Crime network cracked.
Discussion
La Liga said:
o a court decided that there wasn't, "exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action."
Was the apeal upheld and the conviction quashed because of illegally held DNA data.?Try to quote the bit that is relevant to that.
And please stop concentrating on my use of the word impunity to derail the thread. I was refering to the powers to hack private comunications networks as this is what the thread is about so lets get back to that,
I understand that no one is ever correct apart from you La Liga but try to accept the parts I am talking about without broadening your case into every aspect of law. (as you have form for
)Edited by Brads67 on Tuesday 7th July 22:10
Edited by Brads67 on Tuesday 7th July 22:12
Cat said:
This is becoming a little surreal. Brads67 says Police shouldn't be given powers as they are able to abuse them with impunity, then repeatedly posts examples which demonstrate they have no such impunity. 
Cat
Yawn.Cat
I have posted one example of a case failing . No more.
Try paying attention to the thread and who is posting what, would you ?.
Edited by Brads67 on Tuesday 7th July 22:05
Brads67 said:
Yawn.
I have posted one example of a case failing . No more.
Try paying attention to the thread and who is posting what, would you ?.
Apologies, you did only contradict yourself the once. You said that powers can be abused with impunity then posted an example which showed the complete opposite. If you keep looking you'll find other examples that disprove your claim. I have posted one example of a case failing . No more.
Try paying attention to the thread and who is posting what, would you ?.
Cat
Cat said:
Apologies, you did only contradict yourself the once. You said that powers can be abused with impunity then posted an example which showed the complete opposite. If you keep looking you'll find other examples that disprove your claim.
Cat
You're talking crap bud.Cat
I said they should not get powers they can abuse with impunity in reference to hacking networks.
I discussed DNA data being held illegally in reference to police breaking laws and subsequently not being prosecuted for it.
I then posted a link to a case which demonstrated a failed murder case cause by illegally held DNA data.
No contradiction , but I would not expect you to see that as you appear to be making up rubbish so that you can agree with others.
Brads67 said:
La Liga said:
o a court decided that there wasn't, "exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action."
Was the apeal upheld and the conviction quashed because of illegally held DNA data.?Try to quote the bit that is relevant to that.
And please stop concentrating on my use of the word impunity to derail the thread. I was refering to the powers to hack private comunications networks as this is what the thread is about so lets get back to that,
I understand that no one is ever correct apart from you La Liga but try to accept the parts I am talking about without broadening your case into every aspect of law. (as you have form for
)The same applies to powers surrounding intrusive surveillance etc.
They are subject to judicial oversight and judgements.
La Liga said:
o, I said there are no such powers and you gave DNA as an example.
The same applies to powers surrounding intrusive surveillance etc.
They are subject to judicial oversight and judgements.
No I said Cyber KiosksThe same applies to powers surrounding intrusive surveillance etc.
They are subject to judicial oversight and judgements.
I then mentioned DNA as an example of there intent to do what they like anyway
We really are drifting into a black hole here. Even if you did forget to answer my last question about the case I linked to.
The intrusive surveillance you mention above was what I was initially asking about.
Is there likely to be a defence based on the methods used to obtain the intelligence.?
Is hacking a private communications network legal if it is done to the entire network and all it's users ?
These are the questions I came on this thread to ask.
Brads67 said:
La Liga said:
o, I said there are no such powers and you gave DNA as an example.
The same applies to powers surrounding intrusive surveillance etc.
They are subject to judicial oversight and judgements.
No I said Cyber KiosksThe same applies to powers surrounding intrusive surveillance etc.
They are subject to judicial oversight and judgements.
I then mentioned DNA as an example of there intent to do what they like anyway
We really are drifting into a black hole here.
The intrusive surveillance you mention above was what I was initially asking about.
Is there likely to be a defence based on the methods used to obtain the intelligence.?
Is hacking a private communications network legal if it is done to the entire network and all it's users ?
These are the questions I came on this thread to ask.
The French police have said 10 percent were not criminal. If as soon as that was determined monitoring stopped of those people and only continued on the 90 percent who were committing serious criminality it would probably get over the line.
You can work through examples but, real world, you have to show less intrusive wouldn't work and what it seeks to achieve justifies the intrusion.
If you think about it, nobody is criminal all the time. So way more than 10 percent of any intrusive techniques involve collateral intrusion and innocent people who get caught up in the collection. It's largely why the most intrusive stuff is confined to the most serious offences.
Brads67 said:
La Liga said:
o, I said there are no such powers and you gave DNA as an example.
The same applies to powers surrounding intrusive surveillance etc.
They are subject to judicial oversight and judgements.
No I said Cyber KiosksThe same applies to powers surrounding intrusive surveillance etc.
They are subject to judicial oversight and judgements.
I then mentioned DNA as an example of there intent to do what they like anyway
We really are drifting into a black hole here. Even if you did forget to answer my last question about the case I linked to.
The intrusive surveillance you mention above was what I was initially asking about.
Is there likely to be a defence based on the methods used to obtain the intelligence.?
Is hacking a private communications network legal if it is done to the entire network and all it's users ?
These are the questions I came on this thread to ask.
Brads67 said:
La Liga said:
You 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 ?.
Graveworm said:
Collateral intrusion happens. It has to be addressed under proportionality,usually there is mitigation and greater good justification. It's not an automatic barrier to being properly authorised or the interference being unlawful.
The French police have said 10 percent were not criminal. If as soon as that was determined monitoring stopped of those people and only continued on the 90 percent who were committing serious criminality it would probably get over the line.
