It's not looking good...
And we soon might have Theresa May (note the "h") as our Prime Minister.
Lauri Love was arrested on suspicion of offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 early in the evening of 25 October 2013, when a National Crime Agency officer wearing dungarees and posing as a UPS courier told Love's mother that Lauri himself had to come to the porch to collect his delivery. In his dressing gown and pyjamas …
'..Storing back-ups off-site would not render them protected.'
Of course, your definition of an off-site backup location might not match that of someone with something to hide. Consider the size of your average xTB drive, now, consider your surrounding geographical area for 'stash' locations..
Now, for added fun, consider that a 128GB micro SD card can be had for around 30 quid..and it's bloody well hard enough finding the ones you know you've got somewhere in the house (sharing a house with someone totally OCD on 'tidiness' doesn't help..can't leave anything down for more than 20 minutes before it's tidied away..)
I don't envy the police their task sometimes..
So true. My property was supposedly returned to me, although on the date of rerun I was in prison 600 miles away. Two lawsuits and three years later, I received a check for $158, despite losing tens of thousands of VAX gear.
What kills me about this thread is that most of the posters here complaining about the police becoming our masters are the same people who loudly denounce the U.S. because the citizenry is armed. THIS is why we are armed, people. We would like the police to respect us just a little. That won't happen when they are armed while we are disarmed and dependent on them for even the most minimal protection from evildoers (who will remain armed too).
It's a good theory, but in practice when the citizenry start using their weapons they usually find that the police have bigger, better weapons and a lot more of them - I can't remember one case where the armed citizenry has emerged anything except full of holes.
"In theory there's no difference between Theory and Practice, In Target Practice there is."
"....I was in prison 600 miles away...." Gosh, you mean they locked you up for delivering Christmas gifts to the children at the orphanage? Or could it be because you were convicted of a crime in a court of law? And it would seem a serious crime if you got porridge rather than a suspended sentence, or was it not your first offence? Yes, I find you such a reliable and trustworthy source for opinion on the MO of the coppers - not!
".....received a check for $158, despite losing tens of thousands of VAX gear." LOL! Unless this happened in the '80s I suspect you were overcompensated!
@macjules - you assume the computers are not laptops, or that he had no battery backup system (fairly inexpensive devices) attached to a desktop style computer.
such an assumption can not be made where a supposed encryption event could occur.
As to the "press of a button" those replying did click a button to do so, and was that some herculean feat to undertake?
*AND* macjules, had the system been a desktop, and had whole disk encryption been employed, simply cutting power means the system boots up, and asks for the password to decrypt the OS or other apps within the system which would cause a failure to boot otherwise.
wouldn't work for reasons already mentioned...
They have special means of keeping computers powered up while transporting them to their lair... they even have boxes called mouse jigglers to prevent screensavers kicking and then requiring a password.
If you're running an encrypted Linux file system then you need the key when booting the computers. Whilst they're up they are no encrypted. Cut the power and they're encrypted. However he would have a UPS.
How would one prove they do not in fact have these so called social media accounts? I don't have FB or Twatter, or LI or... or... but I do have an El Reg login.
Will it become a law that you are required to have such frippery?
Tramp because he probably doesn't have social frippery logins either
I still don't get how the burden of proof that you forgot something lies with you. In essence, you're supposed to prove that you do NOT remember something, which is impossible (how can you prove God does _not_ exist?). You can only prove that you DO remember (by providing the keys).
I think it's based on the perceived implausibility that someone would take steps to secure something and then forget how to get to it when they wanted.
Unlike key to a shed though, it's difficult to sort through ones thoughts and metaphorically find it at the back of the drawer.
Forget the password?
Maybe after 98 days of not using it most people would forget.
I have two main passwords to remember, the rest are in a manager or written down. I'd likely forget them a lot quicker than 3 months if I wasn't using both every day.
