It's a clever reading. If we insist on calling them "phones", then they're subject to the legal precedence of phones and maybe telegraphs.
And I'm always in favor of anyone who is attempting to prevent authoritarian overreach. You go Glenn Coco
>Reports emerged in the Australian media ‘revealing’ that the AFP was accessing phone and Internet records without a warrant, as if it was a new power, when in fact warrantless access by police to communications data has been in place for over 15 years and reported in detail annually since 2008. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...
We're already living in a surveillance dystopia, why would accessing the data on our phones be any different?
With #aabill our government has already shown it couldn't give two shits about quaint notions like "innocent until proven guilty" and "privacy". They ignored all legal and expert advice that was given during the consultation period and pushed their agenda regardless of the will of the people.
Good on this judge for at least making them specify how much overreach they are going to do - maybe the lobotomized masses will finally say "no" for once.