You can work through examples but, real world, you have to show less intrusive wouldn't work and what it seeks to achieve justifies the intrusion.
If you think about it, nobody is criminal all the time. So way more than 10 percent of any intrusive techniques involve collateral intrusion and innocent people who get caught up in the collection. It's largely why the most intrusive stuff is confined to the most serious offences.
That's the bit I couldn't get. The fact that blanket hacking is done to sift through it and hope to find criminality.The French police have said 10 percent were not criminal. If as soon as that was determined monitoring stopped of those people and only continued on the 90 percent who were committing serious criminality it would probably get over the line.
You can work through examples but, real world, you have to show less intrusive wouldn't work and what it seeks to achieve justifies the intrusion.
If you think about it, nobody is criminal all the time. So way more than 10 percent of any intrusive techniques involve collateral intrusion and innocent people who get caught up in the collection. It's largely why the most intrusive stuff is confined to the most serious offences.
Would that be legal in the UK ? or is it already done here in fact ?.
If someones private conversations or comunications were read by the police and then discarded would they have a right to be offended or even in a position to take legal action against them ?
Obviously not if it's legal, but if it is, it's certainly news to me and not something I would be keen on them being able to do.
Find a target, work on them, spy on them in fact, but not on the rest of the populace," just in case ".
Brads67 said:
Graveworm said:
Collateral intrusion happens. It has to be addressed under proportionality,usually there is mitigation and greater good justification. It's not an automatic barrier to being properly authorised or the interference being unlawful.
The French police have said 10 percent were not criminal. If as soon as that was determined monitoring stopped of those people and only continued on the 90 percent who were committing serious criminality it would probably get over the line.
You can work through examples but, real world, you have to show less intrusive wouldn't work and what it seeks to achieve justifies the intrusion.
If you think about it, nobody is criminal all the time. So way more than 10 percent of any intrusive techniques involve collateral intrusion and innocent people who get caught up in the collection. It's largely why the most intrusive stuff is confined to the most serious offences.
That's the bit I couldn't get. The fact that blanket hacking is done to sift through it and hope to find criminality.The French police have said 10 percent were not criminal. If as soon as that was determined monitoring stopped of those people and only continued on the 90 percent who were committing serious criminality it would probably get over the line.
You can work through examples but, real world, you have to show less intrusive wouldn't work and what it seeks to achieve justifies the intrusion.
If you think about it, nobody is criminal all the time. So way more than 10 percent of any intrusive techniques involve collateral intrusion and innocent people who get caught up in the collection. It's largely why the most intrusive stuff is confined to the most serious offences.
Would that be legal in the UK ? or is it already done here in fact ?.
If someones private conversations or comunications were read by the police and then discarded would they have a right to be offended or even in a position to take legal action against them ?
Obviously not if it's legal, but if it is, it's certainly news to me and not something I would be keen on them being able to do.
Find a target, work on them, spy on them in fact, but not on the rest of the populace," just in case ".
As I said collateral intrusion happens, it involves innocent people or even non criminal activity by criminals. That is not the objective and is not "Just in case" It's lawful if it is properly authorised and that involves balancing exercises as to whether the benefits outweigh the downsides and is it kept to an absolute minimum.
Graveworm said:
Brads67 said:
Graveworm said:
Collateral intrusion happens. It has to be addressed under proportionality,usually there is mitigation and greater good justification. It's not an automatic barrier to being properly authorised or the interference being unlawful.
The French police have said 10 percent were not criminal. If as soon as that was determined monitoring stopped of those people and only continued on the 90 percent who were committing serious criminality it would probably get over the line.
You can work through examples but, real world, you have to show less intrusive wouldn't work and what it seeks to achieve justifies the intrusion.
If you think about it, nobody is criminal all the time. So way more than 10 percent of any intrusive techniques involve collateral intrusion and innocent people who get caught up in the collection. It's largely why the most intrusive stuff is confined to the most serious offences.
That's the bit I couldn't get. The fact that blanket hacking is done to sift through it and hope to find criminality.The French police have said 10 percent were not criminal. If as soon as that was determined monitoring stopped of those people and only continued on the 90 percent who were committing serious criminality it would probably get over the line.
You can work through examples but, real world, you have to show less intrusive wouldn't work and what it seeks to achieve justifies the intrusion.
If you think about it, nobody is criminal all the time. So way more than 10 percent of any intrusive techniques involve collateral intrusion and innocent people who get caught up in the collection. It's largely why the most intrusive stuff is confined to the most serious offences.
Would that be legal in the UK ? or is it already done here in fact ?.
If someones private conversations or comunications were read by the police and then discarded would they have a right to be offended or even in a position to take legal action against them ?
Obviously not if it's legal, but if it is, it's certainly news to me and not something I would be keen on them being able to do.
Find a target, work on them, spy on them in fact, but not on the rest of the populace," just in case ".
As I said collateral intrusion happens, it involves innocent people or even non criminal activity by criminals. That is not the objective and is not "Just in case" It's lawful if it is properly authorised and that involves balancing exercises as to whether the benefits outweigh the downsides and is it kept to an absolute minimum.
mr rusty said:
This is about the best report of what went down https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3aza95/how-poli...
Sounds like the Dutch mobile network they used allowed/had a warrant served on them, and this was key to the police cracking it. Along with any server hacks.Seems bizzare that a phone network for crims would have their operations in Western European, rather than Latin America/china/easter europe/russia or somewhere else.
Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 8th July 11:32
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff