Crime network cracked.
Discussion
La Liga said:
ho wouldn't be sceptical about that?
Fortunately there is no such powers, nor proposals to give police such powers.
Cyber Kiosks ?Fortunately there is no such powers, nor proposals to give police such powers.
They have already shown their intent with DNA databases so scepticism is healthy no ?
Answer if you like, but please don't descend into your condescending usual self please. You do have form for it.
Brads67 said:
La Liga said:
Who wouldn't be sceptical about that?
Fortunately there is no such powers, nor proposals to give police such powers.
Cyber Kiosks ?Fortunately there is no such powers, nor proposals to give police such powers.
They have already shown their intent with DNA databases so scepticism is healthy no ?
Answer if you like, but please don't descend into your condescending usual self please. You do have form for it.
La Liga said:
ou spoke of “powers that can be abused with impunity”. The laws around obtaining DNA and its retention are no such thing.
So what are they then. A law allowing DNA data to be taken is a power surely.Ignoring legal rulings and keeping the data of innocent people is an abuse of same no ?.
Brads67 said:
La Liga said:
ou spoke of “powers that can be abused with impunity”. The laws around obtaining DNA and its retention are no such thing.
So what are they then. A law allowing DNA data to be taken is a power surely.Ignoring legal rulings and keeping the data of innocent people is an abuse of same no ?.
The PFA 2012 regulates biometric data. If the police breach this there are remedies available which mean it’s by definition not impunity.
La Liga said:
bviously it’s a power, but it’s read in conjunction with “impunity”.
The PFA 2012 regulates biometric data. If the police breach this there are remedies available which mean it’s by definition not impunity.
But they have ignored the "remedies" More than once. Impunity ? They even wanted a change in law to allow them to keep data they were told to destroy.The PFA 2012 regulates biometric data. If the police breach this there are remedies available which mean it’s by definition not impunity.
Drifting the thread away now though.
Is there likely to be a defence built around the cops blanket hacking a secure network ( a legal one) and sifting through everyone's data to find evidence on a few ?.
If the method of obtaining that evidence would be illegal in the UK can it be used to prosecute in the UK.
I'm not talking about the guys that were found with stashes, but the ones who will be tried on the basis of conversations they have had.
Camelot1971 said:
Irony overload given the s
t you post on here.
Yawn. Bored teen then.t you post on here.Why not collate a big list of all my posts and pore over them, loudly shouting just how s
t they are. Edit.
I thought I had seen some of your posts before. All you ever seem to do is jump in with arsey comments and abuse.
Get a life dude.
Edited by Brads67 on Saturday 4th July 06:14
Edited by Brads67 on Saturday 4th July 06:21
Brads67 said:
But they have ignored the "remedies" More than once. Impunity ? They even wanted a change in law to allow them to keep data they were told to destroy.
Drifting the thread away now though.
Is there likely to be a defence built around the cops blanket hacking a secure network ( a legal one) and sifting through everyone's data to find evidence on a few ?.
If the method of obtaining that evidence would be illegal in the UK can it be used to prosecute in the UK.
I'm not talking about the guys that were found with stashes, but the ones who will be tried on the basis of conversations they have had.
The DNA wasn't misuse of power it was a flawed law. The law said the police had to take DNA from everyone arrested and keep a record of it forever, and the Police did. Drifting the thread away now though.
Is there likely to be a defence built around the cops blanket hacking a secure network ( a legal one) and sifting through everyone's data to find evidence on a few ?.
If the method of obtaining that evidence would be illegal in the UK can it be used to prosecute in the UK.
I'm not talking about the guys that were found with stashes, but the ones who will be tried on the basis of conversations they have had.
The ECJ said that wasn't proportionate, that did not change the law and it didn't compel or even allow the Police to do anything until the law was changed. The new law changed how long DNA should be retained for various categories and that was applied retrospectively and noncompliant records were deleted. That's still the system in use today.
The method wouldn't be illegal in the UK, but it may have been inadmissible if it was held to be a public telecommunications network and the conversations were captured during the process of transmission. However, if obtained lawfully in a different jurisdiction where they are admissible then they can be used in evidence here. As long as it wasn't intended to bypass RIPA here. Happens fairly regularly.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 4th July 09:22
Brads67 said:
Is there likely to be a defence built around the cops blanket hacking a secure network ( a legal one) and sifting through everyone's data to find evidence on a few ?.