Personally I have encrypted stuff, only to forget the keys and after much cursing etc have to reformat losing the info - fortuneately I did have back ups well off site but not quite as upto date as I would have wanted
Mines the one with the little black book of passwords etc in the pocket
Context matters with memory. I had an instance inside a bank where I needed my banking PIN, but could not remember it.
I stepped outside to the ATM and it the memory came bank instantly.
If Lauri has the same thing he might need to sit in front of his computer to remember the code
That context isn't a 'Thing' you have it's actually a documented phenomenon with human recall. It's not called 'changing context', IIRC but it's essentially the same meaning, like moving from the living room to the kitchen to subsequently forget what you went for, only to remember immediately once you returned to the living room 'context'.
Something to do with hunter-gathering I seem (see what I did there) to remember ;o)
Really. Expecting highly trained and experienced "cyber investigators" and their superiors to know about, let alone understand, a concept like context memory is too much. Not now that the idiocracy has taken hold.
Back when I was a young public defender (before discovering that IT paid better and was a lot more fun), I had a case that turned on the time witnesses said they saw my client. Instead of asking them what time it was, I asked what was on TV. Armed with their answers, I entered a copy of the local paper into evidence,and showed the court its TV schedule: demonstrating that all of the witnesses had consistently testified they'd seen my client during a period that his boss and fellow employees said he was still at work (over an hour before the time noted in all the police reports). The case was a bit odd because my client's entire family were notorious troublemakers in the neighborhood with criminal records, and the crime he and his brother were accused of was burning down their own house. My theory even all these decades later is that some of the neighbors set fire to the house and then pointed the police towards "the usual suspects".
Does anyone else around here suffer from PIN Anxiety - the fear of forgetting your PIN such that when you come to type it in you are sure you've forgotten it, the car reader will reject your PIN and much embarrassment will be caused all round?
Just me then? Number of times that happens to me and it's some form of muscle memory that picks the right PIN and bails me out.
He offered to do just that BUT was not allowed to have his computers back to aid his memory.
As stated there was no risk as the Disks could have been 'imaged' to allow for any risk of deletion of data.
If you are accusing someone of not giving Keys/Passwords to prove guilt of un-named/proved crimes, it helps if they do not remember them. :)
"I think it's based on the perceived implausibility that someone would take steps to secure something and then forget how to get to it when they wanted."
Perceived being the operative word. I dont like to use the same password for things, I also like to use complex passwords for things that I dont want people to guess.
I have often forgotten 17 character passwords or forgotton which characters I uppercased and which were replaced by special characters.
>>"I think it's based on the perceived implausibility that someone would take steps to secure something and then forget how to get to it when they wanted"
I've got a dozen old GPG keys, encrypted partitions and what-have-you that I can't remember the passwords for or that I've lost the key for. I could pull any old hard drive out of my filing cabinet and odds are there's something on there I can't access.
This is an unjust law that runs against the principles of innocent until proven guilty and of no self-incrimination.
It's entirely plausible that a long, complex passphrase could be forgotten, in whole or in part, in the months after equipment was seized, but before the key was demanded.
Especially given the stress levels Love would have experienced.
Human memory is unreliable at the best of times.
This is an extremely dangerous law that violates the right to silence and is ripe for extreme, unprovable abuse. All the police have to do is say that they believe you have the password and you are guilty if you do not hand it over. There is no defense beyond proving a negative. Of course if the first time you saw the USB stick was when an officer dropped it into an evidence bag, how are you going to prove that?
Obviously proving that you've forgotten passwords is difficult...
My run-in with Plod was made all the funnier because they'd never seen Linux before and made the assumption that I "must be hiding something" because I wasn't using Windoze or Apple. I steadfastly refused to provide passwords and pointed out that if their "computer specialists" were any good, they'd be in the machines in minutes.
When it got to Court, I demonstrated that the reason I used "something else" was to prevent any unauthorised access to my copyrighted work on my machines. I also demonstrated that breaking into a Windoze machine was trivially easy - which is why I won't use it.....
