into computers remotely, with owners potentially remaining in the dark about the searches for up to three years.
The new powers are part of a package introduced into parliament last week by Premier Nathan Rees. Broadly, they aim to give police the right to apply for covert search warrants from the Supreme Court to gather evidence in cases which could involve serious indictable offenses punishable by at least seven years' imprisonment.
Judges issuing the new warrants could authorize owners not being told about the searches for up to three years (under exceptional circumstances), NSW Police Minister Tony Kelly said in a statement, with police having to apply for several extensions to get the full period.
Rees said the laws would enable computers to be searched, including access to "computers networked to a computer at the premises being searched".
"Police will also be able to gain remote access to computers for seven days at a time, up to a total of 28 days or longer in exceptional circumstances, to allow them, to undertake forensic off-site examination," Rees said.
"This could including cracking codes and searching computers for evidence of child porn, drug running and money laundering."
Offenses covered by the new laws include the supply, manufacture or cultivation of drugs, possession, manufacture or sale of firearms, money laundering, car or boat re-birthing and unauthorized access to modification of computer data or electronic communications.
Also included are theft (if carried out on an organized basis), violence causing grievous bodily harm or wounding, possession, manufacture or supply of false instruments, corruption, destruction of property, homicide and kidnapping.
"We have been fine-tuning this legislation to ensure that we can keep up with fast evolving technology," said Rees. "This places police on an equal footing with the criminals they are tracking."
The news comes after similar moves in Europe have recently been gathering pace. For example, in January the UK government said it had agreed to work with the European Union parliament on plans to extend police powers to conduct remote searches of computers.
However, not everyone has been happy with the initiatives, with privacy campaigners complaining and security vendors maintaining they would protect users' computers indiscriminately, regardless of who was attempting to break in to them.
The covert search warrants would be available to the NSW Police Force, the NSW Crime Commission and the Police Integrity Commission.
This article was originally posted on ZDNet Australia.
Talkback Most Recent of 17 Talkback(s)
-
esalkin9th Mar 2009 -
No need to change wiretapping laws
Would they change wiretapping laws to include 24x7 audio/video surveillance inside the suspect's home without their knowledge?
Umm..I think they can already do this with the proper warrant for wiretapping. In fact I'd be surprised if police in the US can't do this for computers already with a warrant. I don't have a problem with it as long there is a court looking over the police's shoulder.
The problem occurs when government starts doing this sort of thing without court approval which is what was happening under the bush administration. I hope the new administration is starting to roll back some of these powers.
gmclean9th Mar 2009 -
Rubberstamped by federal courts
People talk about court oversight like it means something, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. The federal courts are filled with judges who are ex-prosecutors and who simply rubber stamp demands from government agents.
Of the few warrants that are not immediately approved, less than 1% of them are due to real legal issues, the others are all due to missing info or procedural mistakes. The Bush/Cheney administration started going around the courts not because the courts weren't cooperating, but because agents were complaining about the paperwork and using it as an excuse for not being more effective at their jobs.
terry flores10th Mar 2009 -
28 days is not enough to crack AES
Even with their current budget, if they were to try and hack into a secure network, it would take a server farm to crack an AES 256-bit key within that time period. That isn't something within many department's budgets. Also, having electronic books will make the "bad guy's" system more secure than someone w/ an unlocked router.
Maarek Stele9th Mar 2009 -
Resource availability?
In terms of computing power, you'd be foolish to think the government doesnt have enormous resources at its disposal.
Hardware has become commoditised to the point now where hardware is incredibly cheap for the power it delivers.
It wouldnt surprise me if the government had whole server farms, or perhaps even mainframe farm capability, dedicated to national security issues.
As these laws appear aimed at very serious offences, it isnt a stretch to think this hardware could be provided for these purposes. If anything, it would be more of a political fight internally to allocate the resources, since everyone would want to use them.
"Digital Fortress" from Dan Browne offers a little interesting insight, in terms of when a government says "we cant do X", it usually means they can...
roberto_maietta@...9th Mar 2009 -
they have that right now
as well they are allowed to enter your house and search it without your knowledge or permission, and hack your computer, and Australian Gov has the super computers to crack encription no problems.
They do need surpreme court permission to do this and its for serious crimes like terror, drugs and so on.
Aussie_Troll9th Mar 2009 -
No worry
I doubt Linux or Apple are vulnerable, just as those systems (and what few remaining *BSD systems are left) are immune to viruses and a anishing few worms.
epcraig10th Mar 2009 -
o.O
Linux and apple systems are NOT immune to viruses, just that there are less viruses and worms targeting these systems.
If the police gain the powers to hack your system they will write the code they need to get in dont worry about that
vaughanm10th Mar 2009 -
Cite?
Linux and apple systems are NOT immune to viruses, just that there are less viruses and worms targeting these systems.
I haven't heard of a Linux virus before. Please cite.
hasta la Vista, bah-bie11th Mar 2009 -
Re: Cite?
Well, for starters there's Virus.Linux.Alaeda. I could list more but I figured that even one pretty much blew your argument out of the water.
Why do all these Linux-fanbois think that their O/S is just so amazing and resilient and 150% immune to any form of malware? Grow up and stop playing the fool. You'd might get a little more respect from the Window's community if you stopped worshiping Linux as a god and treated it for what it is - an O/S.
rrh6511th Mar 2009 -
Gee, I just asked a question
And you come across as some kind of jerk.
~
Anyway, the scoop on that is as follows...
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Linuxvirus
The Alaeda Virus is relatively recent (May) and infects other binary (program) files in the same directory. If you run as a normal user doing non-programming work, you should not have any other binaries in your home folder. Alaeda won't have anything to infect. This is a good reason why you shouldn't download and install random files off the Internet. If you don't know why you're typing in your password, don't do it. Realistically, though, ELF files (the Linux equivalent of a Windows .exe) are pretty picky about what system they run on, so the chance of getting infected is slight.
