Canadian police have apparently used BlackBerry communications to arrest murder suspect Raynald Desjardins in a move seen as an unprecedented use of intercepted data. However, it is unclear whether or not the data was really intercepted or whether it was provided to cops via wiretap warrants. The cuffed bloke has been charged …
Any means possible to send criminals to prison works for me.
Wrong end of the stick?
Somehow I'm confused (not that surprising I guess...) You're saying that law enforcement may have the BBM key, likely extracted from a handset they bought, and could use that to gather evidence?
If that's the case then generally that won't get you far. You can't enter any evidence you want into court (the testamony of someone you "cajoled" with a soldering iron for example). It has to be sourced legally. Hacking like this may be considered illegal and so the evidence obtained as a direct result couldn't be used in court, but it could be used to give you an idea of where/how to obtain other evidence you can then use in court.
That's why we have wire-tapping warrants - to provide oversight.
Whether or not the police have the BBM decrypt key is therefore pretty moot. They either need a warrant, or other evidence. If you're the kind of guy to talk on BBM about serious crimes you committed chances are you messed up somewhere else too.
In Canada its less clear. Evidence obtained against Charter rights is allowed unless "admission of that evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute"
hacking != illegal
You can't use evidence obtained illegally
But there is nothing illegal about law enforcement cracking encryption
It would be illegal for me to walk into a telco and attach a recorder to a phone line - that doesn't mean it's illegal for the police to do it.
But since the messages were just public BBM then it's pretty much like taking out an ad in the Police Gazette and publishing your messages there.
Tip for any would be assassins.
Don't use yer mobile phone to plan any murders - DOH !!!
Should be an easy verdict for the jury
The prosecutor in the case [said] he would "advocate for preventing the disclosure of wiretap warrants" and refuse questions from defence attorneys on the subject.
Unless I read this wrong, this means that during the trial, the jurors won't know where the evidence came from, whether it was obtained lawfully or whether it was cooked up by a PFY in the forensics lab told to produce something so they get to keep their job and family fed.
We the people need to start standing up to the courts and legal system since it's becoming blindingly obvious that the principles of law seem to no longer apply to certain individuals or interest groups. That super-injunction is even a term is chilling, now a prosecuting attorney plans to "refuse questions from defence attorneys" pertaining to how/when/where evidence that apparently forms a large part of the prosecutions case comes from?
I completely understand that some information relating to *active* investigations needs to be hush-hush. Once it's reached prosecution though, there should - no - there NEEDS to be complete transparency as to every pertinent aspect of the case. This continued slide towards obfuscation of information from the public from judicial and government officials must stop.
If I was on the jury and the prosecution acted like this, to me it's a simple Not Guilty, unless the suspect walks in covered in the victims blood and carrying a severed head in an M&S bag. If they can't tell me where evidence comes from and how it was legally obtained, that must surely introduce reasonable doubt.
They need to be reminded that "they" work for "us".
"Intercept" is a verb.
"Interception" is a noun.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...