They were unable to gain access to my machines (except to a "Guest" account) and I refused to let them in. The Judge asked if there was anything that I didn't want revealed on my machines. I explained that there were details of my Bank Accounts, a lot of my work, and various private emails. The Judge asked if he could be allowed to have a private look at the contents - I acceded, on the understanding that it was restricted to him, in private. He had a quick look, concluded that there was nothing actionable on the machines and dismissed the case.
I received a settlement for unlawful detention and for the unlawful seizure of my gear - I don't need to work for a couple of years!
You're thinking of several years ago when we had something called "The rule of law". This was designed to prevent citizens being oppressed by the government, so of course it had to go.
Innocent until proven guilty, open trials, being allowed to see the evidence against you and confront your accuser, having to have actually broken a law rather than just annoyed the government, all that has been chucked in the rubbish.
And it's quite easy to forget passwords if you don't use them often. I had an email account with Bluebottle.com (sadly now defunct). I normally read email in Thunderbird and had forgotten the password. I wanted to log in to the web interface just before Bluebottle went away and check a non-inbox folder. I couldn't remember the password, no matter how hard I tried.
I did find it, although it shouldn't have worked. I admit that when I set the account up years ago, I set it up with plain text password transmittal [hanging head in shame]. I did finally remember that bit, so I used Wireshark and sniffed the password. Problem solved.
But, based on my own experience, I agree that if the plod seize computers and hold them for months during which the owner doesn't USE any of the passwords, it's not only reasonable, but LIKELY that the owner will forget the passwords.
Paris because my memory for passwords is about that good.
I am totally paranoid about security on the internet and never reuse a password.
I also use long and complicated passwords.
As an exercise I have just checked how many passwords I have.
It totals approx 200.
I only remember them due to regular use and context.
I could very easily forget passwords and have in the past when some have not been used for 3 months or more.
The ease of being 'Guilty' of not giving keys to some authority makes this a very convenient law to ensure some guilt can be found when needed.
It would be more likely to happen after being arrested or detained and the various stresses and strains of the whole experience.
[Not being a visitor to such environs in my everyday life, I can only guess at the experience :) ]
"..... you're supposed to prove that you do NOT remember something, which is impossible...." Yeah, LOL, those whacky coppers, eh? Expecting criminals to remember the passwords they encrypted their most important information with! Next you'll be saying it's unfair to prosecute rapists if they claim they don't remember raping the victim, despite forensic evidence to the contrary.
Love was caught and he's now wheeling out a big sob story, accompanied by the usual "Assbergers made me do it" schpiel, to avoid facing trial in the States where the sentence is likely to be high, because he would rather get the slap on the wrist the UK courts give out. That is why the NCA chose not to prosecute when he didn't supply his encryption keys, because to do so would hold up his extradition, and they would rather send him off to the States.
The fun bit is, should Love manage to avoid extradition, then I expect the refusal to decrypt will be brought out again. If the decryption provides new evidence then a new extradition case can be raised, and if he doesn't then he can go to jail here in the UK, rinse and repeat. Hopefully the scroat will be kept clear of anything more technical than a toaster for the rest of his days.
"....When the police tell you to decrypt that or else, what are you going to do?" Your little fantasy misses the reality that the coppers are not going to ask me to decrypt anything because (a) I don't use the email address firstname.lastname@example.org, so there will nothing to link me to it, and (b) as they have no grounds to suspect me of any crime, despite your fervent wishes, so they will not be searching my kit and finding any amateurish commands like that buried on it. It's called "law-abiding" - get an adult to help you look it up.
You could be framed by someone sending you encrypted emails. It would require a bit more sophistication than that but it could be part of a bigger scam. It's not only the guilty who are charged with crimes, sometimes the innocent are too. They would be silly to convict you of not decrypting an email, which you would be guilty of when they really wanted to get you for the real crime they suspect you of. However if that's their only way of putting you away then you would rightfully go to gaol since you would not be "law abiding" having broken the law that says you have to decrypt the email. Happy about that?
