Read the forum code of contact
By: - 18th May 2012 at 06:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ironically, a young man has just had his murder conviction quashed, because his mobile phone records (which weren't accessed at the time) showed that he was nowhere near the location, so maybe it cuts both ways?
By: - 18th May 2012 at 06:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Edgar Brooks
Those were most likely records from the network provider showing which cell towers he was near, and his location determined either through triangulation of the towers or proximity to a single tower. A phone wouldn't keep such records. This idea is just ripping info off your phone, so your recently called numbers, all your text messages, photos, videos, audio/music files etc. I doubt any of that will help anyone to be found innocent. It might provide lots of easy convictions for having music that hasn't been paid for though!
By: - 18th May 2012 at 06:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ironically, a young man has just had his murder conviction quashed, because his mobile phone records (which weren't accessed at the time) showed that he was nowhere near the location, so maybe it cuts both ways?
My thoughts too. If it can save lives or protect the innocent, I don't see the problem.
By: - 18th May 2012 at 07:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've not seen any examples of how it can prove someone innocent. Relying on the police to prove you innocent is never a good start anyway. Besides, if your phone could prove you not guilty theres plenty of opportunity to get your legal representative to present the evidence in court. The police can already have phones searched, but the process is suited to single phones, not as a routine process in custody. This is about, basically, mass phone data collection of most arrested subjects, due to the police and government desire to poke their nose into every aspect of peoples lives and deny them any privacy! Not before long they'll be out on the streets with handheld readers for your phone too...
By: - 18th May 2012 at 09:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've not seen any examples of how it can prove someone innocent.
But if it can prove someone guilty what's the problem? My phone calls and texts would provide the Police with enough information to bore them to death rather than convict me of any wrong doing. If you've nothing to hide then what's the worry?
Regards,
kev35
By: - 18th May 2012 at 12:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly, and if someone is up to no good, and is stupid enough to use a phone registered to their name/adresss to aid them in their dark deeds, then I'm all for the Police being able to access their full records...
If they ever want to examine my phone records then all they'll find is the usual domestic and business chit chat. Oh no, they might also uncover a history of visits to dodgy websites full of graphic images ... of vintage aeroplanes.
Paul F
By: - 18th May 2012 at 12:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To all those who support this matter remember, this a further extension of State interferance. Yes, it is possible to muster an argument for and against but, the fact remains it is an unpleasant reminder od State snooping.
I've got nothing to hide but, still, I do not want State employees trawling through my personal details. Don't forget: if it can be abused; it will be.
Anyone who has their phone removed for examination, should begin an action in the Civil Courts quoting the relevant provision from the Human rights Act. That is what it is there for. To frustrate the overweening actions of the State.
John Green
By: - 18th May 2012 at 12:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whilst i can see where you are coming from KEV i disagree, it is slowly but surely erroding the rights of citizens that have done nothing wrong, as in the case of found not guilty of anything, but retaining your records, this was exactly the same as for the DNA samples they were taking, and the defunct ID card scheme...we will eventually end up with a State that controls your lives, you cannot walk around a city today without being monitored 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Next they will simply wish to access everyones mobile info at source, the same as they are trying to do with all internet emails etc.
The ID card scheme was flawed from the outset, the minute one had been forged the whole system became a place to hide, the Japanese had dismissed the system earlier because it wouldn't work, top that off with visitors to the UK, assylum seekers etc would not have an ID card sort of threw the prevention of terrorism argument out of the window, it was just big brother again in their relentless march towards an Orwellian State.
By: - 18th May 2012 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But if it can prove someone guilty what's the problem? My phone calls and texts would provide the Police with enough information to bore them to death rather than convict me of any wrong doing. If you've nothing to hide then what's the worry?Regards,
kev35
Who ever said there was a problem with the police gathering evidence to prove a specific offence? Not me! We're not talking about a new power or anything here. No, the issue here is sweeping of phones, fishing for evidence in a quite indiscriminate manner. The problem is that it is an invasion of privacy. The fact that they have been arrested does not mean that they should be subjected to such searches that they might not otherwise have been subject to, were the new method not so quick and easy to do. I doubt it will stop here either, expect handheld scanners to be implemented soon!
"If you've nothing to hide then what's the worry?"
