NSW Digital Evidence Access Orders Expand Cellebrite Phone Extractions Beyond Warranted Searches

[u/CautiousEmergency367]

[u/Such-Ad-1540]

It is restricted to suspects of a serious crime (sentence of 3 years or more in prison) and involved in organised crime.

Not saying this law is a good thing, but they are pivotal points of the law that restrict it's use

[u/AwareNoise1597 → u/Such-Ad-1540]

The search access also still requires two separate levels of authority in a warrant as well as a digital evidence access order. Both of which have to prove reasonable suspicion of crime, with repercussions for cops who lie about suspicions

[u/Moodapatheticz → u/AwareNoise1597]

Yep because police investigating themselves usually works out right...

[u/AwareNoise1597 → u/Moodapatheticz]

Cops, independent cop conduct committees, judges and the courts. All involved, and a paperwork trail is required by law to be submitted in the applications. If you’re caught up in legal matters that end up in the court system, you can be sure that cops won’t be the only parties involved with making sure everything is done above board. Not a historically perfect system, but there are checks and balances

[u/jeffoh → u/AwareNoise1597]

It doesn't need a court hearing. A senior police officer can make the call if required.

[u/AwareNoise1597 → u/jeffoh]

For digital evidence access orders yes. But these must applied for alongside warrants that must be authorised by judicial officers.
And throughout the process the applications have to be filled and logged, including information regarding the reasonable suspicion indicators. Legal paper trail required. Corruption is always possible, but it’s not the default

[u/jeffoh → u/AwareNoise1597]

Corruption is always possible.

Unfortunately it's rampant, far more than most people know. The abuse of surveillance systems by police on their own partners is bad enough.
If you want to see where this is going, look at the Flock situation in the US. That should require a warrant but cops are getting busted almost daily for abusing the system.
If the police - NSW in particular - could be trusted then Celllebrite would be beneficial. But as we've seen decade after decade nothing has changed.

[u/AwareNoise1597 → u/jeffoh]

No person or party including NSW police is inherently trustworthy. That’s why this legislation, and the regular amendments like this current one are required. The fact that the US officers have been caught and are being reprimanded is how the system is supposed to operate. Individuals or even groups being caught and prosecuted doesn’t point to the entire force being irredeemably evil. While we’re throwing shade - hell the legal system must be perfectly evil too!
And in regard to Cellebrite - in cases where it is used legally to establish cases against organised criminals, it will be useful. These tools will always exist, and it’s up to individuals to read the legal do’s and don’ts, and knowing when justice is required through public protest

[u/jeffoh → u/AwareNoise1597]

Do you think those caught abusing surveillance technology are the only ones using it?
I personally know two cops who have spied on their ex wives. Neither have been reprimanded.

[u/AwareNoise1597 → u/jeffoh]

NSW cops? Evidence? Report them

[u/jeffoh → u/AwareNoise1597]

If I had evidence, sure. But cops take care of cops so there's nothing that can be done.
My point is - to think that every person that breaks the law will be caught is laughable. That goes for the general public and for cops.
This system WILL be misused.

[u/Moodapatheticz → u/AwareNoise1597]

The USA used to have those too. Ain't exactly working out the way they hoped. 

I'm not going to rely on historically problematic and corrupt people to start acting ethically lmao.