Private Investigator Portal

OK, you want to be a cheating spouse investigator!

The article by Mike Evans, principal of the Australian Security Academy has been moved to this page, thank you.

 

Surveillance Self-Defense

Given the proliferation of powers by government agencies (police amongst them) to access your computer, your information, your phone and mobile phone calls and movements, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has created the Surveillance Self-Defense site to educate the public about the law and technology of government surveillance in the United States, providing the information and tools necessary to evaluate the threat of surveillance and take appropriate steps to defend against it.

Much if not all of the seriously important information the EFF has provided on their new site applies to people in Australia as, arguably, Australian laws give government agencies even greater capability to access your life and invade your privacy.

Surveillance Self-Defense exists to answer two main questions:

• What can the government legally do to spy on your computer data and communications? (and the Australian agencies have very much similar powers - note article above relating to NSW police powers expansion)
  
  
• And what can you legally do (or, technically do) to protect yourself against such spying?

You might be surprised to learn just how quick and easy it is to break into your computer even if you use passwords and whole disc encryption. And short of detonating a 100kg bomb under it at the crucial moment, there's almost nothing you can do to protect your system.

 

Thank you Warren Mallard - Lyonswood Investigations & Forensic Group for this article.

Tracking Spy Gadgets - Do they have any real benefit?

The short answer is, NOT MUCH BENEFIT AT ALL AND THE USE OF THESE DEVICES WILL MORE THAN LIKELY GET YOU INTO MORE TROUBLE THAN YOU COUNTED UPON.

Today we are surrounded by advancing technology and some who operate and advertise their services in the Private investigation industry believe that these devices are a substitute for a thorough well-planned and well - executed investigation when the evidence available suggests they are not. Further more, in almost all applications of these devices, the actions of  these private investigators are unlawful and exposes them and their clients to the risk of serious criminal charges. In almost all cases the evidence gathered by these devices in not admissible in courts of law and if the target of the investigation discovers one of the illegally used devices then the chances are the investigator and their client will be the subject of criminal charges and claims by the victim for compensation.

The end results can be devastating.

The State Police Forces and Federal Police are currently investigating the illegal advertising and use of these devices with the view to laying criminal charges against some private investigators and changing the legislation when it comes to the existing Acts Of Parliament to strengthen our already much valued rights to privacy.

None of these gimmicks / devices can replace the value of a well-constructed and well-executed investigation. They wont tell you that two people slept together or kissed and cuddled. They wont necessarily tell you the exact location of the people under investigation either. They wont tell you the identity of the other person nor that person's marital status etc. They will just leave many questions unanswered and chances are you will require further traditional and accepted investigation to gather evidence lawfully. Most likely the cost of what you have just expended on these gimmicks will be wasted.

Ask yourself this,  "Is it worth the risk?"  Would I  like someone to place a listening device or text message logger on my  mobile phone? Would I  like someone to place a tracking device on my vehicle?  Would I  like someone to monitor my every key stroke on my  computer? To all of these questions the answer is obviously NO!

G.P.S. TRACKING DEVICES

These devices when used lawfully can be a limited aid to investigation particularly in criminal matters where the court has granted an authority to use them. They can be used to track goods and criminal suspects and are of value in being able to provide a map of the route of the person or goods and approximately where these persons and goods end up. I say approximately because they are still not pin point accurate and if a person attends an underground car park or a large complex of units, the tracking device will still not tell you exactly which unit they are in nor the exact location of the vehicle within that underground car park. To use them lawfully you require an authority from a court of law and these are only issued in extreme cases where illegal activities are strongly suspected and never in infidelity matters.

If a G.P.S. tracking device is used on a vehicle in a matrimonial infidelity matter then there are many complications that will most probably lead to criminal offences being committed by the person who places the tracking device on that vehicle. If another person instructed that investigator to place the device onto a vehicle then that person is also liable.  If the person wanting the person/vehicle tracked does not 100% own that vehicle then the tracking device cannot be lawfully placed as there will clearly be a trespass and an invasion of privacy. You need the permission of all of the owners and drivers of that vehicle before the tracking device can be placed.