Ahh that old classic line, but you are looking at it from the wrong way. The question should be "since you have nothing to hide, why should your phone be searched?". These principles are primarily there for innocent people, not for criminals. My phone does not need to contain something worth hiding in order for me to defend mine and others right to privacy, just as my defence of freedom of speech does not mean I have something controversial to say, nor does my defence of freedom of assembly mean that I wish to associate with those committing criminal offences.
It's also worth noting that having something to hide does not mean that the something is illegal. I am sure that you would object to a video of your every use of the toilet being available for viewing by other parties, and so in effect you are hiding your use of the toilet, yet we all know that you are not doing anything illegal by using the toilet.
By: - 18th May 2012 at 17:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've not seen any examples of how it can prove someone innocent. Relying on the police to prove you innocent is never a good start anyway.
I rather thought it was the role of the Police to deter crime and to actively seek out and convict those guilty of criminal offences? Therefore it is clearly NOT the role of the Police to prove innocence.
I personally don't understand why there is this outrage at these perceived invasions of privacy. Are we all naive enough not to believe that if we weren't being monitored overtly, then we are being monitored covertly? Tony T talks about being monitored while walking around a city. CCTV can be useful (and is) as a tool for the early detection and stopping of antisocial behaviour, it is also useful in the summoning of aid to individuals in distress and plays its part in criminal investigation. For me, I think it is somewhat comforting to know that CCTV monitors me whilst I am in an area in which I may be at risk of personal attack or injury.
By the way ppp, I love your crap analogy, but unfortunately that's all it is.
I would imagine that all of us, were we to be the victims of a crime, would implore the Police to employ all and every resource available to them in their endeavours to prosecute and convict those who had committed a crime against us. This is just another weapon in the armoury of the Police.
Regards,
kev35
By: - 18th May 2012 at 17:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My objection would be the safety of the information they retained. Knowing how blindingly stupid those in government data protection are I doubt it would stay 'private' for long.
I'm also of the opinion that 'If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' should be 'If you've nothing to hide, why do they want to look?'
As far as I remember as a private citizen I'm still innocent until proven guilty.
The other thing that I've never been able to quite understand is why do the goverment want all of this data? (I'm talking on a wider front now than mobile investigation). What do they do with it other than create jobs for more paper shufflers and empire creators...hang on I think I just answered my own question.
By: - 18th May 2012 at 18:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I rather thought it was the role of the Police to deter crime and to actively seek out and convict those guilty of criminal offences? Therefore it is clearly NOT the role of the Police to prove innocence.
I just said that, is there an echo in here? It also shows I was right to point out that there is no benefit for you, guilty or innocent, in the cops searching your phone.
I personally don't understand why there is this outrage at these perceived invasions of privacy.
That's because you don't care about your rights, some of us do care about ours.
By the way ppp, I love your crap analogy, but unfortunately that's all it is.
Calling someone's position "crap", so you're a real intellectual heavyweight then eh? You either believe in privacy, or you don't, and clearly you don't.
I would imagine that all of us, were we to be the victims of a crime, would implore the Police to employ all and every resource available to them in their endeavours to prosecute and convict those who had committed a crime against us. This is just another weapon in the armoury of the Police.
Every resource? How about beating confessions out of prisoners?
By: - 18th May 2012 at 18:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It makes no difference, I'm not naive enough to assume what we send over our phones and the Internet isn't monitored anyway.
Besides which, if you've got something to say that's so important that other people shouldn't be privy to it, surely it's important enough to merit a face to face conversation?
By: - 18th May 2012 at 18:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 11
Kev 35
To paraphrase your slogan, many of us would say that the modern police force is 'termnally useless'. They are useless because they are lazy. The one area in which they are not lazy is propagating their case. Since Theresa May got on their backs they have been assiduous in zealously promoting how wonderful they all are. It seems every Chief Constable from everywhere can't wait to get into print and on TV to tell us how blessed we are to enjoy their unceasing protection at so little cost to the taxpayer.
Well, some of us don't quite see it like that. We look at our country festooned with CCTV. We look at our policemen and women when they rarely put their boots on the streets and what do we see. Tiny, fat, scruffy women, larger equally fat, scruffy blokes. The ones that look half smart are usually to be found at airports, armed to the teeth and masquerading as Wyatt Earp in front of a not very adoring public.
