Category Archives: POLICE

New USA Federal Requirements On Cellphone Surveillance

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal law enforcement officials will be routinely required to get a search warrant before using secretive and intrusive cellphone-tracking technology under a new Justice Department policy announced Thursday.

The policy represents the first effort to create a uniform legal standard for federal authorities using equipment known as cell-site simulators, which tracks cellphones used by suspects.

It comes amid concerns from privacy groups and lawmakers that the technology, which is now widely used by local police departments, is infringing on privacy rights and is being used without proper accountability.

“The policy is really designed to address our practices, and to really try to promote transparency and consistency and accountability — all while being mindful of the public’s privacy interest,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told reporters in announcing the policy change.

The policy applies only to federal agencies within the Justice Department and not, as some privacy advocates had hoped, to state and local law enforcement whose use of the equipment has stirred particular concern and scrutiny from local judges.

The technology — also known as a Stingray, a suitcase-sized device — can sweep up basic cellphone data from a neighborhood by tricking phones in the area to believe that it’s a cell tower, allowing it to identify unique subscriber numbers. The data is then transmitted to the police, helping them determine the location of a phone without the user even making a call or sending a text message.

The equipment used by the Justice Department does not collect the content of communications.

Even as federal law enforcement officials tout the technology as a vital tool to catch fugitives and kidnapping suspects, privacy groups have raised alarms about the secrecy surrounding its use and the collection of cellphone information of innocent bystanders who happen to be in a particular neighborhood or location.

In creating the new policy the Justice Department was mindful of those concerns and also sought to address inconsistent practices among different federal agencies and offices, Yates said.

“We understand that people have a concern about their private information, and particularly folks who are not the subjects or targets of investigations,” Yates said.

The new policy requires a warrant in most cases, except for emergencies like an immediate national security threat, as well as unspecified “exceptional circumstances.” The warrant applications are to set out how the technology will be used.

In addition, authorities will be required to delete data that’s been collected once they have the information they need, and are expected to provide training to employees.

The policy could act as a blueprint for state and local law enforcement agencies in developing their own regulations. But it’s unclear how broad an impact Thursday’s announcement will have, since it does not directly affect local police agencies unless they’re working alongside federal authorities on a case or relying on their assistance.

Use of the technology has spread widely among local police departments, who have been largely mum about their use of the technology and hesitant to disclose details — often withholding materials or heavily censoring documents that they do provide.

Local departments have faced scrutiny from judges about how they deploy the equipment, though agencies have often insisted that non-disclosure agreements with the FBI limit what they can say.

The FBI has said that while specific capabilities of the equipment are considered sensitive, it did not intend for the agreements to prevent the police from disclosing to a court that the equipment was used in a particular case. Yates said she expected the FBI to revise any such agreements to be more transparent.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the policy a good first step, but expressed disappointment that it did not cover federal agencies outside the Justice Department or local police who use federal funds to purchase the surveillance equipment. It called on the Justice Department to close remaining loopholes, such as the one allowing for warrantless surveillance under undefined “exceptional circumstances.”

“After decades of secrecy in which the government hid this surveillance technology from courts, defense lawyers, and the American public, we are happy to see that the Justice Department is now willing to openly discuss its policies,” ACLU lawyer Nathan Freed Wessler said in a statement.

Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group, praised the policy as an important step, though he said he suspected Justice Department attorneys saw “the writing on the wall” and recognized that judges would increasingly begin requiring warrants.

Though the policy does not require local police to follow the lead of federal agencies, “this is going to let the air out of state law enforcement’s argument that a warrant shouldn’t be required.”

“We think that given the power of cell-site simulators and the sort of information that they can collect — not just from the target but from every innocent cellphone user in the area — a warrant based on probable cause is required by the Fourth Amendment,” Cardozo said.

Henry Sapiecha

NYPD Has Used Cell Tracking Technology around 1,000 Times Since 2008

The New York Police Department has used secretive cellphone tracking technology more than 1,000 times since 2008, according to data released Thursday by the New York Civil Liberties Union.

