33 year old murderer identified by personal electronic equipment

Angilion said:
Leaving behind or turning off your tracker smartphone has already been treated as evidence of guilt. It's not yet considered proof of guilt by itself, but it is considered evidence of guilt.
Click to expand...

All he had to do was leave his phone by the bed he was claiming to be tied to while running around the house, it's not rocket science.

It's more the guys ignorance/stupidity in not not understanding the extent to which smart watches and smart phones (and pretty much every 'smart' device) monitor people that he has been caught, rather than clever policing.
 
BowdonUK said:
I think there is a generational difference when it comes to being aware of the intrusion of technology.

Back in the day, early 90s, people were more aware of technology, especially Internet activity because it was all a new thing. But people born during that time and since then seem less aware. For them having technology in society is normal. So to be a young person today and be wary of technology I think would be a much rarer sight.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I think it's quite nuanced and when you say people were more 'aware' of technology I'm not so sure. In the 90s some people really had VERY little clue about emergent technology and still used it. Whereas youngsters today will have more knowledge/experience of tech, even if they are a bit blase about it.
I guess what I'm saying is that youngsters might be less wary of tech than previous generations, but they are probably better equipped to deal with it too. So it then becomes a question of whether it is safer to be ignorant and wary or knowledgeable and relaxed.
If I think back to my uni days, I did some damn stupid/naive things on the university lab computers repeated over many months [edit: to be clear, this was stuff like playing games and looking at NSFW images, not crimes against people]. Things that would undoubtedly get me fired in a work environment. I didn't have internet access before going to uni, so I was in the ignorant camp, and perhaps not that wary either, although I never got into any trouble.
BDEE said:
Would it have been less sad had she been less attractive? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don't think the poster was suggesting that, more that he was surprised that someone would kill their 'stunning' wife because they should have little to complain about. I'm not going to speculate on the motive but I suppose there is an argument that the more attractive a victim is, the more likely they would be to provoke jealousy (paranoia about other men etc).
 
mmj_uk said:
Criminals will soon wise up to it, immediately take any smart watches off your murdered victims and don't carry around any smart phones during the time you're claiming to be tied up.

Someone who was ignorant to how the technology worked and to the extent it was surveilling them is not worth surrendering your right to privacy over.
Click to expand...


I think the term is "forensically aware" for instance you have a motorcycle your insured that its got a chain lock when you park it.


If a their steals it they will also take the chain they broke to stop any forensics being done (even so much as just identifying the method).

Irritatingly your insurance may not pay out if they decide they want proof it was locked, and so want the remains of the lock
 
mmj_uk said:
Criminals will soon wise up to it, immediately take any smart watches off your murdered victims and don't carry around any smart phones during the time you're claiming to be tied up.

Someone who was ignorant to how the technology worked and to the extent it was surveilling them is not worth surrendering your right to privacy over.
Click to expand...
But in this case it was a health tracking app, that's why most people buy these products to track thier health.

There is no invasion of privacy here, ots no different to if they asked a taxi driver shed used "when did you last see her alive" and getting told a time that didn't match up with the killers story
 
Tefal said:
I think the term is "forensically aware" for instance you have a motorcycle your insured that its got a chain lock when you park it.


If a their steals it they will also take the chain they broke to stop any forensics being done (even so much as just identifying the method).

Irritatingly your insurance may not pay out if they decide they want proof it was locked, and so want the remains of the lock
Click to expand...
the chains still worth a lot of money? it's just missing some links?

I always just imagined it was angle grinders, grab the bike and go
 
HangTime said:
Maybe, but I think it's quite nuanced and when you say people were more 'aware' of technology I'm not so sure. In the 90s some people really had VERY little clue about emergent technology and still used it. Whereas youngsters today will have more knowledge/experience of tech, even if they are a bit blase about it.
I guess what I'm saying is that youngsters might be less wary of tech than previous generations, but they are probably better equipped to deal with it too. So it then becomes a question of whether it is safer to be ignorant and wary or knowledgeable and relaxed.
If I think back to my uni days, I did some damn stupid/naive things on the university lab computers repeated over many months [edit: to be clear, this was stuff like playing games and looking at NSFW images, not crimes against people]. Things that would undoubtedly get me fired in a work environment. I didn't have internet access before going to uni, so I was in the ignorant camp, and perhaps not that wary either, although I never got into any trouble.
Click to expand...

You're right that there were a lot of people who didn't know about computers back then. But they had an excuse that computing was still in the nerd-era. It was still considered a hobby. So the adults not initially in to computing were going from zero knowledge to learning fast. I'd say computers only entered mainstream when the younger generation appeared and they had grown up around the hobby of computing. I remember one of children of a friend playing Doom at the age of 3 years old.

But these days computing is mainstream, and there is no knowledge barrier to being involved. There are a lot of people who use a computer today who have no clue how one works, how its made, or any deeper knowledge than the program they are using. I remember chatting to this one girl online, a dating app, and she had no interest in computers, thought they were boring, yet here she was on a dating app. A lot of people are like that. They use computers like a tool. They have no full appreciation of how it works.

In the case of this thread is a perfect example. He had bought all these tracking devices yet didn't realise they were tracking both him and his wife. No appreciation of the technology. He probably only saw it as a tool to look at the heart rates and other health factors.
 
I would counter that by saying there is perhaps less need for people to understand how things work now, because they tend to be safer out of the box. Back in the day, many websites were unencrypted. Password policies were weak. Data protection laws (or at least the practical application of them by service providers) was very hit and miss. Mainstream operating systems and browsers were rife with potential exploits. Nowadays nearly all mainstream WiFi routers have encryption enabled by default but in the early days of WiFi loads of people had open networks. I get hardly any spam emails through these days, go back to the early 00s and I would get like 50+ spam emails a day.

The average tech user might be less nerdy/aware than they used to be, but I don't think they necessarily need to be because there is no longer such a reliance on the end user to implement protection. Yes there was the nerd barrier to entry to some extent, but god help the online people without those nerd skills because unlike today, they weren't being spoon fed solutions and could easily land themselves in hot water. There was more you had to know back then - you could make an argument that the average knowledge level was higher, but so was the average knowledge level required, which counter-balances it. If you measured the delta, i.e. "stuff you need to know, but the average person doesn't know it", I'm not so sure that the olden days were a haven of perfect knowledge.

In the corporate world, the amount of cyber security awareness training is off the charts compared to the olden days. To be honest during the whole of the noughties I could probably count the amount of cyber training courses/materials I had on the fingers of two if not one hands. Now to be fair that's probably because the cyber threat is higher than it was then (analogies to my counter-balancing argument above), but certainly in the places I've worked recently you'd have no excuse for being fully genned up on best end-user practice from a security standpoint.
 
arknor said:
the chains still worth a lot of money? it's just missing some links?

I always just imagined it was angle grinders, grab the bike and go
Click to expand...

Nah even if you have a disk lock which is trash after

A lot of it is but they take them as then they can't be tied to anything else.
 
HangTime said:
The average tech user might be less nerdy/aware than they used to be, but I don't think they necessarily need to be because there is no longer such a reliance on the end user to implement protection. Yes there was the nerd barrier to entry to some extent, but god help the online people without those nerd skills because unlike today, they weren't being spoon fed solutions and could easily land themselves in hot water. There was more you had to know back then - you could make an argument that the average knowledge level was higher, but so was the average knowledge level required, which counter-balances it. If you measured the delta, i.e. "stuff you need to know, but the average person doesn't know it", I'm not so sure that the olden days were a haven of perfect knowledge.
Click to expand...

I agree with the general theme of your post.

I think the difference is back then is the average person didn't rely technology as much as we do these days.

How many people today know what the Cloud is? Do they realise they are uploading data to a far off place on the Internet and there is security/privacy implications about that?

I'm sure it came as a massive shock to those women who got their photos leaked from the iCloud in "The Fappening".
 
I think modern tech makes detectives less reliant on gut instinct and honing their skills. Nowadays they simply look for phone records, CCTV and forensic results.
 
4k4uNuNu said:
That's what I don't understand, he's still in the prime of life. Let her go, build a good relationship with the family and start again, it's one of the perks of being male. Or at least an "alpha".

I guess that's why it's called a crime of passion and not a crime of rational thinking.
Click to expand...
The other perk of being male is that your former wife gets to take (up to) 1/2 of all your future income, pretty much for the rest of her or your life :p :p
 
FoxEye said:
The other perk of being male is that your former wife gets to take (up to) 1/2 of all your future income, pretty much for the rest of her or your life :p :p
Click to expand...

I don't want to get into gender politics but as a man you have to be aware of that if you're going to settle down. Women need that protection.

This guy was in his thirties, it probably wasn't his first rodeo.
 
Women have clamoured for equality on all levels with men, so why do they "need that protection", and why should they be offered it? It sounds like they are making a pursuit of INequality on a financial gain basis here, and the law is pandering to these imbalanced pursuits.
 
Last edited:
33d.gif
 
Chris Wilson said:
Women have clamoured for equality on all levels with men, so why do they "need that protection", and why should they be offered it? It sounds like they are basing their pursuit of equality on a financial gain basis here, and the law is pandering to their imbalanced pursuits.
Click to expand...
Does your post have anything at all to do with either murder or the identification of a murderer by interrogating electronic devices :confused:

No, of course it doesn't, it is just a moan about how unfair life is for you :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom