An Australian civil liberties group has dubbed an inquiry into the country's CyberCrime Bill -disappointing", saying Committee members were -overpowered by the technical implications" of a Bill that should now be left on the table for further investigation.

The CyberCrime Bill 2001, described by Electronic Frontiers of Australia (EFA) as an -overbroad knee-jerk reaction to recent well-publicised virus attacks", was introduced into the House of Representatives on June 27 and subsequently passed to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee to be reported on yesterday.

-The Committee made some fairly superficial changes to the wording of the Bill but nothing substantial," EFA vice chair, Greg Taylor told ZDNet Australia. -We're disappointed with the Report overall...we think they're somewhat overpowered by the technological implications of the Bill and have left it to the word of the other people and the Attorney General to get it right...and they haven't got it right," he added.

One particularly contentious recommendation of the report is to increase the time law enforcement agencies can take possession of computer equipment from 72hours to five days - a process Taylor calls nothing more than a -fishing expedition" that can cause substantial financial loss and inconvenience to the company concerned.

Of the Bill itself, EFA considers the offences to be -over-broad" with insufficient debate given to the way they've been defined.

However, the major problem of the Bill that overrides all other issues is the forced release of encryption keys, which raises questions about the security of data, according to Taylor.

-If you've lost that key, how do you prove you actually have and you're not just using that explanation as an excuse?" Taylor said. -We've asked that it be excised from the bill until it is properly investigated."

"The way the Bill is currently worded could criminalise innocent behaviour...behaviour designed to protect computer systems," Taylor said.

Furthermore, if the Bill is passed, individuals could be charged with Possession with Intent if they're found to have tools which could be used to interfere with computer systems, when such security tools -can be used for fully legitimate purposes," according to Taylor.

Taylor believes the Bill, which has yet to be debated, -should be left on the table until it gets the right attention, from industry and legal experts, on contentious issues".

-Law enforcement agencies and Australian Federal Police didn't seem to be very involved in the process...it's something that seems to have come straight out of the Attorney General's department."

Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive, a CBS Company. All Rights Reserved.
ZDNET is a registered service mark of CBS Interactive. ZDNET Logo is a service mark of CBS Interactive.