"You could be framed by someone sending you encrypted emails...." Bit of a stretch. Ignoring the fact you would need my email address first, let's say someone sends me an encrypted email that manages to get past my spam filters. There are two things that need to happen for your scheme to succeed and for myself to be charged by the coppers - firstly, I have to read the email and leave evidence I did so; secondly, the coppers have to be pointed in my direction.
In your scenario, the first thing that happens is I see an email from an unknown and probably unverifiable source - instant deletion, unread. Email server records that I deleted the email without having read the contents. At which point the coppers can only say I received an email, I can prove I never read nor stored its contents. There are no traces of any further communication between myself and the source of the encrypted email. Further investigation will show no social links between yourself and I, so there is no grounds for continued investigation, and I walk.
Now consider how are you going to send the coppers my way? Well, the best way to do that would be to commit a crime, make sure that crime comes to the attention of the authorities, and somehow link it to the email address or system you sent the encrypted email from. At this point, you are already linked to the crime, not me, so if I can show I have not read nor stored the encrypted message the spotlight is back on you! Better be careful how you play that game, the prisons are full of hackers that thought they'd never get caught.
"Expecting criminals to remember the passwords they encrypted their most important information with!"
Nope, but I get the confusion. That's what the law is like on Matt Bryant World. On Earth, what that law means is that everybody is required to remember the passwords to everything they encrypt, no matter how irrelevant, forever. Wanted to hide some pr0n from mum back when streaming wasn't a thing? Hope you remember the password to that dust-covered drive in the back of the closet, or you're screwed. Wanted to test an encryption tool, so encrypted some random crap with a random password and then forgot about it? You're screwed. Used to keep an encrypted text file with all your passwords, then switched to using a password manager, but didn't delete the file in case the password manager malfunctioned? Hope you remember the key to that file, or you're screwed. Deleted that file, but it's still recoverable with forensic tools? Guess what, you're screwed.
This without going into the many and varied conditions under which you're screwed even though it's not even your data, you've never known the password at all, or it's just something that looks like encryption, but there's actually no data at all.
"..... Wanted to hide some pr0n from mum back when streaming wasn't a thing? Hope you remember the password to that dust-covered drive in the back of the closet, or you're screwed. Wanted to test an encryption tool, so encrypted some random crap with a random password and then forgot about it? You're screwed....." Wow, scaremonger more, could you? First there has to be a reason the Police would have any suspicions that you are hiding evidence of criminal activity, they don't just going knocking on your door at random. So, yes, if you are a scumbag involved in illegal activities, and you have some old encrypted junk, then you might be screwed if you come to the Police's attention and they decide to search your property and find it.
Having said that, since a large element of the regular posters on these forums seem the uninformed wannabe-gansta types, it would probably not be surprising that (a) they might have some illegal material lying about, downloaded "for the lulz", which they have probably also bragged about to their wannabe-gangsta online "friends", and (b) they would be dumb and disorganized enough to leave encrypted junk lying around rather than clearing out old rubbish/data or keeping it safely hidden like a real pro hacker, so all that leaves is the actual interest from the Police. But then, seeing as the majority seem to be just windbags, interest from the Police is unlikely, which should leave them safe (except for their egos).
"That is why the NCA chose not to prosecute when he didn't supply his encryption keys, because to do so would hold up his extradition, and they would rather send him off to the States."
The NCA have a duty of care towards UK citizens regardless of their feelings and the orders given to them from across the pond or what the accused has done. If the NCA were to behave in a lawful manner they would be doing everything they could to ensure Love was rehabilitated and returned to society rather than sucking up to their buddies across the pond.