If the method of obtaining that evidence would be illegal in the UK can it be used to prosecute in the UK.
I'm not talking about the guys that were found with stashes, but the ones who will be tried on the basis of conversations they have had.
This network you mention is used purely for criminal intent. Regular people have no need for highly encrypted phones so they can have a chat with their dear old mum without being intercepted. That in itself is enough to gain various authorities to begin the process of trying to break the encryption. Those authorities are by no means a tick box scenario. Although the French got the jump and managed it first, they were not the only ones involved. If the method of obtaining that evidence would be illegal in the UK can it be used to prosecute in the UK.
I'm not talking about the guys that were found with stashes, but the ones who will be tried on the basis of conversations they have had.
Regardless of who got the intelligence first, it was then disseminated to relevant authorities to deal. Those people who have incriminating content on the devices have plenty to fear. It will be quite difficult to rebut a load of firearm photos on your device and a conversation about how you propose to import them and then sell them on once they are here.
Ultimately , it will be a jury who decide whether the evidence stands upto the criminal tests at court.
Just get it out of your head that normal people have these devices. If you speak about and have conversations about criminality then you are part of the conspiracy and fair game for nicking.
The results so far speak for themselves and I for one applaud it.
Far Cough said:
This network you mention is used purely for criminal intent.
Is this a different Encrochat to the one that plenty of news agencies have claimed is used by celebrities and royalty to have secure communications?Or are you implying that celebrities & royalty are all criminals - and I'm not going to argue that some aren't
mmm-five said:
Far Cough said:
This network you mention is used purely for criminal intent.
Is this a different Encrochat to the one that plenty of news agencies have claimed is used by celebrities and royalty to have secure communications?Or are you implying that celebrities & royalty are all criminals - and I'm not going to argue that some aren't
Graveworm and Far Cough
Thanks for that.
Although I'm not sure you can summise criminality just because you use Encrochat.
Regards the DNA issue I was under the impression data was ordered to be destroyed and a force did not carry that out. Will have a dig and see if I can find the case in point.
Thanks for that.
Although I'm not sure you can summise criminality just because you use Encrochat.
Regards the DNA issue I was under the impression data was ordered to be destroyed and a force did not carry that out. Will have a dig and see if I can find the case in point.
pip t said:
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.
Unfortunately, the example you gave is not far off the mark - the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act gives a sorts of "public" bodies the ability to access communications or use covert surveillance.Council used it for dog fouling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshir...
Or lying on school application forms:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584808/Co...
These are just the first ones I had found, there are hundreds!
As for who can access communications data:
-Charity Commission
-Criminal Cases Review Commission
-Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
-a county council or district council in England, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and any county council or county borough council in Wales
-Department for Transport, for the purposes of:
Marine Accident Investigation Branch
Rail Accident Investigation Branch
Air Accidents Investigation Branch
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
a district council within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972
-Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for Northern Ireland (for the purposes of Trading Standards)
-Department of Health (for the purposes of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency)
-Department of Trade and Industry
-Environment Agency
-Financial Conduct Authority
-a fire and rescue authority
-Fire Authority for Northern Ireland
-Food Standards Agency
-Gambling Commission
-Gangmasters Licensing Authority
-Government Communications Headquarters
-Health and Safety Executive
-HM Revenue and Customs
-Home Office (for the purposes of the UK Border Agency)
-Independent Police Complaints Commission
-Information Commissioner
-a Joint Board where it is a fire authority
-Office of Communications
-Office of Fair Trading
-The Pensions Regulator
-Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
-Port of Dover Police
-Port of Liverpool Police
-Post Office Investigation Branch
-Postal Services Commission
-NHS ambulance service Trust
-NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service
-Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Services Trust
-Northern Ireland Health and Social Services -Central Services Agency
-Royal Navy Regulating Branch
-Royal Military Police
-Royal Air Force Police
-Scottish Ambulance Service Board
-a Scottish council where it is a fire authority
-Scottish Environment Protection Agency
-Secret Intelligence Service
-Security Service
-Serious Fraud Office
-the special police forces (including the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency)
-the territorial police forces
-Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust
All of this above "can" but in reality they will not as they will not pass the threshold.
Surveillance and especially intrusive surveillance is the very last step when nothing else can achieve the result.
I am sure they planned to keep it going for longer than they did but someone got caught out and the cat slipped out the bag hence the arrest phase and the media release.
Surveillance and especially intrusive surveillance is the very last step when nothing else can achieve the result.