A cell-site simulator, also known as a Stingray, is a suitcase-sized device that can sweep up basic cellphone data from a neighborhood by tricking phones into believing it’s a cell tower, allowing it to identify unique subscriber numbers. The data are then transmitted to the police, helping them determine the location of a phone without the user even making a call or sending a text message.

Police records show the technology has helped catch suspects in kidnappings, rapes, robberies, assaults and murders. Missing people have been discovered. In some cases, no arrest was made or the phone was located but had been ditched. Officers with warrant squads, robbery squads and homicide units all used the technology, according to the records.

Federal law enforcement in September said it would be routinely required to get a search warrant before using the technology — a first effort to create a uniform legal standard for federal authorities. But the policy applies only to federal agencies within the Justice Department and not, as some privacy advocates had hoped, to state and local law enforcement whose use of the equipment has stirred particular concern and scrutiny from local judges. The NYPD would be required to get a warrant if the investigation was a joint effort with federal officials.

The NYPD said it has no written policy for use of the technology, according to the records released by the NYCLU, but general practice is to obtain a “pen register order” — a court order with a lower standard than a warrant.

Larry Byrne, the deputy commissioner of the police department’s legal bureau, said police only use the Stingray technology to retrieve cellphone numbers of calls to and from a particular phone, not the content of those communications. He said it was used only after a detective, appearing alongside an assistant district attorney, persuaded a state judge to grant the court order.

The civil liberties union urged the department to create a strict policy on use of the technology and to obtain a warrant.

“New Yorkers have very real concerns about the NYPD’s adoption of intrusive surveillance technology,” NYCLU Senior Staff Attorney Mariko Hirose said in a statement. “The NYPD should at minimum obtain warrants before using Stingrays to protect the privacy of innocent people.”

The police have already been adhering to the higher legal standard used by federal law enforcement when applying for a court order, even though state law requires the police present less, said Byrne, who added his office would put the policy in writing.

“Our practice is consistent with what the FBI and the other federal agencies now do,” he said.

The NYCLU requested documents under the Freedom of Information Law and received the first round of information that it asked for in November. Last year, the NYCLU released records showing the Erie County sheriff’s office used Stingrays 47 times in the past four years and indicating that the office obtained a pen register order only once, the agency said.

www.crimefiles.net

www.policesearch.net

www.freephonelink.net

Henry Sapiecha

This is how much access Australian police already have to your data

The Australian government now wants further powers to access encrypted communications, but does it need them?

Police and intelligence agencies already have significant abilities to access data about our emails, phone calls and text messages if we’re suspected of committing a crime, although it can be difficult to tell exactly what they’re doing with them.

The government argues existing interception capabilities are inadequate to protect national security. According to Attorney-General George Brandis, backdoor access to encrypted communications would redress the “degradation of our intelligence capability” to prevent terrorism.

Many Australians are unaware of current police and intelligence powers when it comes to accessing our data. As the government lobbies for new levels of access, that needs to change.

‘Backdoor’ access

The government’s proposal to compel technology companies to provide access to encrypted messaging services is modelled on laws passed by other members of the Five Eyes surveillance alliance, of which Australia is a member.

Deputy US Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein recently announced the Department of Justice intends to demand interception of encrypted communications. New Zealand already requires technology companies to grant access. In the UK, authorities may force decryption where it is technologically feasible.

As with our allies, it is unclear if Australia’s laws will require so-called “backdoor” vulnerabilities to be built into messaging applications like Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp.

They could compel access via decryption keys or they might enable remote access to devices for interception of communications “at the ends”.

In response, cryptographers argue it is not mathematically possible to access end-to-end encrypted messages via interception without undermining online privacy for everyone.

The current state of telecommunications surveillance

The government already has various powers to access metadata, the contents of digital conversations and computer networks.

The Attorney-General’s Department recently released its annual report on telecommunications surveillance.

Thanks to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act (TIA Act), law enforcement and other agencies can access stored communications with a warrant. This can include “email, SMS or voice messages stored on a carrier’s network”. In other words, the contents of any communication not encoded via encryption.