TEXT MESSAGE AND TELEPHONE BUGS

No person, not even a Private Investigator can place a listening device or text message logger onto a telephone at all. Only  police and then only when authorised by a court order can they place these devices onto phones. You might own your phone but you do not own the telephone network over which these conversations / text messages take place. The Federal Government owns 51% of this network and thus the Federal Telecommunications Interceptions Act comes into play. This act sets out very clearly that persons found guilty of illegally possessing a device of this type and placing bugs or text message loggers on telephones including mobile phones will be dealt with very harshly indeed and may be sentenced to a gaol term.

COMPUTER KEY STROKE LOGGERS

These cyber devices can be sent to the victim person either remotely via e-mail or via unlawful hacking or placed onto the computer physically. They enable the user to capture every key stroke entered into the computer and with the use of sophisticated forensic software and a well trained technician a complete history of all of that computers data in and out can be copied and retained. Any further communications can be sent to another e-mail address (usually the address of the person who placed the logging device) and thus timely data can be received as and when it happens.

These devices like all the other devices cannot be used without a lawful purpose and without a court order or the permission of the person who owns the computer. Thus in infidelity matters if you represent the wife and the computer in the house is jointly owned by the wife and the husband or perhaps just by the husband then you cannot use these devices lawfully. Even if the computer in this case is totally owned by the wife it is still a very grey area in terms of the obligations of the person having the device placed to notify all of the computer users.

SUMMARY

Can  a client  trust an investigator that breaks the law to gather your evidence? Where would this investigator draw the line? Would this investigator perhaps sell the details of my investigation to a newspaper or even to the person of interest? Once a private investigator crosses this line there is no turning back. A client cannot trust these unscrupulous and stupid private investigators because they will eventually bring the client down and any evidence gathered by them will be useless.  We have recently seen a  Sydney private investigator charged and convicted of criminal offences for his stupid, selfish actions and the investigation industry can ill afford more of these clowns bringing down our hard earned and recovering good reputation.

Warren Mallard - Managing Director
Lyonswood Investigations & Forensic Group
204 Lyons Road, Drummoyne NSW 2047
http://www.investigators.net.au
+61 (0) 2 9819-6833   F +61 (0) 2 9819-6300
DX 21007 Drummoyne

 

The federal government´s new workplace relations laws including collective bargaining, unfair dismissal and arbitration came into effect July 2009.

The new code applies to small business employers with fewer than 15 employees. Will the changes impact on employers' "stress injury" liability and will this impact on the approach to factual investigation related to such claims?

The insurance industry knows well that stress claims are on the rise and factual investigators would be well served to review the workplace legislation changes.

Not one of the easiest of investigations in the factual investigation sphere, the investigator might have to take into account the new workplace legislation given that "stress" arising from an employer's disciplinary or dismissal action are not compensable.

Separating a claimant's assertions about the circumstances of suffering injury between compensable and non-compensable events will be an increasing challenge.

There are new definitions and new processes employers will follow and determining whether all steps have been followed and have been carried out in the right tone will be relevant.

Employees who have been dismissed because of a business downturn or their position is no longer needed will not be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal and one might expect that a "stress" claim will become a more viable approach for some.

Investigators will find this Small Business Fair Dismissal Code checklist (PDF) very useful.

And read up on this article at Smart Company.

 

Claire Lowe - Canberra Times

Extramarital affairs could really cost you, with new laws set to allow former lovers to get money from their ex-partners through the courts.

Changes to the Family Law Act could also threaten the bank balances of polygamous husbands or those with a string of former partners.

These changes, passed in the Senate yesterday, will grant de facto partners, who have been together for two years, the same rights as married couples when seeking spousal maintenance.

But a de facto relationship can be widely interpreted under the act, legal experts say. The act states that such a relationship can exist even if one of the partners is legally married or in another de facto relationship.