I am sure they planned to keep it going for longer than they did but someone got caught out and the cat slipped out the bag hence the arrest phase and the media release.
Far Cough said:
All of this above "can" but in reality they will not as they will not pass the threshold.
Surveillance and especially intrusive surveillance is the very last step when nothing else can achieve the result.
I am sure they planned to keep it going for longer than they did but someone got caught out and the cat slipped out the bag hence the arrest phase and the media release.
That's what you'd hope, but if this is to be believed https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w... then setting up a covert camera to get evidence on a garden with lots of rubbish in it, or using the powers to deal with dogs barking or people feeding pigeons would have passed that "test"Surveillance and especially intrusive surveillance is the very last step when nothing else can achieve the result.
I am sure they planned to keep it going for longer than they did but someone got caught out and the cat slipped out the bag hence the arrest phase and the media release.
Note: this is the RIPA not the IPA - it covers communications data and covert surveillance but not things like internet data (that's the IPA which does indeed have a stricter bar to reach)
Ultimately it's legislation passed to prevent terrorism and serious crime, being used to deal with noisy neighbours and pigeons.
Graveworm said:
Brads67 said:
But they have ignored the "remedies" More than once. Impunity ? They even wanted a change in law to allow them to keep data they were told to destroy.
Drifting the thread away now though.
Is there likely to be a defence built around the cops blanket hacking a secure network ( a legal one) and sifting through everyone's data to find evidence on a few ?.
If the method of obtaining that evidence would be illegal in the UK can it be used to prosecute in the UK.
I'm not talking about the guys that were found with stashes, but the ones who will be tried on the basis of conversations they have had.
The DNA wasn't misuse of power it was a flawed law. The law said the police had to take DNA from everyone arrested and keep a record of it forever, and the Police did. Drifting the thread away now though.
Is there likely to be a defence built around the cops blanket hacking a secure network ( a legal one) and sifting through everyone's data to find evidence on a few ?.
If the method of obtaining that evidence would be illegal in the UK can it be used to prosecute in the UK.
I'm not talking about the guys that were found with stashes, but the ones who will be tried on the basis of conversations they have had.
The ECJ said that wasn't proportionate, that did not change the law and it didn't compel or even allow the Police to do anything until the law was changed. The new law changed how long DNA should be retained for various categories and that was applied retrospectively and noncompliant records were deleted. That's still the system in use today.
The method wouldn't be illegal in the UK, but it may have been inadmissible if it was held to be a public telecommunications network and the conversations were captured during the process of transmission. However, if obtained lawfully in a different jurisdiction where they are admissible then they can be used in evidence here. As long as it wasn't intended to bypass RIPA here. Happens fairly regularly.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 4th July 09:22
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 4th July 15:56
Bigends said:
Graveworm said:
Brads67 said:
But they have ignored the "remedies" More than once. Impunity ? They even wanted a change in law to allow them to keep data they were told to destroy.
Drifting the thread away now though.
Is there likely to be a defence built around the cops blanket hacking a secure network ( a legal one) and sifting through everyone's data to find evidence on a few ?.
If the method of obtaining that evidence would be illegal in the UK can it be used to prosecute in the UK.
I'm not talking about the guys that were found with stashes, but the ones who will be tried on the basis of conversations they have had.
The DNA wasn't misuse of power it was a flawed law. The law said the police had to take DNA from everyone arrested and keep a record of it forever, and the Police did. Drifting the thread away now though.
Is there likely to be a defence built around the cops blanket hacking a secure network ( a legal one) and sifting through everyone's data to find evidence on a few ?.
If the method of obtaining that evidence would be illegal in the UK can it be used to prosecute in the UK.
I'm not talking about the guys that were found with stashes, but the ones who will be tried on the basis of conversations they have had.
The ECJ said that wasn't proportionate, that did not change the law and it didn't compel or even allow the Police to do anything until the law was changed. The new law changed how long DNA should be retained for various categories and that was applied retrospectively and noncompliant records were deleted. That's still the system in use today.
The method wouldn't be illegal in the UK, but it may have been inadmissible if it was held to be a public telecommunications network and the conversations were captured during the process of transmission. However, if obtained lawfully in a different jurisdiction where they are admissible then they can be used in evidence here. As long as it wasn't intended to bypass RIPA here. Happens fairly regularly.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 4th July 09:22
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 4th July 15:56
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff