The extraction of a suspects mobile phone data

ethan · 17 May 2012 at 21:12

Encrypt your phone data folks if you value your privacy.
Ruddy country. I couldn't even get to pay a reasonable price for a meal yesterday in case Coca Cola fined the premises for giving me a coffee as opposed to one of their fizzy drinks?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18102793 :mad:

[TW]Fox · 17 May 2012 at 21:14

How is it any different to the previous system whereby the phone was physically sent away? They still accessed the data, they just wasted time and money doing it.

ethan said:
I couldn't even get to pay a reasonable price for a meal yesterday in case Coca Cola fined the premises for giving me a coffee as opposed to one of their fizzy drinks?

What?

The Halk · 17 May 2012 at 21:14

Sigh, here come the "Well you must have something to hide" comments.

This is despicable.

StriderX · 17 May 2012 at 21:15

I am old school, i dont use a mobile.

Problem solved.

:-D

[TW]Fox · 17 May 2012 at 21:15

The Halk said:
This is despicable.

"When a suspect is arrested and found with a mobile phone that we suspect may have been used in crime, traditionally we submit it to our digital forensic laboratory for analysis.

How is it any different to that?

The Halk · 17 May 2012 at 21:16

The data includes call history, texts and contacts, and the BBC has learned that it will be retained regardless of whether any charges are brought.

[TW]Fox · 17 May 2012 at 21:17

I'm not sure how that quote answers my question.

Whats new about the end result? Seems to me the end result is the same as it ever was, only it's cheaper and more efficient now.

The Halk · 17 May 2012 at 21:18

It's quicker, and will be done far more often, and all of the data will be kept indefinitely.

[TW]Fox · 17 May 2012 at 21:19

The Halk said:
It's quicker,

I agree.

and will be done far more often,

Where does it say that or is this just assumption?

and all of the data will be kept indefinitely.

Was it not before, then?

If this is a new thing that they didn't do before, then I'm with you. But it seems to just be a more efficient way of doing something they've always done? The end result seems to be not a new thing at all?

Sin_Chase · 17 May 2012 at 21:19

How is it any different to ceasing anything else you have on your person also suspected of being used in the crime. It's just in a digital form, therefore police need new tech to keep up with the modernisation of crime and mobile phone use in them.

Protip - Do not get arrested on suspicion of committing a crime.

StriderX · 17 May 2012 at 21:20

Sin_Chase said:
How is it any different to ceasing anything else you have on your person also suspected of being used in the crime. It's just in a digital form, therefore police need new tech to keep up with the modernisation of crime and mobile phone use in them.

Protip - Do not get arrested on suspicion of committing a crime.

Protip - Encrypted and cheap throw away phones.

Sin_Chase · 17 May 2012 at 21:21

StriderX said:
Protip - Encrypted and cheap throw away phones.

I'm not a criminal so no need. Anyone who actually has an issue with this probably is, or is just another privacy nutcase. The latter of which probably use open wifi spots without any privacy protection and freely give their data away anyway.

Yet another screaming whinge about so called violations of privacy for the sake of it, Daily Mail types inbound!

ethan · 17 May 2012 at 21:22

Protip - Do not get arrested on suspicion of committing a crime.

Do you actually think that people get deliberately arrested as a suspect (including the innocent)?

I'm not a criminal so no need. Anyone who actually has an issue with this probably is, or is just another privacy nutcase

Shouldn't you be saying point of principle advocate (instead)?

The Halk · 17 May 2012 at 21:23

[TW]Fox;21944997 said:
I agree.

Where does it say that or is this just assumption?

Was it not before, then?

If this is a new thing that they didn't do before, then I'm with you. But it seems to just be a more efficient way of doing something they've always done? The end result seems to be not a new thing at all?

I would assume if they have devices to do it without sending it to a forensics lab then it will be done more often - is that not reasonable?

I'm not sure if they kept the data before if they did then that's unacceptable too. However I think I'm being reasonable in expecting this to mean a dramatic increase in the police taking note of all texts, pics etc in someone's phone.

[TW]Fox · 17 May 2012 at 21:25

The Halk said:
I would assume if they have devices to do it without sending it to a forensics lab then it will be done more often - is that not reasonable?

I'm not sure it is - they need specific grounds to do so, these grounds won't become more common will they? It's not is if they can download everyones phone as a matter of course even if you've just been brought in for drink driving or something.

Either way that isn't stated in the article so is therefore assumption.

I read it as being a more efficient way of doing something they already do, with a heap of media spin to make the story sound more interest and outrageous. I'm not sure how anyone can object to phone data being checked where there is a credible and genuine suspicion that said data is an important peice of the puzzle in a crime.

We whinge and moan about the police not solving crimes, after all!

Sin_Chase · 17 May 2012 at 21:25

ethan said:
Do you actually think that people get deliberately arrested as a suspect (including the innocent)?

Shouldn't you be saying point of principle advocate (instead)?

They are not usually suspected for no reason. If the Police end up having probable cause there is not much they cannot get so is your SMS and call history really that big of a deal?

This all boils down to media spin and people crying "OMG WTF police going to be looking at my pics and reading my sext messages for no reason at all!!!"

You really think they will waste effort and time utilising trained resources to look at your phone data on a jolly?

Tyron · 17 May 2012 at 21:27

I think the point being made here is that they keep the data even if the suspect is innocent, which shouldnt be the case.

The Halk · 17 May 2012 at 21:28

[TW]Fox;21945039 said:
I'm not sure it is - they need specific grounds to do so, these grounds won't become more common will they? It's not is if they can download everyones phone as a matter of course even if you've just been brought in for drink driving or something.

Either way that isn't stated in the article so is therefore assumption.

I read it as being a more efficient way of doing something they already do, with a heap of media spin to make the story sound more interest and outrageous.

It's of course an assumption. It is stated in the article that the process takes several weeks.

Guidelines given to officers state that data extraction can happen only if there is sufficient suspicion the mobile phone was used for criminal activity.

"Mobile phones and other devices are increasingly being used in all levels of criminal activity," said Stephen Kavanagh, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service.

It seems pretty trivial to justify suspecting someone's phone has been used in a crime. Why wouldn't the police take a look, if there wasn't going to be a time delay?

RomanNose · 17 May 2012 at 21:29

It would be bad if it was used on anyone but it's going to be unlikely.
I am always going to practice my right to use encryption, just because I don't want a thief to access my data.

Tyron said:
I think the point being made here is that they keep the data even if the suspect is innocent, which shouldnt be the case.

I agree.

I mean you don't have to be a genius to work out that criminals will just use encryption. I do wonder what will happen if a truecrypt double layer case goes to court though.

ethan · 17 May 2012 at 21:29

People can and do get arrested for many unreasonable things and circumstances which led to them being arrested for no reason.

If the Police end up having probable cause there is not much they cannot get so is your SMS and call history really that big if a deal?

yes so now they will be having it for improbable cause as well (which is the real point of this thread).

I am always going to practice my right to use encryption, just because I don't want a thief to access my data

Fair point: even for thieves it seems.