New encryption laws force suspects to reveal passwords

New encryption laws have helped compel accused offenders in drug and child exploitation cases to hand over device passwords.

The nation’s new encryption laws have helped compel accused offend­ers in drug and child exploit­ation cases to hand over passwords to electronic devices, yielding further evidence, the Australian Federal Police says.

People who refuse to provide access to a device face dramatic­ally increased penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment as a result of the laws, passed in December. Previously, the penalty was up to two years’ imprisonment.

The AFP said in one case it execute­d a search warrant after the suspected procurement and importation of illegal drugs with cryptocurrency via the dark web. The accused was served a notice to assist.

“Following consideration of the order and being advised of the new penalties, the accused advise­d the AFP of the passwords to a number of devices as well as a number of cloud-hosted accounts in which he had facilitated the importatio­n,” the AFP said.

“Through the provision of this assistance, the AFP was able to successfully access, identify and collect otherwise secure and encrypte­d communications and digital records as evidence of the alleged offending.”

The AFP made the comments in a submission to a parliament­ary joint committee on intellig­ence and security review of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018.

In another case, the AFP executed a warrant after receiving information about the distribution of child exploitation material.

“The search resulted in the identification of several devices containing child exploitation materi­al,” the AFP submission says. “However, a number of ­devices could not be accessed due to the application of encryption and electronic protections.”

Further attempts to examine the devices were unsuccessful, and the accused was issued orders to assist signed by a judicial ­authority. “Following being advise­d of the conditions of the order and the penalties that can apply for non-compliance, the accuse­d provided information to enable access to the contents of the locked devices, which identified further evidence.”