BOHICA – syndrome.
This statement both amuses and troubles. Simply put CASA are NOT ‘the Police’ and their investigators DO NOT have the authority, the constraints, the checks and balance nor rules for conducting ‘an investigation’ the Police do. If every item in the Regulation is to be a ‘criminal’ offence, then the allegation of ‘criminal behaviour’ should be investigated by trained, authorised police and a case provided to the CDPP. The ‘evidence’ CASA use in their ‘kangaroo’ court system or in proceedings at the ever obliging AAT is often anything but impartial and there are many cases – on record – where CASA have been economical with truth and fanciful with ‘evidence’.
I have no quarrel with the AFP investigating a matter; I have even less of a problem with a clearly cut, properly investigated alleged ‘crime’ being taken to court and tested, under proper rules which protect both the ‘investigator’ and the accused. But I do have a problem with the twisted, biased use of ‘law’ to bend an allegation in CASA’s favour, when a halfwit FOI decides a matter is criminal and wants to stalk a victim through cyber-space.
Furry muff - For law and security agencies this notion of using Metadata needs a legal framework – but do ‘civilian’ agencies like CASA or ATSB need that level of access – No, they should need to apply for a warrant and have responsible, properly governed agencies do the ‘digging’.
CASA is not the police force – despite attempts to be so – they are a regulator with powers to investigate; once they dream up a case it should be passed on to the impartial grown ups, who have a right to access your private, personal data.
Reading, from the - SMH - and - WIKI.
Toot toot.
Quote:“CASA sometimes accesses telecommunications data when it conducts an investigation into whether a person contravened a criminal offence provision in the aviation legislation,” a spokesperson for the organisation said.
This statement both amuses and troubles. Simply put CASA are NOT ‘the Police’ and their investigators DO NOT have the authority, the constraints, the checks and balance nor rules for conducting ‘an investigation’ the Police do. If every item in the Regulation is to be a ‘criminal’ offence, then the allegation of ‘criminal behaviour’ should be investigated by trained, authorised police and a case provided to the CDPP. The ‘evidence’ CASA use in their ‘kangaroo’ court system or in proceedings at the ever obliging AAT is often anything but impartial and there are many cases – on record – where CASA have been economical with truth and fanciful with ‘evidence’.
I have no quarrel with the AFP investigating a matter; I have even less of a problem with a clearly cut, properly investigated alleged ‘crime’ being taken to court and tested, under proper rules which protect both the ‘investigator’ and the accused. But I do have a problem with the twisted, biased use of ‘law’ to bend an allegation in CASA’s favour, when a halfwit FOI decides a matter is criminal and wants to stalk a victim through cyber-space.
Quote:The legislation initially restricted access to police and anti-corruption organisations, customs, the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
Furry muff - For law and security agencies this notion of using Metadata needs a legal framework – but do ‘civilian’ agencies like CASA or ATSB need that level of access – No, they should need to apply for a warrant and have responsible, properly governed agencies do the ‘digging’.
CASA is not the police force – despite attempts to be so – they are a regulator with powers to investigate; once they dream up a case it should be passed on to the impartial grown ups, who have a right to access your private, personal data.
Reading, from the - SMH - and - WIKI.
Toot toot.