Agencies may also apply for “preservation notices” to compel telecommunications companies to preserve data.

During the 2015-16 financial year, there were 712 warrants issued for access to stored communications. Data is not available about the types of offences these warrants were used for. It is also not clear how the telecommunications information was used in investigations.

Applications for stored communications warrants (issued)

Agency 2014-2015 2015-2016
ACC 4 2
ACCC 4
AFP 94 80
ASIC 1
CCC (QLD) 3
CCC (WA) 5
DIBP 10 1
NSW CC 3 4
NSW Police 290 345
NT Police 16 11
PIC 7 16
QLD Police 123 132
SA Police 38 19
TAS Police 29 17
VIC Police 40 41
WA Police 38 35
Total 696 712

Source: Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 Annual Report 2015–16

The issue of metadata retention

A controversial 2015 amendment to the TIA Act requires telecommunication service providers to retain metadata for two years.

This allows authorised law enforcement agencies warrantless access to information about digital communications such as the recipient or time sent, but not their content.

However, some agencies that aren’t meant to be able to access metadata are still making requests under different legal regimes, according to the Communications Alliance, and there have already been reported breaches where an Australian Federal Police officer accessed a journalist’s metadata without an appropriate warrant.

The 2015-16 financial year was a grace period for service providers to comply with retention requirements. During this time, there were 332,639 authorisations by criminal law-enforcement agencies.

Authorisations occurred most for drugs or homicide investigations. It’s possible this may indicate police are relying on ready access to metadata rather than pursuing traditional investigatory methods.

Around AU$200m later, data retention mostly used for chasing drugs, not terror

The Attorney-General’s Department has exposed a report outlining the opening months of Australia’s data retention scheme.

Australia’s telecommunications companies have been left with a funding hole of over AU$70 million to cover the capital costs of Australia’s data retention scheme, according to the Telecommunications Interception And Access Act 1979 Annual Report 2015-16 [PDF], while data authorisations for terrorism ranked below those for illicit drug offences.

www.policesearch.net

Despite handing out AU$128 million in grants last year, the report, released on Monday, states that the capital cost to industry will total AU$198 million by the end of the 2016-17 financial year.

“Information collected from industry through the Data Retention Industry Grants Programme indicates that the estimated capital cost of implementing data retention obligations over the period between 30 October 2014 and 13 April 2017 is AU$198,527,354,” the report said.

“[Costs] relate to the anticipated direct upfront capital costs and not the recurring or indirect costs associated with compliance.”

In 2015, Attorney-General George Brandis said he expected the average ongoing cost for telcos to run their data retention system would be around AU$4 per month.

The report said the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) received 210 applications for funding, of which 10 were withdrawn, and 180 telecommunications providers were found to be eligible for funding. Of that 180, “most” were awarded a grant to cover 80 percent of their costs.

It was also detailed that during the implementation period for the data retention scheme, AGD received 402 data retention implementation plans from 310 providers.

Under Australia’s data retention laws, passed by both major parties in March 2015, telecommunications carriers must store customer call records, location information, IP addresses, billing information, and other data for two years, accessible without a warrant by law-enforcement agencies.

Over the period from October 13, 2015 to June 30, 2016, the report said the offence for which the highest number of authorisations to telco data was made was illicit drug offences, with 57,166. This was followed in ranking by miscellaneous, homicide, robbery, fraud, theft, and abduction.

Terrorism offences ranked below property damage and cybercrime, with 4,454 authorisations made.

As part of the data retention laws, the spirit of the legislation was to restrict access to stored metadata to a list of approved enforcement agencies, with those agencies not on the list theoretically having access removed on October 12, 2015.

Overall, the report said 63 enforcement agencies made 333,980 authorisations for retained data, of which 326,373 related to criminal law.

“In 2015-16, law enforcement agencies made 366 arrests, conducted 485 proceedings, and obtained 195 convictions based on evidence obtained under stored communications warrants,” the report said.

