There is even some provision for being able to declare it’s an emergency and just getting an internal “emergency authorisation”. So a lot of it has become (by law) actually warrantless.
You might be interested in reading "Psychopathology of totalitarianism" by Ariane Bilheran. While she's French I think it applies to most of the western countries.
It's 3 articles, so shorter than a book, maybe 30 min read in total :
https://www.arianebilheran.com/post/psychopathology-of-total...
https://www.arianebilheran.com/post/psychopathology-of-total...
https://www.arianebilheran.com/post/psychopathology-of-total...
Terrifying -- we are trusting officers who are incentivised to make convictions with the power to remove, add and modify data which could be used as evidence in determining the outcome of criminal cases.
Would love for someone to tell me that I am missing something here that makes this acceptable.
"Under Ministerial direction, an operator would be compelled to provide information, take certain actions, or potentially have ASD insert itself into the incident response and provide direct “assistance” to counter the threat."
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-cyber-incident-intervent...
Having read The Gulag Archipelago, I am worried what will become of Australia in coming decades. While I am in opposition to how the current government operates, they're only part of the problem because the Identify and Disrupt bill flew through the senate in a day with support from both major parties. Not even taking into account that the suggested amendments to the bill to remove the broad clauses were ignored and the bill was passed anyway.