Crime network cracked.

[eldar]

carinaman said:

I saw the thread in NP&E and read through some of the Vice link on the system and how it worked yesterday afternoon. I also heard the interview with the Director of the NCA on BBC Radio 4's PM. I was aware of this news item before you started your thread here. Sorry I won't be going out on my door step and clapping for the good work of the NCA and law enforcement agencies in Europe who compromised the secure comms. system.

I'd be more impressed if the Director of the NCA had replied 'Yes, it was police abroad that got into the system but it was an International police effort'. I'd prefer the police to keep it factual rather than spin it like marketeers or politicians. You may like your police officers coming over like Marketing people and Politicians but I don't have to buy into that. Everyone gets prizes.

Operation Ore?

Did that stop paedophiles and those that get off looking at sexual images of children using the Internet?

I would suggest to you that it didn't.

I suspect if the Police developed a cure for cancer, you'd berate them because it didn't also cure ingrowing toenails.

[carinaman]

It was the French police.

University students passing off somebody else's efforts as their own work risk severe, possibly career ending repercussions.

The core business of the police is the truth.

The core business of the BBC is the truth.

Does portraying it as a piece of International police team work when asked by a BBC News Presenter if it was cracked abroad constitute fake news?

It's Prince Andrew like levels of obfuscation?

That you were late to the party, there was already a thread in NP&E with a link to the Vice website that explained the system and how it was compromised, is your fault.

It's also not my fault that a Director of the NCA when asked if it was foreign police replied that it was a team effort. What's wrong with 'Yes, it was the French, but several national forces were involved as would be expected to deal with a criminal network that crosses international borders'.

If I am skeptical about marketing BS can I reasonably be expected to suspend that skepticism if the marketing BS comes with a police or NCA brand attached?

Well done French police. Credit where it's due.

[Camelot1971]

Brads67 said:

Is hacking a private network legal ? Or can the cops do what they like.?

Is there likely to be a defence based on how the evidence was obtained (apart from those caught with naughty stuff)

I'm sure some people on here would love it if law enforcement only had the same powers as the general public.

"Sorry sir, we can't go and arrest the person who assaulted you because they told us we can't enter their house".

[bad company]

Duplicate thread:-

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[Brads67]

Camelot1971 said:

I'm sure some people on here would love it if law enforcement only had the same powers as the general public.

"Sorry sir, we can't go and arrest the person who assaulted you because they told us we can't enter their house".

We don't have law "enforcement" agencies here in the UK much as they call themselves that and would love to be that.

We have Law upholders, and a judicial system that enforces the law. The cops are just the general public except they have decided to carry out public duties as a full time job.
So basically I'm very sceptical about giving them powers that they can abuse with impunity.

Like hacking private communications.

[IJWS15]

Brads67 said:

Is hacking a private network legal ? Or can the cops do what they like.?

Is there likely to be a defence based on how the evidence was obtained (apart from those caught with naughty stuff)

If you want to use that defence, according to Vice, the French Police would be happy to explain the legality of what they did to you. You may not want to draw attention to yourself.

If it was the UK I suppose it is a bit like tapping a phone - OK if the Home Secretary says you can do it.

[Brads67]

IJWS15 said:

If you want to use that defence, according to Vice, the French Police would be happy to explain the legality of what they did to you. You may not want to draw attention to yourself.

If it was the UK I suppose it is a bit like tapping a phone - OK if the Home Secretary says you can do it.

No it's a bit like tapping everyones phone.

[meatballs]

Brads67 said:

Is hacking a private network legal ? Or can the cops do what they like.?

Is there likely to be a defence based on how the evidence was obtained (apart from those caught with naughty stuff)

See Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (if it was the UK).

[Brads67]

meatballs said:

See Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (if it was the UK).

Nice googling, but a warrant is required to monitor named individuals. The act quoted doesn't cover blanket hacking a system to gain access to all users data.

Happy to be corrected but that's how it reads to me.

[meatballs]

Brads67 said:

meatballs said:

See Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (if it was the UK).

Nice googling, but a warrant is required to monitor named individuals. The act quoted doesn't cover blanket hacking a system to gain access to all users data.

Happy to be corrected but that's how it reads to me.

Part 5 - equipment interference?

A warrant doesn't have to be against a named individual?

Edited by meatballs on Friday 3rd July 18:42

[Camelot1971]

Brads67 said:

Camelot1971 said:

I'm sure some people on here would love it if law enforcement only had the same powers as the general public.

"Sorry sir, we can't go and arrest the person who assaulted you because they told us we can't enter their house".

We don't have law "enforcement" agencies here in the UK much as they call themselves that and would love to be that.

We have Law upholders, and a judicial system that enforces the law. The cops are just the general public except they have decided to carry out public duties as a full time job.
So basically I'm very sceptical about giving them powers that they can abuse with impunity.

Like hacking private communications.

I presume you consider privacy greater than investigating criminal activity?

So who do you suggest should have those powers then? Or are you saying the UK doesn't need those powers generally?

[anonymous-user]

eldar said:

carinaman said:

I saw the thread in NP&E and read through some of the Vice link on the system and how it worked yesterday afternoon. I also heard the interview with the Director of the NCA on BBC Radio 4's PM. I was aware of this news item before you started your thread here. Sorry I won't be going out on my door step and clapping for the good work of the NCA and law enforcement agencies in Europe who compromised the secure comms. system.

I'd be more impressed if the Director of the NCA had replied 'Yes, it was police abroad that got into the system but it was an International police effort'. I'd prefer the police to keep it factual rather than spin it like marketeers or politicians. You may like your police officers coming over like Marketing people and Politicians but I don't have to buy into that. Everyone gets prizes.

Operation Ore?

Did that stop paedophiles and those that get off looking at sexual images of children using the Internet?

I would suggest to you that it didn't.

I suspect if the Police developed a cure for cancer, you'd berate them because it didn't also cure ingrowing toenails.

He couldn't handle a topic of police success without posting something anti-police, so deployed his usual Google-based wibble.

[eldar]

Brads67 said:

We don't have law "enforcement" agencies here in the UK much as they call themselves that and would love to be that.

We have Law upholders, and a judicial system that enforces the law. The cops are just the general public except they have decided to carry out public duties as a full time job.
So basically I'm very sceptical about giving them powers that they can abuse with impunity.

Like hacking private communications.

Including private paedophile networks and the people scamming your granny out of her life savings?

[anonymous-user]

Brads67 said:

We don't have law "enforcement" agencies here in the UK much as they call themselves that and would love to be that.

We have Law upholders, and a judicial system that enforces the law. The cops are just the general public except they have decided to carry out public duties as a full time job.
So basically I'm very sceptical about giving them powers that they can abuse with impunity.

Like hacking private communications.

Who wouldn't be sceptical about that?

Fortunately there is no such powers, nor proposals to give police such powers.

[Greendubber]

eldar said:

Brads67 said:

We don't have law "enforcement" agencies here in the UK much as they call themselves that and would love to be that.

We have Law upholders, and a judicial system that enforces the law. The cops are just the general public except they have decided to carry out public duties as a full time job.
So basically I'm very sceptical about giving them powers that they can abuse with impunity.

Like hacking private communications.

Including private paedophile networks and the people scamming your granny out of her life savings?

And foiling terrorist attacks?

[Camelot1971]

Greendubber said:

eldar said:

Brads67 said:

We don't have law "enforcement" agencies here in the UK much as they call themselves that and would love to be that.

We have Law upholders, and a judicial system that enforces the law. The cops are just the general public except they have decided to carry out public duties as a full time job.
So basically I'm very sceptical about giving them powers that they can abuse with impunity.

Like hacking private communications.

Including private paedophile networks and the people scamming your granny out of her life savings?

And foiling terrorist attacks?

None of those things matter to Brads67. Privacy rightz init?

[Dont like rolls]

That is a big modern debate, one that so far we have yet to balance, if a balance point exists.

[Graveworm]

Dont like rolls said:

That is a big modern debate, one that so far we have yet to balance, if a balance point exists.

Exactly, it's like torture it might be acceptable if only the good governments do it to really bad people when it serves the greater good. But bad governments must never do it, as they will abuse it. We of course think we are the good governments.. But then so do the bad ones.

Its why enablers like silly expensive encrypted devices designed to thwart law enforcement can be sold. If we ban them, then we will struggle to argue that Iran shouldn't stop their people using them. I have never been able to find the balance, just follow the law and my conscience.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 3rd July 21:48

[Dont like rolls]

Older tech was never encrypted in public use however.....so providing new devices increases the ability to hide if you are a bad person (in the UK)....as such it is a massive increase over what was available only a few years ago....was that a problem 20-10 years ago ....No, so why the problem/need from the general population now ?

[pip t]

Dont like rolls said:

Older tech was never encrypted in public use however.....so providing new devices increases the ability to hide if you are a bad person (in the UK)....as such it is a massive increase over what was available only a few years ago....was that a problem 20-10 years ago ....No, so why the problem/need from the general population now ?

Because surveillance and the opportunity to monitor you through tech is massively increased since 'older tech.'

In less technological times, if the government wanted to monitor your phone calls, or surveil your movements, it was quite an effort to do it. So they had to have a really good reason to do it. They had to use their capability to do so proportionately. Now, if encryption isn't implemented and secure, it can be done in bulk at the click of a button. It would be possible to use it massively disproportionately.

I actually have no problem with targeted surveillance of suspects. That's what appears to have happened in the EncroChat thing, and good on them. Serious work, serious effort and an excellent result.

I object to bulk surveillance of populations just incase one of them needs to be investigated, which is essentially what the Investigatory Powers Act enables. It mandates ISPs to essentially save your internet browsing history for 2 years, among other things. Encryption protects the content of your data from that (Though not the metadata).

It's perfectly possible, with hard work, for the authorities to bring about prosecutions. We see headlines on a regular basis where law enforcement have managed to hack their way into a suspect's iPhone, or in this case into a communications network. It is however, very difficult for them to do. This ensures they do it proportionately, when it's really necessary. Sure, we could make encryption illegal, or mandate 'back doors.' This would significantly reduce the cost of access to secure data, and result, potentially, in it being used disproportionately. It's an extreme example, but do you really want to live in a world where your local council requests your past weeks location data in order to prove a parking ticket? The fact that data is secure and encrypted and is 'high cost' to access protects from that kind of authoritarian approach.

Edited by pip t on Friday 3rd July 22:20