During 2015-16, 3,857 telecommunication interception warrants were issued, with interception data used in 3,019 arrests, 3,726 prosecutions, and 1,812 convictions. Total cost for interception warrants was AU$70.3 million, at an average cost of AU$619,200 per warrant.

Australia Post accounted for 64 authorisations between June 30 and October 12, 2015, compared to none the year before; and the Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources made 173 authorisations in 3.5 months compared to 226 the entire financial year prior.

It was also noted that on six occasions, warrants were exercised by people not authorised to; in three instances, the Ombudsman could not determine whether stored communications related to the person named on a warrant; and in one instance, it could not determine who had received stored communications from a carrier.

It was also revealed that during the 2015-16 year, the Western Australia Police had received a pair of journalist warrants, which saw 33 authorisations of data made.

“These authorisations were for the purpose of enforcing the criminal law,” the report said.

In April, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) revealed that it had “mistakenly” accessed a journalist’s call records without a warrant in breach of the data retention legislation.

It was subsequently learned that AGD had advised government departments to skirt metadata laws and rely on coercive powers.

In May, the Commonwealth Ombudsman found the AFP to be handling metadata in a compliant manner, but noted a number of exceptions.

“We identified two instances where a stored communications warrant had been applied for and subsequently issued in respect of multiple persons, which is not provided for under the Act,” the report said.

In response, the AFP said its warrant templates were not clear enough.

www.druglinks.info

Henry Sapiecha

Federal Budget 2017: Gangs, terrorists targeted in $321 million Australian Federal Police shakeup

A MASSIVE $321 million boost to the Australian Federal Police budget will mean 300 extra covert intelligence operators and forensic specialists to help protect Australians from the threat of terrorism.

GANGS and local terrorists will be the target of a beefed-up Australian Federal Police force in a $321 million Turnbull government plan to tackle ­violent crime.

A major drive to recruit 300 specialist police will see AFP ranks bolstered by new tactical response teams, undercover investigators and forensic experts, some of whom will ­support Victoria Police to iden­tify and arrest gang members.

The security package, to be announced today, is part of a Budget spending spree, which will also benefit Victorians with $100 million to help struggling manufacturing businesses adapt after the car industry closure. Treasurer Scott Morrison told the Herald Sun Tuesday’s Budget aimed to deliver fairness, security and opportunity, sharing the benefits of Australia’s economic growth with everyone.

“We know that things are improving globally and we’ve got to make the right choices to secure those better days ahead,” Mr Morrison said.

“We have to keep the economy growing for more and better paying jobs, to guarantee the services that Australians rely on, to put downward pressure on rising costs of living, and to ensure that the government lives within its means.”

The four-year AFP funding boost will pay for 100 intelligence experts, almost 100 forensic specialists and more than 100 tactical response and covert surveillance officers.

The package will fund more 100 intelligence experts and more.

Firearms specialists, bomb response technicians, intelligence analysts, negotiators and covert online investigators will be added to the AFP’s ranks, with several new officers placed on the National Anti-Gangs Taskforce to help Victoria Police.

Justice Minister Michael Keenan said violent crime and criminal gangs were “two of the biggest issues facing Victoria” and the government would back the AFP to “crack down” on them.

“Victorians, like all Australians, deserve to feel safe to go about their daily lives without fear,” he said.

Mr Keenan said it was the largest funding boost for the AFP’s domestic policing operations in a decade.

“This will equip the AFP with new capabilities and greater flexibility to respond rapidly to emerging crimes today, and into the future,” he said. “The additional experts will fast-track investigations and lock up criminals sooner, targeting areas of priority including terrorism, criminal gangs, drugs, organised crime, cybercrime, fraud and anti-corruption.”

The AFP had previously raised concerns about its lack of funding, but Mr Keenan said the investment was “the first step in the AFP’s 10-year plan” for its future.

Another key element in the Budget will be the $100 million package to help struggling manufacturing businesses grow and adapt to changing technologies.

It includes $47.5 million over the next two years to pay for a third of the costs of capital upgrades to businesses in Victoria and South Australia that are trying to compete in the wake of the car industry closure.