Family lawyers warn that a de facto relationship might exist even if the parties do not think it does.

A spokesman for federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said that a payer of spousal maintenance could return to court to show "just cause" for discharging or varying the order.

Improved benefits are available to opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples under the newly amended law.

Mr McClelland said the act introduced significant reforms to allow opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples to access the federal Family Law courts on property and spouse maintenance matters relating to relationship breakdown.

"The bill is long overdue," he said. "[It] gives effect to an agreement between Commonwealth states and territories made as far back as 2002."

The changes give more protection to separating de facto couples and simplify the laws governing them.

They will also bring all family law issues faced by families on relationship breakdowns within the federal family law regime.

"The bill is consistent with the Government's policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexuality."

It amends the Family Law Act 1975 and related legislation to create a Commonwealth regime for handling the financial matters of de facto couples on the breakdown of their relationship.

A consistent and uniform approach would alleviate the administrative and financial burden de facto couples now face as a result of multiple regimes applying across the states and territories.

"It is a more effective use of court resources, legal aid and the like."

The bill will allow a court to declare or alter the interests of rights of a party in relation to property. It will also allow de facto couples to split their superannuation interests if their relationship breaks down, a benefit that has been available under the Family Law Act since 2002 for married couples but not de facto couples.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell welcomed the changes.

"These are a welcome improvement in terms of providing access to justice for same-sex couples who face relationship breakdown."

A senior consultant of Canberra law firm Farrar, Gesini & Dunn, Chris Crowley, said before the laws were passed de facto couples often needed two proceedings - one in the Family Court, one in the Supreme Court - which proved "expensive and cumbersome".

Copyright Canberra Times

 

Do you want these kinds of special services?

Have you been offered these kinds of services?

We want to hear from you!

Because we are keen to dob in the private investigators who either say they can do it, or do it.

Make no mistake about it, it's a crime.

We get regular emails here at investigateway.com.au from people who were 'clients' of sneaky thieving PIs, who were charged high fees (AKA bribes) to commit these criminal offences.

There are two kinds of PIs offering these services:

1. the crims who do it

2. the cheats that say they can do it, but can't. Yet they will take your money and come back to you with excuses or false information. Who is to know it's the truth? How do you test it? It's easy for them to say "no, no criminal record" and pocket your money.

We want to know about your experiences. We want the names and details of these crooks, fortunately a small minority, who give the honest professional investigators a bad name. Some of these crooks are quite well known, most are smart-assed small time crooks who are not capable of doing any better.

Tell us what you can and we will dob them to the authorities. If the service was offered or dealt with in emails, then we need not only the copy of the email, but also the email header data. If it's hard copy, then send it to us. Or just tell us what you can.

Don't allow yourself to be ripped off. A thief is a thief, no matter how supposedly 'helpful' he is.

MH. ed.

 

Quiz for Organisations:

This quiz will test your knowledge of the National Privacy Principles (NPPs). The NPPs form the law that applies to many private sector organisations. For more information about the NPPs, please go to: http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html

Question 1:

Generally, if an organisation holds personal information about an individual, it must provide the individual with access to the information on request. Which of the following is an exception to that rule?

(a) where providing access would have an unreasonable impact on the privacy of other individuals

(b) where providing access would excessively irritate the administration staff

(c) where providing access would be detrimental to the reputation of the organisation

(d) where the individual has not paid in full for goods or services already rendered, the organisation can deny the requesting individual access to any personal information held by the organisation

Question 2:

Generally, an organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose other than the primary purpose of collection. Which one of the following is not an exception to that rule:

(a) the individual has consented to the use or disclosure

(b) the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under law

(c) another organisation asks for the information for a marketing campaign (and this was not the purpose for which the information was collected)

(d) the organisation reasonably believes that the use or disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious and imminent threat to an individual´s life, health or safety

Question 3:

Generally, an organisation must set out in a document clearly expressed policies on its handling of personal information. Which of the following is not a responsibility regarding the privacy policy of an organisation?

