New South Wales police are overusing intrusive technology to monitor the phones and computers of people suspected of committing less serious crimes, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has found.

The watchdog's investigation revealed that NSW police "were unable to demonstrate" they were meeting the requirements of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 when deploying electronic surveillance powers.

Mate, this isn't just about a few dodgy warrants. This is about whether Australia's most populous state has proper oversight over some of the most invasive police powers in the country.

The report also found that Victoria and Queensland police forces were not keeping sufficient records to justify their use of the same electronic surveillance powers.

These powers allow police to monitor digital communications - phones, computers, internet activity - of suspects. They're meant for serious crime: terrorism, major drug trafficking, organized crime syndicates. Instead, according to the ombudsman, they're being deployed far more broadly.

The Telecommunications Act has strict requirements about when these powers can be used. Police must demonstrate the crime is serious enough, that less intrusive methods won't work, and that the surveillance is proportionate to the offense.

NSW police couldn't demonstrate they were meeting those standards, according to The Guardian.

This comes as Australia grapples with the balance between security and privacy in the digital age. The country already has some of the most expansive surveillance laws in the democratic world - metadata retention, encryption backdoors, foreign interference powers.

Now we're learning that even the existing safeguards aren't being followed.