“We shouldn’t fold our tents and believe Australians can’t compete. We can,” Industry and Innovation Minister ­Arthur Sinodinos said.

Mr Morrison said the Budget aimed to help Australians who had not shared in the ­nation’s strong growth.

“Our economic growth has been very good in a global context. At a personal level, at a household level, at a business-by-business level, things have been and felt a lot tougher.”

The manufacturing package also includes $5 million to help automotive research, particularly by students at ­universities.

Australia’s most successful businesswoman Gina Rinehart says Malcolm Turnbull must learn from Donald Trump to make Australia great again.

Ms Rinehart has urged the Prime Minister to cut spending and waste in Tuesday’s federal Budget, saying it is “frustrating” Australia is losing crucial investment.

“We have to do more to cut out spending. We’ve got to cut out a big slab of the expense of government,” she said.

www.crimefiles.net

www.policesearch.net

www.druglinks.info

Henry Sapiecha

Former drug squad detective Paul Dale loses mental compensation bid

Paul Dale before appearing at the independent medical panel image www.crimefiles.net

Paul Dale before appearing at the independent medical panel in October. Photo: Eddie Jim

Paul Dale, the former drug squad detective implicated in the execution of a police informer and his wife during Melbourne’s gangland war, has lost a bid for taxpayer-funded compensation for trauma he claims he suffered in prison.

The Sunday Age can reveal the controversial ex-cop abandoned his lawsuit against the state government when an independent medical panel ruled Dale experienced no significant psychological damage from spending seven months in solitary confinement.

Dale claims he suffers from severe depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder after being put in near continuous lockdown in a high-security unit in Barwon Prison while awaiting trial for the murders of witness Terrence​ Hodson and his wife Christine.

“The Victorian government is denying my mental injuries were caused by my incarceration in Acacia [Unit]. I’m going before this panel, they’ll make a finding, and we’ll see what happens after that,” he told The Sunday Age ahead of the review in late October

Dale said he was confident the state government had a case to answer for his mental injuries because Victoria’s Court of Appeal had found his incarceration in Acacia had “severely affected his mental health”.

“Not surprisingly, the conditions in which [Dale] has been kept in gaol have caused him great suffering. So far as can be told, he was not afflicted by any ailments when he was arrested,” the court said.

Dale was granted bail, in large part, for this reason in late 2009.

But a spokeswoman for the Andrews government said Dale has “discontinued” his compensation lawsuit after the medical panel found he was “unable to meet the relevant injury threshold” under the law.

No compensation was paid to Dale to drop the case, the government said.

Dale declined to comment.

The nature of Dale’s relationship to Carl Williams and the execution of Hodson and his wife remain one of the most controversial unsolved chapters of Melbourne’s gangland war.

Dale, who has beaten a string of serious criminal charges, has been accused of conduct that would make him one of the most corrupt police officers in the state’s history despite never being convicted.

In 2003, the former drug squad detective was charged with conspiracy to commit burglary and drug trafficking over his alleged role in a plan with fellow detective David Miechel​ and career criminal Terrence​ Hodson to steal millions of dollars worth of ecstasy from a stash house.

The charges against Dale were dropped after the execution style-shooting deaths of Hodson and his wife Christine in their Kew home in 2004.

Dale was charged with their murders in 2009 after drug kingpin-turned-jailhouse informant Carl Williams told police he acted as the middle-man between Dale and hitman Rodney Collins, who was allegedly paid $150,000 to kill Hodson after he became a police informer.

But that case collapsed after Williams was bashed to death in prison by Matthew Johnson, head of anti-informer gang Prisoners of War.

In 2013, Dale was found not guilty on 12 charges of giving false and misleading evidence to the Australian Crime Commission about his links to Williams.

After a coronial inquest into the Hodson murders in 2015, Judge Ian Gray could not determine what role, if any, Dale had in the killings.

“At the very least it certainly appears, following the Dublin Street burglary, to have been a highly inappropriate relationship [with Williams] for a suspended police officer to have engaged in,” Judge Gray said.