(a) the organisation must make the document available to anyone who asks for it

(b) when someone asks, the organisation should take reasonable steps to let the person know what sort of personal information it holds and for what purpose

(c) when someone asks, the organisation must take reasonable steps to let the person know how it uses and discloses personal information

(d) the organisation must have a designated contact who is responsible for the proper management of privacy within the organisation

Question 4:

Private organisations that have an annual turnover of $3 million or less are generally exempt from the Privacy Act. Which of the following is not an exception to that rule?

(a) organisations that trade in personal information (e.g buying or selling a mailing list)

(b) organisations that are related to a larger business (a related body corporate)

(c) a contractor that provides services under a Commonwealth contract

(d) your local fish and chip shop

Question 5:

The Privacy Commissioner may decline to investigate a complaint if the complainant has not given the respondent an adequate opportunity to deal with the complaint. How long is generally considered ‘an adequate opportunity´ for an organisation to deal with the complaint?

(a) 7 days

(b) 30 days

(c) 60 days

(d) 90 days

Question 6:

Generally, when an organisation collects personal information about an individual, it must make the individual aware of a number of things. Which of the following must an organisation make individuals aware of?

(a) the identity of the organisation and how to contact it

(b) the fact that the individual is able to gain access to the information

(c) the purposes for which the information is collected

(d) all of the above

Question 7:

An organisation in Australia may transfer personal information about an individual to someone who is in a foreign country only under certain conditions. Which of the following is a condition?

(a) the organisation reasonably believes that the recipient of the information is subject to a regime that is substantially similar to the National Privacy Principles

(b) the organisation requires the transfer of the information to enhance business efficacy

(c) the individual to which the information relates to would reasonably expect the information to be passed onto a foreign country

(d) the organisation is required by the law of a foreign jurisdiction to disclose the information
Question 8: In total, how many Privacy Commissioner´s have there been in Australia?

(a) 1
(b) 4
(c) 6
(d) 9

 

Question 9:

True or False, if an employee of an organisation breaches the Privacy Act, it is the employee that must bear personal responsibility for the breach not the organisation as a whole?

Question 10:

Does your organisation have a privacy policy?

(a) yes
(b) no

ANSWERS

1: (a) where providing access would have an unreasonable impact on the privacy of other individuals
All the others are not valid reasons for denying access to personal information.

2: (c) another organisation asks for the information for a marketing campaign (and this was not the purpose for which the information was collected).

All the others are valid reasons for using or disclosing personal information about an individual for a purpose other than the primary purpose of collection.

3: (d) the organisation must have a designated contact who is responsible for the proper management of privacy within the organisation. However, the Office encourages organisations to have an appropriate contact (sometimes called a Privacy Contact Officer or Chief Privacy Officer) who is willing and able to handle privacy enquiries and complaints and who can ensure that the NPPs are properly implemented within the organisation.

4: (d) your local fish and chip shop
As long as the fish and chip ship is a small business earning $3 million or less, is not related to a larger business and does not trade in personal information.

5: (b) 30 days.
If a privacy complaint is lodged against your organisation, we consider 30 days to deal with or start dealing with the matter to be reasonable. In some circumstances, 30 days may be considered too long and it might be more appropriate to deal with the complaint more promptly.

6: (d) all of the above.
Apart from the those listed above, organisations must also take reasonable steps to ensure the individual it has collected information about is aware of: the organisations to which the organisation usually discloses information of that kind, any law that requires the particular information to be collected and the main consequences (if any) for the individual if all or part of the information is not provided.

7: (a) the organisation reasonably believes that the recipient of the information is subject to a regime that is substantially similar to the National Privacy Principles. The others are not valid reasons under the Privacy Act.

