Doing this with an Applewatch and an iPhone ? - that's gotta be at least $500, likely much more. So that will never be a an affordable option outside of the 1st world.

Have a look at Heartypatch, orderable now for $95. "HeartyPatch is a completely open source, single-lead, ECG-HR wearable patch with HRV (Heart Rate Variability) analysis. "
https://hackaday.io/project/21...
https://www.crowdsupply.com/pr...

Pleasant side effect, you have 100% control over the data.

Material stored for 2 years is the least of it. ASIO wants a much more permissive (weaker ?) warrant regime ...

"Modernise and streamline ASIOâ(TM)s warrant provisions" means fixing these perceived problems:

• * if there are multiple computers on a premises, and it is only discovered upon entering the premises for the purpose of executing a warrant that a particular computer is not connected to the computer system specified in the warrant, it would be necessary to seek another warrant
• * A new warrant is required in every instance where there is a significant change in circumstances.
• * warrants under the ASIO Act currently last for a maximum of six months, except for a search warrant which must be executed within 90 days
• * the current provisions in the ASIO Act do not enable a warrant to be extended.
• * In approximately one third of cases more than one ASIO Act warrant type is sought against a particular target. Under the current provisions, this requires the preparation of multiple applications, each reâcasting the available intelligence case to emphasise the relevant facts and grounds to satisfy the different legislative requirements of the various warrant types
• * Subsection 25A(5) currently restricts ASIO from doing anything under a computer access warrant that adds, deletes or alters data or interferes with, interrupts, or obstructs the lawful use of the target computer by other persons
• * it is not always feasible to execute a search warrant on a person of interest while they are âat or nearâ(TM) the premises specified in the warrant.
• * The requirement to maintain a list of the individual names of each officer who may be involved in executing a warrant can create operational inefficiencies for ASIO.

naturally, there are solutions proposed for all these issues !

From crikey.com.au
"The final terms of reference for the inquiry match the proposals sent to the committee by Roxon, and include the controversial 2 year data retention proposal long urged by Attorney-Generalâ(TM)s bureaucrats. However, the committee has now also published a discussion paper prepared by the Attorney-Generalâ(TM)s Department to commence the inquiry, outlining the rationale for three types of proposals: those the government wants to progress, those it is considering, and those it is merely seeking views on."
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/additional/discussion%20paper.pdf

From SALTER v DPP [2008] NSWSC 1325 (5 December 2008)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2008/1325.html

13 Counsel appearing for the defendant drew attention to a number of prior decisions, albeit on different statutory provisions, those cases including Gilmour v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (1995) 43 NSWLR 243, The Director of Public Prosecutions v Murdoch [1993] 1 VR 406 at 409,410. In that last mentioned case Hayne J said:-

“... Where, as is the case here, the question is whether the entry was with permission, it will be important to identify the entry and to determine whether that entry was within the scope of the permission that had been given. If the permission was not subject to some express or implied limitation which excluded the entry from its scope, then the entry will be with lawful justification but if the permission was subject to an actual express or implied limitation which excluded the actual entry made, then the entry will be “without lawful authority to do so.” ...

In my view the section requires attention to whether the particular entry in question was an entry that was made without lawful authority. In the case of a hacker it will be clear that he has no authority to enter the system. In the case of an employee the question will be whether that employee had authority to affect the entry with which he stands charged. If he has a general and unlimited permission to enter the system then no offence is proved. If however there are limits upon the permission given to him to enter that system it will be necessary to ask was the entry within the scope of that permission? If it was, then no offence was committed; if it was not, then he has entered the system without lawful authority to do so.”

14 The passage has direct application to the situation here.

15 Authorisation to use a computer or authorisation in an entirely different field of law may be general or it may be limited or it may be subject to conditions, and I do not believe that s 308B should be given an operation so as to set at nought that aspect of the general law. As Hayne J said in the passage to which I have referred:-

“If there are limits upon the permission given, it will be necessary to ask was the entry within the scope of that permission?"

------- So, much will depend on the terms that governed the access to the website. Can these be posted ?

They should get down on their knees and thank him for disclosing this appalling security hole.