Fairfax Media revealed in July that police were considering laying fresh corruption charges over Dale’s relationship with Williams.

Earlier this year, Carl Williams’ daughter Dhakota​ received a compensation payout from the state government for the trauma she allegedly suffered when he was killed in prison.

The “pragmatic call” was made by Premier Daniel Andrews after an independent medical panel found Dhakota​ and Carl’s former wife Roberta had experienced severe mental impairment as a result of his death.

ooo

Henry Sapiecha

MORE READING BELOW

www.druglinks.info

www.crimefiles.net

www.policesearch.net

 

Australian NSW Police want warrantless bank data access

Police want access to banking data without judicial oversight.image www.austelagencies.com
Police want access to banking data without judicial oversight.

We are not prepared for Cybergeddon

The NSW Police Force would no longer require a judge’s sign-off to gain access to the bank statements of people they suspect are engaging in criminal conduct under a police proposal before the NSW government.

The proposal would change the status quo, which requires a magistrate or registrar of a court to sign off on a “notice to produce” before police can force banking institutions to hand over documentation, such as a suspected criminal’s bank statements.
Detective Superintendent Arthur Katsogiannis image www.austelagencies.com

Detective Superintendent Arthur Katsogiannis. Photo: Dallas Kilponen

The proposal would instead allow a senior police officer to sign off.

Detective Superintendent Arthur Katsogiannis, head of NSW Police’s Fraud and Cyber Crime Squad, revealed the proposal in a lunch interview with Fairfax Media (read the full interview here).

Detective Katsogiannis said it was being floated following the imminent trial of a new information retrieval (IR) system which would help automate some manual processes for collecting intelligence from banks.

“If we want documentation from the banks … we still need to go to a court and see a chamber magistrate to be able to get a notice to produce to get that documentation so it can be admissible as evidence in a court,” he said. “We’ve recently put a submission up to government seeking an amendment to that [so] that a commissioned officer would be able to authorise notices to produce.”

Detective Katsogiannis said the computerised system would enable officers to “go online and request banking documentation, statements, affidavits and the like” and get it “a lot quicker and more efficiently”. The next step – allowing a senior officer to sign off on access to banking information – would make it even faster.

He likened the proposal to the way telecommunications metadata – such as the time a call was made, to whom, and for how long – is sought from telcos, which requires only the sign-off a senior officer before companies, such as Telstra or Optus, divulge such information.

Asked about the NSW Police Force proposal, a spokeswoman for NSW Deputy Premier and Minister for Police, Troy Grant, said it was examined last year as part of a review into the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

“… Changes were made to streamline the process but fell short of allowing all commissioned officers with the authority access [to] people’s bank statements,” Mr Grant said. “The review attempted to balance the needs of police to get on with the job and having appropriate safeguards of people’s personal information.”

But as the new Minister for Police, Mr Grant said he had requested a full briefing to examine “if further improvements can be made”.

NSW Police’s submission to last year’s review was never made public. Mr Grant’s spokeswoman said this was because it was provided to the review in confidence as it contained “operational matters”.

However, in the review’s final report, handed down by the NSW Department of Attorney-General and Justice, and Ministry for Police and Emergency Services, the authors paraphrased submissions made by the NSW Police Force and NSW Police Association.

The review said both entities wanted senior officers rather than parties outside the police force to be given the power to sign off on access to banking information. NSW Police stated, the report said, that this “would represent a reduction in red tape by delivering significant benefits for police in savings of resources, paperwork and unnecessary travel”.

Both parties also wanted the range of entities that have to comply with notices to produce to be expanded.

But the report did not recommend the notice to produce laws change to the extent a judge wasn’t needed, saying “it would be inappropriate for a senior member of police to be given the authority” to issue the notices.

“…There are significant privacy implications,” the report concluded

“The independent issuing authority is a necessary safeguard to ensure that civil liberties are not unnecessarily impinged upon.”

The report also shot down the possibility that notices to produce apply to other entities, such as casinos, bookmakers and currency exchanges.

David Shoebridge, a Greens MP in the NSW Legislative Council, said he had concerns.

“Bank records contain a cornucopia of personal information that should be protected from casual access by the NSW Police,” he said. “If police have a reasonable basis to believe that access to someone’s bank account details can help them solve a crime then they can already get the information by a warrant.”

When recently asked, none of the big four banks would disclose how many times they have handed over banking information.

While banking information is highly personal and can reveal spending habits, including where you shop and what time, some don’t see it as that private. Sydney-based start-up Pocketbook, for instance, has some 150,000 users who voluntarily hand over their banking information in return for a useful service that organises their spending into categories such as clothes, groceries and fuel – showing where money is being spent.

Fairfax Media recently reported that NSW Police made 166 requests for Opal smartcard data, which doesn’t require a warrant to access.
ooo

Henry Sapiecha

Police arrest dozens of suspects in cybercrime investigation

NIGERIAN SCAMMERS IN LINEUP FILE IMAGE www.intelagencies.com

NIGERIAN SCAMMERS FILE PIC

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Police have arrested dozens of suspects in an international investigation into a cybercrime gang that siphoned millions of euros from victims’ accounts in an identity fraud scam.

European Union justice agency Eurojust announced Wednesday that 49 suspects, most of them from Nigeria and Cameroon, were arrested a day earlier in an investigation by Italian, Spanish and Polish police supported by officers in Belgium, Britain and Georgia.

EU police agency Europol helped coordinate 58 searches during Tuesday’s operation. Eurojust says in a statement that investigations showed that cybercriminals had defrauded victims of 6 million euros ($6.8 million) and transferred it out of Europe.

The fraud involved stealing victims’ data such as usernames and passwords, in a process known as phishing, and diverting money from them and their customers.

SOME MORE CRIME STUFF IN A SISTER SITE HERE >www.crimefiles.net

ooo

Henry Sapiecha

Judges now required to give written reasons for issuing warrants for covert surveillance

NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, centre, has introduced a procedure requiring judges to write brief reasons for granting a warrant for covert surveillance. image www.intelagencies.com

NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, centre, has introduced a procedure requiring judges to write brief reasons for granting a warrant for covert surveillance.

NSW Supreme Court judges are now required to give written reasons for issuing warrants authorising covert surveillance such as listening devices.

The recent parliamentary inquiry into the police bugging scandal revealed the extent of covert telephone intercepts of police and journalists allegedly without good reason between 1999 and 2001.

It emerged there was insufficient or no evidence of wrongdoing by many of the more than 100 police and civilians whose names appeared on warrants issued by the Supreme Court.

NSW Police Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas image www.intelagencies.com

NSW Police Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas was at the centre of a NSW police bugging scandal. He accused the former police internal affairs unit of engaging in “massive wrongdoing and habitual illegal acts”. Photo: Daniel Munoz

On Tuesday the Chief Justice of NSW Tom Bathurst said he had introduced a procedure whereby judges are required to write brief reasons for granting a warrant to any state or federal agency for covert surveillance.

The written reasons will be placed in a sealed envelope alongside the documents submitted in support of the warrants.

Chief Justice Bathurst said the court is receiving an average five requests a day for warrants, usually from NSW Police, the NSW Crime Commission and occasionally the Australian Federal Police.
NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst.NSW Supreme Court image www.intelagencies.com

NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst. Photo: NSW Supreme Court

Describing the revelations from the inquiry into Operation Mascot as “historical problems”, he said the decision to implement a formal written record of a judge’s reasons was “a sensible thing to do”

“It just focuses the attention, I think, of the judge without making what is already an onerous burden too onerous,” he said.

However, so long as the power to issue warrants remained with the judiciary “we rely on the judge to act responsibly in doing so”, he said, noting the suggestion of setting up an administrative body to handle the task has been raised.

Chief Justice Bathurst said aside from the inquiry, there has been “very little direct complaint” about the issuing of warrants. “There’s an awful lot of trials in which intercepted material is used and very little complaint that it has been illegally or improperly obtained,” he said.

The NSW police bugging scandal emerged from Operation Mascot, which used a corrupt former policeman, code named M5, to target allegedly corrupt police with a listening device between 1999-2001.

NSW Deputy Police Commissioner Nick Kaldas was named in 35 affidavits in support of 80 bugging warrants issued, which included surveillance of members of his family. Journalist Steve Barrett was named on 52 warrants.

Mr Kaldas accused the former police internal affairs unit of engaging in “massive wrongdoing and habitual illegal acts”.

During the inquiry, a former solicitor for the Crime Commission, John Giorgiutti, highlighted the sheer volume of warrants being issued to law enforcement agencies for surveillance operations, querying whether the courts are subjecting them to sufficient scrutiny.

Greens upper house MP and former barrister David Shoebridge, said: “There is this largely pretend oversight by the Supreme Court of applications for warrants and covert surveillance … our court system cannot handle inundating waves of ex parte applications by crime agencies other than by simply rubber-stamping them.”

ooo

Henry Sapiecha

 

Showdown looms as Ombudsman claims immunity to avoid answering questions into massive police inquiry

Standing by top cops: Premier Mike Baird.

Standing by top cops: Premier Mike Baird.

A showdown between the NSW Ombudsman Bruce Barbour and a parliamentary committee is set for Tuesday, with Mr Barbour claiming public interest immunity to avoid answering questions on secret details of his massive inquiry into police.

A test of wills is likely, with politicans insisting they have the right to demand answers from Mr Barbour, who was issued a summons to appear.

“The upper house has had consistent and repeated advice that claims for public interest immunity do not defeat the powers of Parliament,” said the committee’s deputy chairman, Greens MP David Shoebridge.

“Clearly these are matters that are appropriate to consider, but they do not limit the committees powers to seek answers

Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione’s appearance has meanwhile been delayed until Wednesday, to allow him to view allegations made in a confidential submission by former commander of internal affairs Malcolm Brammer.

Mr Barbour wrote to the committee last week, warning any evidence he gave “has significant potential to be corrosive of confidence in my report”.

Operation Prospect had generated 1 million pages of information, 70 hearing days, examined 2322 pages of affadavits paragraph by paragraph, and would provide a final report to parliament in June, Mr Barbour said.

“I have reached no conclusions and made no findings about the alleged conduct,” he wrote.

The parliamentary inquiry could tip off people who are yet to be approached, he claimed.

His letter revealed Commissioner Scipione’s conduct has come under investigation, and has been the subject of private hearings, after allegations he improperly interfered in an investigation, and had made misleading media statements.

Mr Barbour said he wanted to clear up public misconceptions, and said a mistake on an affidavit wasn’t of itself a criminal act, it needed to be wilfully false. He flagged he is considering whether “criminal charges of this nature will be made”.

Right to silence: NSW Ombudsman Bruce Barbour.

Right to silence: NSW Ombudsman Bruce Barbour.

On Friday, Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn denied she was responsible, as team leader, for incorrect affidavits being used to obtain warrants for listening devices without evidence.

Mr Barbour’s letter acknowledged the harrowing mental health toll among police caused by the bugging operation and prolonged investigations.

Some witnesses suffer “severe mental health problems” and became “very distressed by having to give evidence”.

At least eight witnesses had a mental health condition. Four witnesses provided medical reports indicating they were too unwell to give evidence, of whom two were excused.

Of the two forced to give evidence, one was excused mid-hearing when they began “experiencing difficulties”, while the other was later excused from further attendance.

Mr Barbour said it was legitimate for his office to investigate the leaking of 20,000 pages of confidential police material, including 61 separate documents, some of which were given to the media.

He wrote that unlike whistleblowers who approached his office directly, these persons wouldn’t be protected by the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

Premier Mike Baird said on Saturday “some of the events we have seen are disturbing” but he would “wait until we get all the facts on the table”.

Police minister Stuart Ayres said: “There’s no doubt that having the senior echelons of the NSW police force play out disputes on TV screens is not comfortable for anyone.”

ooo

Henry Sapiecha