(b) measures to be taken to ensure that the data is intercepted whilst maintaining the privacy of other users, customers and third parties and without the disclosure of information and data of any party not part of the investigation; and (c) the investigation may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless the interception is permitted. (3) The period of real-time collection or recording of traffic data may be extended beyond 90 days if, on an application, a judge authorises an extension for a further specified period of time, not exceeding a further period of 90 days. (4) When making an application under subsection (1), the police officer or other authorised person under this Act must provide the following substantive grounds and reasons also–– (a) explain why it is believed the traffic data sought will be available with the person in control of the computer system; (b) identify and explain with specificity the type of traffic data suspected will be found on such computer system; (c) identify and explain with specificity the subscribers, users or unique identifier the subject of an investigation or prosecution suspected may be found on such computer system; (d) identify and explain with specificity the identified offences in respect of which the warrant is sought; (e) what measures are to be taken to prepare and ensure that the traffic data will be sought and carried out–– (i) whilst maintaining the privacy of other users, customers and third parties; and (ii) without the disclosure of data of any party not part of the investigation. (5) A judge may also require the service provider to keep confidential the warrant and execution of any power provided for under this section. (6) Where obligations have been imposed on a service provider under this Part, the steps which it are reasonably practicable for the service provider to take include every step which it would have been reasonably practicable for the service provider to take if it had complied with its obligations. (7) A service provider who contravenes this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000. Interception of content data 24. ––(1) If upon an application made under oath and affidavit, a police officer or other authorised person demonstrates to the satisfaction of a judge or magistrate that there are reasonable grounds to authorise the interception of content data and associated traffic data, related to or connected with a person or premises under investigation for one of the following purposes–– (a) investigation and prosecution of serious offences; or (b) to give effect to a mutual assistance request, a judge or magistrate may issue a warrant requiring a service provider, to–– 17