".... If the NCA were to behave in a lawful manner they would be doing everything they could to ensure Love was rehabilitated and returned to society...." The NCA do not have that directive at all, it is simply their job to gather evidence to arrest criminals in line with English law. It is up to the politicians and the Crown Prosecution Service as to who gets prosecuted in a court of law, and then the judge gets to decide the sentence. Rehabilitation can only come after sentencing, something Love's parents should have known seeing as they both work in a prison. Of course, you could also say they don't seem to have done much whilst Love spent how many years hacking away from their basement?
I suppose there is one way to address a bogus "I forgot."
Presumably if one has indeed forgotten the keys, then the data on the device(s) in question is unusable to anyone, so it should be OK for the devices to be wiped. If there is a prospect the subject may have a later flash of inspiration, perhaps then the devices are held-onto until the statute of limitations has passed and only wiped then.
The relevant bit of badly written legal jargon is Section 53, para 2 of RIPA (2000):
"In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it."
Which appears to mean that forgetting a key is not a valid defence when charged with failing to supply it.
Para 3 then confirms that anyone trying to use the "Sorry, I can't remember" defence has to produce some (actually "sufficient") evidence to back this up.
"For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if—
(a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
What would count as "sufficient" evidence is a moot point. Would:
"I cannot remember what I had for I had for breakfast yesterday - how do expect me to remember a sequence of 30 random letters and digits that I haven't used in the last three months?" be adequate?
But sub para (b) is similarly badly written - "The prosecution will show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant can remember his password."
"....the police don't want this tested in court...." WTF "tested in court"??? Wishful thinking! Under RIPA Section 53, the Police get a court order saying you have to supply the keys or you get a maximum two-year sentence. It's already been used against animal rights activists and thoroughly "tested", as reported here on the Reg - short memory or just a selective one?
@anon_coward - you could lay ground work proving you have a memory issue.
show a note book or pieces of paper that you would commonly write things on, to show you are forgetful. You could have witnesses that would testify that you were always forgetting something, walking back into a room, forgetful of what you needed or why you stopped in .. etc. etc.. etc.
Its doesn't mean he couldn't be of perfect faculty, and have forgotten though. Just that under the circumstances, it would seem either odd. The amount of his cooperation might also go a long way in helping to realize if he was more or less genuine in his forgetfulness.
This is very confusing. The NCA hat enough material to get a warrant, but not enough to formulate what to charge Love with?
Another thing that is puzzling me: "... three unidentified co-conspirators – two listed as residing near Australia and one near Sweden ..". Well, what is it? Norway? Finland? Or respectively, New Zealand? Papua New Guinea? Antarctica?
IIRC the arrest of someone "on suspicion" is enough to authorise a search of their property and removal of digital devices.
If there is no specific evidence already available then "suspicion of conspiracy to...." is a sufficiently grave offence to justify the arrest - but a charge then needs factual evidence.
It would be interesting to know how many people are arrested and not charged. ...or as the CPS puts it "insufficient evidence to charge". It is rare for the police to admit they have no evidence other than an allegation by a third party. There might even be no allegation - except that the police are doing a "fishing expedition" on people who have a loose connection to people being investigated.
It is only a "false arrest" if they have not followed official procedures. Having to justify the "suspicion" seems to be no problem.
The article says that while Love was being held at home an officer tried to engage him in conversation. That sounds friendly and innocuous. It also means they are trying to bypass the suspect's right to remain silent until the recorded PACE interview. Apparently they are allowed to covertly record such informal conversations.
Where was his solicitor during all that time to advise him? The police know that most people have no idea about their rights in such circumstances. That his solicitor apparently advised him to not answer any questions during PACE suggests the solicitor felt the police had no evidence against him. That would mean they were pinning the case on finding something incriminating in the search.
Re "suspicion", almost everyone is arrested on suspicion. You don't charge someone without some form of preliminary investigation and often, that cannot happen until the suspect has been arrested. To this end, PACE Code G sets out the requirements re justifying necessity for arrest, incl "prompt and effective investigation".
