Yes - either just to see, or to see if they can find leverage on the phone, or just fishing for a reason to charge someone.
The extraction of a suspects mobile phone data
- Thread starter ethan
- Start date
Yes - either just to see, or to see if they can find leverage on the phone, or just fishing for a reason to charge someone.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
How so? Where does it say the circumstances under which they can access such data are changing?
On a potential big charge, sure - why not?
On a speeding rap or minor offence....get real.
Criminals will just encrypt their phones. Default feature in Android.
Blackberries also have fairly heavy security.
Also "sufficient suspicion" is the vaguest term possible. It just means whenever the police do use it, they don't need to explain it.
Stuff like this should require search warrants.
We need a proper bill of rights here in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Individual_rights
Blackberries also have fairly heavy security.
Also "sufficient suspicion" is the vaguest term possible. It just means whenever the police do use it, they don't need to explain it.
Stuff like this should require search warrants.
We need a proper bill of rights here in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Individual_rights
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,827
- Location
- Essex
Android phones can encrypt the whole shebang if i'm not mistaken?
Though there is a law that means you have to give over your keys.
I don't think it is particularly easy to get prosecuted for that as there are just too many defenses, you can't prove that they haven't forgotten the password and neither can you prove that you have a hidden partition.
It would be nice to see AES encryption built into the instruction set like Intel, or maybe even encryption on by default for all phones.
I'm walking home at midnight on a Saturday night. I've had a few drinks, I'm not sober, but I'm not drunk. The police pull up beside me and handcuff me and bundle me into the car. I ask them why, they won't tell me. I start demanding they tell me why and they won't tell me.
They take me down to the cells and start asking me questions which seem to indicate they think I've done something - looks like someone with my description did it.
I'm not in the least impressed with their attitude and I stop co-operating after I've answered the same questions three times. I tell them I want a solicitor, and I'm not saying anything else until they get me one. I would expect by this point, having had the police be rude with me, I'm going to be less than friendly with them. After all I've done nothing wrong.
From the police's point of view, I'm a criminal, they need to get me to admit to beating someone or whatever, and they're sure it's me. If they can just take my mobile phone and plug it into a device and see all my text messages and pictures etc - why on earth wouldn't they at this stage?
Has this actually happened to you?
It's a very nice story and all that but just how often does it happen to Mr Normal?
They can already sent it for examination if they suspect the phone has been used in a crime. I somehow doubt they'd suspect a phone was used in a common assault case, though.
You have no idea how good forensics teams are at proving these kinds of things.
Plausible deniability is VERY hard to do versus a good forensics team. There are SO many potential downfalls you almost need to be an expert yourself to avoid them.
Any links or explanation why?
Of course it's harder to do inside an Operating system but it's now possible at the OS level.
[TW]Fox;21945141 said:
Not as I told the story... however I've twice been manhandled and aggressively questioned by rude police.
In Spain the Civil Guard pointed guns at me and shouted at me to answer questions before leaving me alone. I've no idea why.
In the UK I've been stopped, shoved about, cuffed and shoved in the back of a police car where I was asked questions until they realised I wasn't who they were looking for. I was then uncuffed and released - not even an apology. They were aggressive, rude and acted like bullies.
I was certainly more powerless with the Guardia Civil because they were pointing weapons at me. However the UK police were far worse, I felt, as they quite literally didn't give the slightest **** how badly they were treating an entirely innocent random passer by.
[TW]Fox;21945088 said:
It doesn't really matter does it? They should still not keep the data of people who are released and not charged. In fairness though I'd always assumed data was kept only if charged which is the case with DNA. Within 12 months you can bet the trial data will justify the ends.
DNS, hardware wear leveling, external factors that weaken your encryption methods. Plenty of reading material available online about this kind of stuff.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
[TW]Fox;21944971 said:
Ease of access will have a massive effect on how much it is used. If they have to send it off you would expect them to only do it when it genuinely is suspected that incriminating evidence is on there.
Give them a machine where they can do it in 5 minutes and they'll do it all the time. And this doesn't help....
'Guideline' in police speak basically means they have advice but ultimately can do whatever they like.
Last edited:
I agree - but this already happens so is a seperate problem rather than about the subject of the article.
The only change is the method - not the end result or what happens with the data. Thats nothing new.
You sound like the type who gets pulled in because you have a problem with authority and rather answering a simple question there and then to absolve you of any problems you 'exercise your rights' to remain silent or otherwise.
You think the Police want to waste the time or fill in paperwork on random pulls in the street? Half a story being given by you I think.
My point is that, if someone is going to go to a forensic team then the threshold of suspicion is likely to be high. If it becomes a a low barrier tool, it will always be used as a matter of due process.
I wonder how many property searches would be carried out if a search warrant wasn't required for example. How many search warrants are denied? These decisions should not be left to police officers when it concerns human rights.
[TW]Fox;21945205 said:
The cost (effort required) has been lowered though. If the cost is high then it acts as a natural filter.
There is no evidence of this though. One is also assuming there will not be a vigorous, time consuming and paperwork filling process behind submitting a phone to such a machine, no matter how quick or easy the actual extraction is.
The entire story. I'm a respectable person in professional employment. I break no laws, I bother nobody. I'd help an old lady across the street. I don't get drunk, I've never been arrested, charged or created any kind of trouble for the police. My only involvement with the law is jury service.
I was simply minding my own business when harassed by the police.
I answered all the questions I was asked in both occasions, however I don't feel the need to bow and scrape to the police, especially as they were not in any way professional about how they dealt with me.
Hmm interesting one...
I keep a (secure) backup on my phone of the source code/data for some of the programs I'm developing which is technically my intellectual property which they would normally need a warrant to sieze (even if it is just copying it off) if it was kept on a server not sure how this would stand in this case.
I keep a (secure) backup on my phone of the source code/data for some of the programs I'm developing which is technically my intellectual property which they would normally need a warrant to sieze (even if it is just copying it off) if it was kept on a server not sure how this would stand in this case.