My sight of a copper is usually restricted to those inside a rather new and expensive taxpayer funded BMW or Mercedes or Range Rover. So, despite CCTV, DNA and a licence to snoop into every mortal aspect of our lives how are we doing crime wise? We're doing ok. How do we know? Well the Chief Constable of Plod comes onto our screens to tell us that all kinds of crime show a statistical downwards trend. Of course it does. They prepared the stats!
The one really thriving area of police work that we all know about is connected with Mr. Orwell's thought crime. Oh, I almost forgot, and the dreaded hate crime shortly to be joined and re-inforced with a new crime: insult crime. This is where if you refer to someone as fat or homosexual or sun tanned, this can be construed as an insult, which will shortly be a criminal offence and upon conviction you get a spell in Dartmoor.
This diatribe mustn't forget to include the use of Police helicopters that have so dramatically increased the number of serious criminals caught after or during the commission of serious crimes. Come to think of it, this one police resource must be solely responsible for the amazing reduction in the number of street burglaries and car thefts, so much so, that it is now impossible to produce those scintillating and exciting police crime programs that used to be a feature of nightly television but now, because of the vast reductions in crime are no longer available. Happy days !
John Green
By: - 18th May 2012 at 18:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
j_jza80
It is private for the most part at the minute unless the police go to the significant effort of monitoring your specific phone over a period of time, but they'll need a warrant for that!
By: - 18th May 2012 at 18:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CCTV Kev is simply a cost cutting exercise not preventing any crime, if you got all the fat lazy police in this country out on the streets then that would prevent crimes happening, all a CCTV does is records the aftermath, a police presents would stop it happening in the first place.
By: - 18th May 2012 at 19:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Calling someone's position "crap", so you're a real intellectual heavyweight then eh? You either believe in privacy, or you don't, and clearly you don't.
The 'crap' refers to your analogy of being observed using the toilet. And as such it is a poor analogy.
However, have any of you actually taken the trouble to read the accompanying BBC article? It states.....
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.
"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.
"Therefore, a solution located within the boroughs that enables trained officers to examine devices and gives immediate access to the data in that handset is welcomed."
Therefore, if the data can be extracted at a Police Station immediately rather than the weeks it takes using current methods, it offers several benefits to the investigating officers, to the CPS, to the public at large and also potentially to the suspect themselves. Immediate examination of the data allows the investigation to proceed swiftly. The data found may be enough to ensure a criminal is remanded to prison rather than released on bail to disappear. Conversely, the data may actually clear the suspect of any criminality whatsoever. The benefits to the public at large are that a criminal could be placed immediately into custody depending on the strength of the evidence thereby removing the potential for reoffending whilst waiting for the data to be extracted the traditional way. The reverse is also true in that a suspect who is proven innocent by the data found on the mobile would be released rather than incarcerated for no reason at the taxpayer's expense. The benefits to the CPS are obvious.
Regards,
kev35
By: - 18th May 2012 at 19:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Kev
That proves for sure you didn't read my post above, as I have actually addressed this point already! The police assurances are worthless, they say it will be very limited scope to get the principle in place, then they drive the wedge home and expand it to the max.
Again you fail to give an example of how it will prove someone innocent, you just state it can.
By: - 18th May 2012 at 19:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kev, Thinking like a Criminal would, they would, if they have any sense, own 2 mobile phones, One to make ordinary "Normal" calls, and one for Criminal use, If they go out on a job, take both phones, if there is a likelyhood of being caught, bung the Crim phone and the Police will only then find the Goody phone on the Criminal.
Anyone want to buy a cheap throw away phone for a fiver, cheap as chips, honest Gov.:D
Jim
Lincoln .7
Posts: 1,320
By: ppp - 17th May 2012 at 23:39
More invasion into peoples privacy, same weak excuses, no surprises there then :cool:
Met Police to extract suspects' mobile phone data
The Metropolitan Police has implemented a system to extract mobile phone data from suspects held in custody.
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.
The technology is being used in 16 London boroughs, and could potentially be used by police across the UK.
Campaign group Privacy International described the move as a "possible breach of human rights law".
Until now, officers had to send mobiles off for forensic examination in order to gather and store data, a process which took several weeks.
Under the new system, content will be extracted using purpose built terminals in police stations.
It will allow officers to connect a suspect's mobile and produce a print out of data from the device, as well as saving digital records of the content.
---continues BBC---
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18102793
Oh, and it won't work on encrypted Blackberrys :)