The extraction of a suspects mobile phone data

With all due respect to RDM he was just taking for granted that what had been said on here by police officers was correct. He's usually urbane on here in arguments, so I wouldn't say it's fair to lump him in with Sin_Chase.
 
[TW]Fox;21945503 said:
Then there must be steps to ensure it doesn't become a routine thing. 'Check phone' must not become de-riguer for any suspect of any crime.
Click to expand...

Agreed but according to the report they police will be given "guidelines" to follow. This is dangerous because ultimately all a guideline becomes is advise that they can choose to follow or not.

If you ever get a few hours to spare, read the current ACPO guidelines then drive around for a bit and you'll see how much they follow them. I know because I was caught speeding once by officers breaking every rule in the book.

Here's one for you, according to ACPO guidelines, officers carrying out speed gun routines must stand in clear view so you can see them ahead. The reasoning behind this is so you don't confuse them with someone pointing a gun at you. But of course if they did this they'd catch few people so they hide behind walls and around bushes mostly.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Just because a news article does not report on the less sensational facts of the process (such as sign off from a superior officer and strict control) does not instantly mean that will not be the case.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad point, however I think it would be seriously bad reporting from the BBC if they were to allow the article to mislead people into thinking that no sign off was required, when in fact it was.

I'm assuming the BBC aren't making a significant journalistic failure here. They state what requirements are needed for an officer to get a phone read. If it was also a requirement for a senior officer to sign it off then I'm sure they would have said.
 
The Halk said:
With all due respect to RDM he was just taking for granted that what had been said on here by police officers was correct. He's usually urbane on here in arguments, so I wouldn't say it's fair to lump him in with Sin_Chase.
Click to expand...

Yup, of course. How could I be so blind to this concrete evidence (opinion) that this will be abused by everyone, everywhere for any suspected crime or charge.

The entire police force are quota driven, have time to burn downloading data from every persons phone, can afford the storage and tech to do so and we are all screwed.

I am glad we are now all illuminated to this heinous injustice.

In short, why are you not prepared to take on an alternate opinion on this story or is it just for everyone to agree wholeheartedly with the OP? Along with the entire review of the Police force right now do you really think widespread investment in such tech to all forces will occur?
 
Last edited:
Sin_Chase said:
Apparently admitting you have performance indicators is admitting you set policing quotas for officers :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, ordinarily a KPI doesnt necessarily indicate a quote. However if you look at the actual categories of these KPIs then in some places the only way to increase the indicated performance is to increase activity. OK so this is not strictly the same as a quota but if you need to do better than last year you need to do more, which infers a target amount.

http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committees/sop/100916-07-appendix02.pdf
 
Craterloads said:
RDM & Sin_Chase

RDM has unsuprisingly dissapeared since evidence has been supplied.
Click to expand...

RDM was playing Diablo 3 and judged that more important than an internet argument....

That said all I was saying is that police officers have stated they don't have quotas and I had no real reason to disbelieve them. It seems that some forces have KPIs and it is possible that they could be interpreted or used as quotas. Looks like I was wrong.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Yup, of course. How could I be so blind to this concrete evidence (opinion) that this will be abused by everyone, everywhere for any suspected crime or charge.

The entire police force are quota driven, have time to burn downloading data from every persons phone, can afford the storage and tech to do so and we are all screwed.

I am glad we are now all illuminated to this heinous injustice.

In short, why are you not prepared to take on an alternate opinion on this story or is it just for everyone to agree wholeheartedly with the OP? Along with the entire review of the Police force right now do you really think widespread investment in such tech to all forces will occur?
Click to expand...

Are you one of those people that takes someone's argument then takes it to the absolute extreme to make them look as if they are being unreasonable?
 
If the policing plan dictates and promises a reduction in X then of course you need to apply more focus and strategy to problem X.

This is an entirely different thing to "Arrest Y number of X offenders or you loose your job"
 
[TW]Fox;21944989 said:
only it's cheaper and more efficient now.
Click to expand...

which means it'll be done with EVERY mobile phone rather than only ones they have good reason to do it too.
 
estebanrey said:
Are you one of those people that takes someone's argument then takes it to the absolute extreme to make them look as if they are being unreasonable?
Click to expand...

I think jumping to the conclusion this is going to be abused on a widespread scale is a little unreasonable, yes.

Until there is evidence or case examples to draw on it seems a little extremist to be concerned to such a level about something that seemingly is more of a pilot than a national roll out.

If a very large percentage of London crimes are being observed that have used a mobile phone then is it not conceivable that this is an operational change to help justice prevail without time consuming costly forensics processes that are currently the norm?

Okay, a few innocents might get caught in the system but is this not already the case with any other procedure?
 
Last edited:
Sin_Chase said:
I'm not a criminal so no need. Anyone who actually has an issue with this probably is, or is just another privacy nutcase. !
Click to expand...

yeah that or they might have pictures of their gf on their phone they wont appreciate being copied and shown around the police station.
 
Sin_Chase said:
I think jumping to the conclusion this is going to be abused on a widespread scale is a little unreasonable, yes.

Until there is evidence or case examples to draw on it seems a little extremist to be concerned to such a level about something that seemingly is more of a pilot that a national roll out.
Click to expand...

Anti-terror stop and search has been widely abused....
 
I think jumping to the conclusion this is going to be abused on a widespread scale is a little unreasonable, yes.
Click to expand...
It's the potential for the abuse that seems reasonable given human nature.
 
malfunkshun said:
No, ordinarily a KPI doesnt necessarily indicate a quote. However if you look at the actual categories of these KPIs then in some places the only way to increase the indicated performance is to increase activity. OK so this is not strictly the same as a quota but if you need to do better than last year you need to do more, which infers a target amount.

http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committees/sop/100916-07-appendix02.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm not sure quotas is the right word, 'targets' is probably more accurate.

It won't be on iPlayer now but as I mentioned earlier there was one of those Police fly-on-car-window programmes on BBC a while ago where the police men were specifically told they had to catch X number of people using there mobile phones in a month. I remember it because they (the coppers on the show) spent about 10 minutes justifying these 'targets'.
 
Tefal said:
yeah that or they might have pictures of their gf on their phone they wont appreciate being copied and shown around the police station.
Click to expand...

Any more or less than someone nicking your phone and getting them for uploading to internet?

If it was a concern then you would have already protected them with encryption or otherwise?
 
Part of the issue is, in my opinion, that large parts of the KPIs are survey based and as such the responses are subjective. As an example, I wouldnt call half a dozen students making a noise on their way home from the pub as anti-social. I would, however, say that they were anti-social if they were throwing things at vehicles, properties etc. My neighbour may well say that both are anti-social. So should my neighbour complain then instead of getting told to shut up and go home they may get processed and recorded against the relevant KPI, easy score.
I know this does happen, where I am anyway, because my house is between the town centre and the major student housing areas so I see it more often than I would like. A problem made worse by the fact that the police station is directly opposite my house so I know they arent just sent on their way.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Any more or less than someone nicking your phone and getting them for uploading to internet?
Click to expand...

yeah they don't have a way round the password.

and i like to hold the police to a slightly higher standard than common thieves don't you?


If it was a concern then you would have already protected them with encryption or otherwise?
Click to expand...

like a password?

and the option to remotely shut the phone down through the provider?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom