I’m reading this as powers that let the authorities tell the ISP’s to hold information on someone, rather than tell them to hold everyones data and hope for the best.

Basically, if they were suspicious of me doing some cyber crime, they could get a warrant and the ISP would have to track my actions. Thats simply evidence collection, no different to staking out a suspect and taking pictures.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

With torrents you never get a complete copy from a single source (unless there is just 1 seed), so you arent giving someone a complete usable copy. Added to that, if someone downloads, and shares 99% of a file, that file isnt usable because of that missing segment.

Even if you share 100%, thats by volume and not necessarily a full copy. In fact, the chances of sharing EVERY segment of a torrent is incredibly small. You’re more likely to share just half the segments twice.

Just intellectual curiosity over something that I’ve never seen used as a defence.

My concern was that maybe there was an ammendment that made personal infringement a criminal offence in Australia.

Maybe the statment by Roxon was more of a nod to the likes of AFACT so they might back off a bit.

Yeah right Rocksoff, and we all know you can scratch the first three because your bosses in California woulldn’t want to distract you from the REAL criminals downloading Game of Thrones and The Avengers…

It is logging people before you have a warrant, but only gaining access after the warrant is granted.

I just hope there are rules as to when. IMO the only reasonable situation for this; is: simultaneous with application for a warrant, request data to be logged.
Just to ensure that the data exists, but only from when you had enough information to request a warrant.

There is no reasonable situation in which data logging should be allowed before you have actually built enough of a case to obtain a warrant to obtain said information. I hope this law addresses that point.

5EA Serious foreign contraventions

For the purposes of this Act, a serious foreign contravention is a contravention of a law of a foreign country that is punishable by a maximum penalty of:

(a) imprisonment for 3 years or more, imprisonment for life or the death penalty; or

(b) a fine of an amount that is at least equivalent to 900 penalty units.

IANAL, have no idea what other laws may have an impact.. so this is just my basic reading.

107P Condition for giving a foreign preservation notice

(1) If, under paragraph 15B(d) of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, a foreign country intends to request the Attorney‑General to arrange for access to stored communications that:

(a) relate to a specified person or specified telecommunications service; and

(b) are held by a carrier; and

(c) are relevant to an investigation, or investigative proceeding, relating to a criminal matter involving a serious foreign contravention;

then the foreign country may request the Australian Federal Police to arrange for the preservation of those stored communications.

(2) The request to the Australian Federal Police must:

(a) be in writing; and

(b) specify the name of the authority concerned with the criminal matter; and

(c) specify the serious foreign contravention that is the subject of the investigation or investigative proceeding; and

(d) specify information identifying the stored communications to be preserved and the relationship between those communications and the serious foreign contravention; and

(e) specify any information the foreign country has that identifies the carrier that holds the stored communications; and

(f) if the stored communications relate to a specified person—specify any information the foreign country has that identifies the telecommunications service to which the stored communications relate; and

(g) specify the reasons why the stored communications need to be preserved; and

(h) specify that the foreign country intends to make a request under paragraph 15B(d) of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 to access the stored communications.

The act applies when an overseas law enforcement body requests the retention of information with a valid warrant, not when a movie studio is on a fishing trip.

“The Convention includes a list of crimes that each signatory state must transpose into their own law. It requires the criminalization of such activities as hacking (including the production, sale, or distribution of hacking tools) and offenses relating to child pornography, and expands criminal liability for intellectual property violations.”

I was listening to part of the debate on this, and think there was actually no “minimum” level of offence prescribed in the legislation. Ludlum was pushing for only offences that would lead to 7 or 3 year prison sentences (not clear whether here or there – this was just a brief grab on the car radio) but that amendment got voted down.

Well played govt, you have trolled us all.