The rest on that page aren't considered real threats, so I'll take their word for it over yours.
Any others?hasta la Vista, bah-bie11th Mar 2009 -
Re: Cite?
You asked for a citation for the existence of any Linux viruses. Obviously you were quite capable of searching yourself (it took me just two minutes) so your post was treated not as a question but as an arrogant uninformed statement.
Not my fault for sounding jerkish if you post a message based of zero seconds off information gathering.
Perhaps you should have started by stating that you're aware that Linux has been attacked by Virus's in the past but that you've not heard of any recently and could someone please provide information as to their current status.
Besides, Ubuntu saying that Linux is virus free is the same as MS saying that Vista is a secure O/S.
So, let's try a third party - a self-professed Linux lover for example and see what he has to say on the subject: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229#compact
I'd take a third party statement over a vendor's.
So listen, give it up. Accept the fact that Linux IS vulnerable and CAN be hit. The only reason its not so widespread is that there are a absolutely shed load of really stupid idiotic Windows users out there who click on the first thing that states 'Click Me'. I suspect the vast majority of Linux users employ a modicum of common sense in that regard.
However, if\when Linux reaches mainstream then these idiots are gonna start using Linux and they too will start acting like a moron and then the fun and games will really begin. And thus will be the price the Linux fanbois will have to pay for wanting Linux to become popular to the masses.
Besides, many virus these days attack not the O/S directly, but exploit 3rd party applications (e.g. Adobe). Doesn't Adobe provide applications for Linux?rrh6511th Mar 2009 -
Re: Cite?
You asked for a citation for the existence of any Linux viruses. Obviously you were quite capable of searching yourself (it took me just two minutes) so your post was treated not as a question but as an arrogant uninformed statement.
And so that gives you license to act like an arrogant jerk(?)
Well I'll be sure to point that out directly, next time I see your name pop up again.
Not my fault for sounding jerkish if you post a message based of zero seconds off information gathering.
Whatever. Like it or not, I still stand by my earlier question.
Perhaps you should have started by stating that you're aware that Linux has been attacked by Virus's in the past but that you've not heard of any recently and could someone please provide information as to their current status.
Perhaps I sensed more anti-FOSS FUD in the making and was asking a rhetorical question instead. Without any of the vitriol you displayed.
Besides, Ubuntu saying that Linux is virus free is the same as MS saying that Vista is a secure O/S.
Which Microsoft's marketing department likes to do all the time?
So, let's try a third party - a self-professed Linux lover for example and see what he has to say on the subject: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229#compact
I'd take a third party statement over a vendor's.
LOL...
If it were that easy, Linux would be swarming with viruses today!
No I think that basically loops back to the original Ubuntu page I posted to, down at the bottom.
"The Reality
If you are going to trade files in a Windows world, you'll need to scan those files for viruses. You won't get infected, but you may help infect someone else. There are two ways to do this:
1. Run all the files through a server which checks for you. GMail, Yahoo mail, and Hotmail all have wonderful checking software.
2. Check the files for viruses yourself. You can install a program called AVScan. Install the package. It won't appear in the menu. Run it by pressing Alt-F2, typing avscan, and pressing Run.
You can now scan files (or your entire system) for viruses and worms."
~
So listen, give it up. Accept the fact that Linux IS vulnerable and CAN be hit.
Never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. Anything's possible. But you're gonna have to come up with more than just fear-mongering by the anti-virus companies and Windows shills who have a personal financial stake in all this. That kind of hysterical crap doesn't cut it.
The only reason its not so widespread is that there are a absolutely shed load of really stupid idiotic Windows users out there who click on the first thing that states 'Click Me'. I suspect the vast majority of Linux users employ a modicum of common sense in that regard.
I'd agree with that. And then some... By it's very design, you are logged as a user by default. And there?s very little out there you can just click on and download off the internet. Active-X, Conflicker, they don't exist in the Linux world. That's not to say that can't change, but I don't see it happening yet.
However, if\when Linux reaches mainstream then these idiots are gonna start using Linux and they too will start acting like a moron and then the fun and games will really begin. And thus will be the price the Linux fanbois will have to pay for wanting Linux to become popular to the masses.
I don't buy that for a second. With the thousands of UNIX programmers out there worldwide, SOMEBODY should have risen to the challenge by now, if for no other reason than the challenge itself.
Unlike malware, people who create viruses aren't in it for the money. They're in it for the disruption. The power that they have at their fingertips to bring down whole networks. To bring down a country's infrastructure, even.
Like I said, fear mongering doesn't cut it.
Besides, many virus these days attack not the O/S directly, but exploit 3rd party applications (e.g. Adobe). Doesn't Adobe provide applications for Linux?
Yes, they do. Is there something you know about that, that you'd like to share with us?
hasta la Vista, bah-bie11th Mar 2009 -
HAHAHAHA
That was the best laugh I've had all day. Unfortunately, what this is
talking about is basically brute-force attacks to steal information off of a
computer, and any *NIX system with Samba installed and active will be
just as vulnerable as a Windows system. In fact, since there's other
protocols that *NIX uses for networking (x11, NFS, et. al), that opens up
a wider attack footprint than a Windows computer has, should all of the
services be active.
nix_hed10th Mar 2009 -
Makes me glad I can turn off external ports on my router
Also, chances are they'll be working on my router's
encryption key for a while, and should they just bypass the
router all together and nab my computer, they'll have fun
with the secured partitions.
I'm not saying it can't be cracked; I'm just saying that using
the proper security will make it harder for those trying to
crack it.nix_hed10th Mar 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
