Could they still 'tap' without official sanction and get away with it by not using information gathered by those means as evidence?. Surely the only way we'd - you, me, and the PIM - know is if they 'table' it as evidence?.

In Queensland 'Reasonable Suspicion' seems to the magic word for 'Open Sesame'.

You paint a gloomy picture and while your point does have some merit specifically
• PIM should be independent
• and have more powers
You have rightly pointed out that real crims will use more sophisticated ways of using the media than “right Chainsaw you kidnap ‘Johnny Turncoat’ next Tuesday after he goes to the ‘crims gym’. Take him to the secret farm at ’21 secret lane Wangeroo.’ and chop him up and feed to your killer dogs because he ratted out to our opposition ‘David Dodgy MP ’ about our 1000 tonne load of ‘nose biscuit’ and other illegal drugs due on ship ‘MV Stoked to the eyeballs’”. They’ll use Key words, codes, encrypted jpg et al.

Like wise tampering is possible but challengeable in court.

Like locks the system will only keep honest people honest.
I doubt that the average person need worry in reality that the police have far too much to do and too tight a budget to worrying about the mindless and bitchy posts to Face Book et al or wanna be Walter Mittys. Nor will they take on fishing exercises to catch small fish on minor crimes. Have you ever reported a hoon who drove past your house? Even with the number unless it belongs to someone of interest to them…don’t bother.

Notwithstanding the above concerns this article is a beat up spun to assist defence lawyers make more money.

Tip if you want to avoid the consequences of illegal activities don’t do them in the first place. If you do then don’t broadcast the fact. Remember the birdie in the snow.

The issue appears to be that the issuing of a warrant for telecommunications surveillance has been taken out of the judiciary's hands and put in the hands of the public service. (The PIM is clearly of a different public service stream to judges and magistrates, to the author)

Is that what the problem is? (so lawyers and judges are having their powers reduced - you make it sound like it's a bad thing?)

Personally I think it's OK for the law enforcement providers to extend their powers of surveillance, to whatever medium comes along. We need to give these people the powers to perform their role - after all, isn't that what we expect of them?

I agree with Benjamin Franklin, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Australians don't care about liberty as long as the beer keeps flowing and they can watch footy in HD. Their descendants will curse them for their apathy.

Parisjune: The descendants of free people are already cursing the apathy of Australians today, and the stupidity of lawmakers.
Prohibition laws, Press captured by narrow interests, regressive taxation, patsy in false wars, education for the elites, health care ah-la USA...the list of stupidity goes on.
Just as well the police are so corrupt: they will be mainly using this to bring down rivals of the gangs that currently pay them off.

I lived in Singapore in the 1990s. At that time, other Expats and I could feel the "control" and the "snooping". Anercians,Canadians, English and Australians felt a little ill-atease. At the time, it was alien. Increasingly we are becoming like them.

9/11 was a terrible, terrible thing. One the other hand, a similar number of people are killed if a large ferry sinks. The turmoil which has been created is out of context with the attack.

We don't want a thousand Askins, Johs and Piggy Muldoons.

I think this legislation is another example of our government being the greatest threat to liberty along with the Anti Terrorist laws which need to be repealed; we need for a bill of government. Such a bill would outline the limits of government responsibility and area of operation. If we do not limit the government, the government will end up swallowing all freedoms and liberties because there is currently a vacuum in this area of Australian Law. And government will continue to expand its reach as there is no limitation in law. If we the people are the sovereign how can government be allowed to take away our rights? Previous bills of rights were given by monarchs and obtained from monarchs via revolution or war and created a limitation on the monarchs’ rights.
Today we understand democracy to be government by the people, for the people and of the people- the people are the sovereigns.
Why is the servant – the government, seeking to overthrow the right of its sovereign?
The greatest threat to our rights is government, will they grant a bill of rights? I do not think so; their track record to date is proof enough. A bill rights if granted is a limitation on the individual (or sovereigns) rights. The government our servant needs to be told where and when it can exercise the authority we give it.

We need a bill of government!