Australia has proposed a revision to its terrifying computer surveillance law.

I think the various kinds of warrants described in this article are acceptable in principle. That some do not require a judge's authorization is very dangerous.

The secrecy requirement — imprisonment for disclosing any information about a warrant — is a shield for the abuses which every system like this tends to generate.

The "assistance order" is extremely dangerous unless it has firm and clear limits about who can the ordered to assist, and what kinds of assistance can be demanded. Otherwise, what is to stop an agency from ordering you to put a back door into a program?

Statements about the usual "intended" usage scenarios of that power are meaningless if nothing stops the government from using it in other ways.