So to start banging on about "they only had suspicion" ... well, yes. That's all they need. Just because someone has been arrested doesn't mean they've committed a crime. Can you suggest a more workable alternative?
"So to start banging on about "they only had suspicion" "
The quoted expression "they only had suspicion" does not appear in the posting to which it is a reply. Nor does any paraphrase of such a sentiment occur. Therefore the statement is careless at least - if not misleading.
People being arrested unnecessarily is bad tactics. Not only does it cause them distress but the publicity will affect their local reputation, security clearance, and any future applications for visas to the USA. Newspapers rarely publish any later innocence with the same prominence they give to the arrest. While there are police guidelines about publicity - it still happens too often that the local press seem to get an inside tip-off.
There is a definite feeling that instead of asking someone for an informal interview - too many police forces now rely on an arrest and the subsequent search. They hope to find something for which they otherwise do not have a shred of evidence.
There is an apparently common police refrain - "No evidence found - he's guilty but too clever - we'll get him next time". The institutionalised mindset finds grounds for suspicion everywhere. What psychologists call "confirmation bias" is a danger in any line of business that requires diagnostic investigations. It takes a disciplined mind to avoid that trap when there are target or reward pressures in play.
It used to be said that - "A Liberal supporter who is mugged is likely to become a Tory supporter". For many years now that expression has regretfully been changed to - "A Tory supporter who has any contact with the police is likely to become a Liberal supporter".
"Just because someone has been arrested doesn't mean they've committed a crime. Can you suggest a more workable alternative?"
We used to have things like "helping with enquiries", informal interviews, voluntary interviews etc. These days whenever there is an "incident" it appears that everyone with the slightest link to it is immediately arrested and interviewed "under caution", usually followed by all but one being released with no charge. Except those uncharged people now have a record of arrest that shows up on clearance checks.
"....These days whenever there is an "incident" it appears that everyone with the slightest link to it is immediately arrested and interviewed "under caution"...." The reason for that is the Police have learned that evidence of e-crimes is very quickly wiped if they don't move to secure all possible sources of evidence as quickly as possible. Old advice here would seem to be the best - if you don't want fleas (or an arrest record), don't lie down with dogs.
I was arrested, held over night in a police cell, denied access to writing materials and a lawyer for thirty-six hours, most infuriatingly, I had an "appropriate adult" forced on me as some sort of chaperone. This came about after I was falsely accused of being a "nut, who had attempted to harm someone", this was complete nonsense, with not a scrap of evidence to support it, and was thrown out by the CPS.
I got not an apology not even the slightest acknowledgement that as an innocent sane person, it was wrong to put me in a glass fronted police station cell, based on some fantasy I would top myself.
Hilariously, they didn't take, my belt or my glasses, but did take my shoelaces, I pointed out that surely I could actually top myself with a belt, but not with shoelaces, they didn't take the belt but refused me a pencil and writing materials, one of my rights as an "arrested person", your other rights btw, are legal counsel, and someone to be informed of your whereabouts.
I was seriously unhappy, and disgusted that not a scrap of evidence was presented to me, that explained my time in a cell, nor was there any consequences for my accuser.
I suspect in hindsight that telling the arresting thug to keep his hands to his self or state his grounds for arrest, and read me my rights, probably didn't help.
The scary thing if you can do that to a person who knows their rights, counts lawyers among his friends, what can you do to some poor sod, who doesn't know their rights.
The article says that while Love was being held at home an officer tried to engage him in conversation. That sounds friendly and innocuous. It also means they are trying to bypass the suspect's right to remain silent until the recorded PACE interview. Apparently they are allowed to covertly record such informal conversations.
They don't even need to do that - they can simply state what he said when giving their own evidence. They've even invented the rather offensive verb "to verbal" to describe such information gathering.
 Both in terms of language and intent.
Police employees get very angry if you mention that the arrest -> unauthorised premises search procedure is explicitly used to bypass the requirement for a warrant in PACE.
I assume the anger is because they don't want the general public to realise that the PACE protections on procuring a house search are worthless because they're never invoked.
Put me down as one, the Police "claimed" to have evidence, but after my release a FOI request got a copy of my file, and guess what, no evidence, no medical examination or interview with the "victim"; no enquiries at work as to where I was, or what I was doing on the day I was supposed to have raped a child.
(Big clue - I has in hospital getting an emergency appointment with my specialist after blood started gushing from several orifices).
The FOI request did reveal something I didnt know at the time, the "victim" had made the same allegation of rape on 3 different occasions, with a different time and location of the incident each time; the first two were rejected as unfounded without my ever knowing.
Why did they go overboard on the 3rd claim?? I have 2 suspicions.
1/ OFSTED were involved (complaint made via them??), and they have a grudge against my family (long story - but we had a complaint upheld against them).
2/ A local school teacher was under investigation (and later arrested, charged and convicted) of child abuse and child pornography offences - so obviously as one of the few men in the area working with young children, I MUST be involved.
When the rozzers arrested me (2010), after a malicious accusation of kiddie fiddling; they attempted to do it as publicly as possible - calling me into work to be arrested in front of the whole building full of people.
They then visited my home and took half the house with them; not just computers, but DVD films, CD music (claiming they couldnt tell if they were genuine), foreign currency (denied and never returned), car keys (denied and returned without comment 8 months later), blank postcards, mp3 music players, phone (brand new that day - but bizarrely, not the old one).
NINE MONTHS later the wrecked remains were returned - with numerous omissions; every PC was broken (but at least fixable), cases bashed, a laptop was written off, OS disks were nearly all missing, as were the higher capacity SD memory cards for my camera, and the aforementioned money ~£100 in Russian, US and UAE money.
Apologies?? None Compensation?? They threw out the complaints paperwork (by their own admission), so none; Charges?? Dropped 48 hours after I was released on bail.
Charges against the person who made THREE malicious complaints against me?? None.
Two years, a barrister and thousands of pounds in legal fees got me nothing; even when the Chief Constable got caught lying in his written replies.
My barrister said she had never seen such a mishandled case before, or such deliberate stonewalling by the Police.
How do I feel about the Police now?? Nuke em from orbit!!
(Anon, cos this is a small town)
I am sure there are a lot of good police officers. Unfortunately I seem to only have ever had interactions with the muppets amongst them. And as soon as they do something wrong, they all close ranks and pretend nothing happened, and suddenly everything goes missing. Only have to look at the handling of Hillsborough and other catastrophic police failures to see how much they lie and alter evidence when it puts them in a bad light.
The thing about the rozzers is that the world would be a happier, better, quieter, safer and altogether nicer place if we sent the lot on a one way trip to the outer solar system. Once upon a time there were at least a few decent people serving, now a days they seem to have lost all common sense, all decency and all morals. Led now by a woman who wants to lead the country but seems happy to give these nasty creatures any and every power they think they might want.
If the person was in the UK at the time of the crime then the alleged injured party should be forced to prosecute under UK law. The ridiculous potential sentences and penalties for this sort of crime in the US should be tripping switches in politicos brains (assuming they exist, the brains that is), that something is not fair and appropriate. Potentially 99 years for this compared with 6 months for rape.
Not as simple... Legally speaking in this things it applies the legislation of both countries, because the data was store effectively in US, so to data it applies the US law, even if whoever is in another country.
Put into a perspective, when a drug cartel executes someone in any country being based in another, should it be judged based on Colombian or Mexican law, if 30 people were killed (by hypothesis) same applies with terrorism acts.