8: (b) 4.
The four Commissioners have been:
Judge Kevin O´Connor AM (1989 – 1996)
Moira Scollay (1996 – 1999)
Malcolm Crompton (1999 – 2004)
Karen Curtis (2004 – )

9: False. Under the Privacy Act, individuals cannot be found to interfere with the privacy of another individual because the Privacy Act only provides obligations on organisations and Australian and ACT Government agencies. However, organisations may be able to take action against employees who are responsible for the organisation breaching the Privacy Act.

10: If you answered no, then it would be a good idea to draft one. Many organisations are under an obligation to set out in a document clearly expressed policies on its management of personal information. If you would like to know more about what to include in a privacy policy, see our website www.privacy.gov.au or contact our Enquiries Line on 1300 363 992.

Rating scale

Score:

9-10 Privacy guru
7-8 Very privacy aware
6-7 Moderately privacy aware
4-5 Not so privacy aware
0-3 You may like to contact our Privacy Enquiries line on 1300 363 992 or write to privacy@privacy.gov.au for information about privacy.

Copyright - Privacy Commissioner

The Victorian government has started cracking down on identity theft by introducing new offences and increasing penalties.

Acting Premier Rob Hulls said new legislation would beef up protection against identity theft and help in the prosecution of identity crime.

More than half a million Australians were last year victims of identity fraud, and it cost big business more than $1.1 billion in 2001/02. "Identity fraud strikes at the heart of the way we operate in a contemporary Western society," Hulls told reporters today.

"The expansion of global internet use and its attendant trade in personal information has really multiplied the risk of this information being used in identity fraud."

New offences will be created that make it illegal to steal identities with the intent to commit fraud. Currently criminals can only be charged once they actually commit a crime. It will also be illegal to possess equipment for making identity documents and to deal in identity information. Maximum jail terms will range from three to five years.

Detective Inspector John Potter from the Victoria Police fraud squad welcomed the plans. He said fraud accounted for 31 per cent of total crime in Victoria.

Organised crime syndicates were largely involved in identity theft, and often established venues purely to manufacture new identification documents. The new laws will help police be proactive in stamping out those intent on stealing identities, Potter said.

"This will allow us to go on the offensive and allow us to target those groups that possess inappropriately both documents but also equipment ... our ability is substantially enhanced with regard to targeting criminal groups and their tools of trade," he said.

Simple actions, such as shredding any documents like electricity or gas bills, could help people stop identity theft, he said.

Hulls described identity theft as an "insidious" crime. He said while it was "virtually impossible to wipe out crimes of this nature", the government and police were doing their best to stay ahead of technological developments.

The new offences under the Crimes Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill will close legislative gaps identified by a report to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and will be introduced to parliament before the end of the year.

AAP

 

SMH article

A Sydney private eye who posed as a federal police agent and sent a 77-year-old woman a menacing letter has been jailed for 12 months.

In the Downing Centre Local Court today, Magistrate Pat O'Shane ruled Brett Sutcliffe would be eligible for release after nine months.

The 28-year-old must then enter into a 12-month, $5,000 good behaviour bond.

The magistrate also imposed a $5,000 fine on Sutcliffe, a former director of private investigation firm Spousebusters.

He had pleaded guilty to impersonating a Commonwealth public official and using the postal service to menace the elderly woman, who challenged him for parking in a disabled parking zone near her North Bondi home, in Sydney's east, last July.

Sutcliffe sent the woman a letter, purportedly on Australian Federal Police (AFP) letterhead, warning that she had "wrongly interfered" with an AFP investigation.

Ms O'Shane said the letter had involved "significant intimidation" of an elderly woman.

 

(NSW) POLICE ACT 1990 - SECT 205

Use of police designations by others
205 Use of police designations by others

A person (not being a police officer) who, in connection with any business, occupation or employment uses:

    (a) the designation of "detective", or

    (b) the designation of "private detective" or any other designation that includes the word "detective", or

    (c) any other designation, or any rank or description, implying that the person is a police officer (whether or not the designation, rank or description was previously applicable to the person as a police officer),

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

Check your state's legislation as it may well be similar (ed.).