Depending on the findings 99 year may or not be exaggerated, recently several cases of cyber crime have been known like the attack of a water supply in some city and changing the chemicals on the water supply, potentially this can kill or injure thousands. And I can keep giving examples that shows the complexity of these issues.
One thing is for sure, whoever goes into this path knows or should know the risk, I didn't saw him denying he did something, and such a encryption, is a bit obvious the guy may have something to hide. The guy may not even have bad intention on his acts and the majority of the hackers do not have them, otherwise the world would have already exploded and went to a chaos. Still he knew the risks, these are clever guys, so...
Most likely there may be some abuses as well from authorities and excesses, US are well known for that and UK are no different, just less competent. Regardless the funny part on this, is that this proves that authorities had a very week case and aren't prepared for acting in these situations, the UPS delivery thing arrest is a joke from the movies, and after all the theatre, 3 years after they still have nothing... This is the real sad story.
The UK political establishment to a person wants to bend over and let the Americans take what ever liberties they want.
The 'special relationship' in detail...
a) Hold an auction between UK and Germany through 1914-1918 for war goodies, making sure to take only cash
b) Rip the UK off for war supplies from 1939 to 45, taking cash, gold, overseas bases, companies and everything else they could get hold of in return for 'tommie cooker' tanks and leaking destroyers.
c) Force the UK government to destroy the UK aerospace industry because it was too advanced compared to the American one. (and the total destruction of everything and anything to do with TSR2 is proof)
d) Stab the UK in the back in Suez
e) Repeat this in the Falklands
f) Take our money for a pile of almost flying software bug ridden crud to pollute the decks of our aircraft carriers
g) Tell us we are such lepers they don't want to trade
And then these 'special relationship' people get the 'right' to come in and take which ever British citizen they want without rhyme or reason...
Guess why I like politicians
Yet getting out of the EU forces the UK to deal with our "friends" on an almost "begging" situation, and it is the ppl who think like you who mostly voted out of the EU.
I just don't understand why not trusting UK politicians == giving them more power.
Note: I don't want to imply taht you voted yes or no, or that you voted.
The comparisons seem to be between the maximum consecutive sentence that might apply in this case and some reported actual sentence for a crime like rape or murder. That is neither appropriate nor meaningful. It would be as sensible to argue that the rape or murder sentences given should have been an order of magnitude or more longer, as in many cases they could have been given that laws typically specify a range of sentences, giving the judge some discretion in actual cases, including whether sentences handed down for multiple violations are to be served consecutively or concurrently.
At the moment, the pendulum seems to be oscillating rapidly between increasing judicial sentencing discretion for nonviolent drug violations and reducing it for sexual assault, where the present low seems to be six months.
Read the indictment and it raises a few questions:
1. Hack of website between Oct 2 and Oct 6
2. IP address points to Romanian IP address
3. Romanian IP address, has dyndns.org URL pointing to it
4. Subscriber to that IP was anonops31337, with a paypal payment from email@example.com
5. IP address from paypal pointed to UK ISP
6. Subscriber info obtained from UK ISP.. (Why not named)
7. Through financial inquiries and other techniques IP identified as Rev Love. (Vague)
8. They get the details from Google for the two gmail addresses
9. ...Which contains the name 'nsh' and "Smedley Butler"
10. Nsh was used in an online chat with an <Alias4>
11. Nsh was the named used in an Observer article on "anonymous"
12. Search of old IRC records links NSH to Lauri.love@gmail.
Right, but now I have a load of questions.
In 6. UK ISP not named, and the legal mechanism by which they obtained the data is hidden. Why? What's hiding behind 7? A vague claim of investigative techniques?
But more than that, the first item is the discovery of the hack. Yet it was a crappy cold fusion hole. A webmaster so crap he leaves a known hole, yet so sharp he spots the hack of said hole so quickly? It doesn't quite ring true.
Then there 10. The online chat. What service and how come you can just go tap tap tap and search that. I see that the chat was Oct 4th (2 days after the hack supposed to have started and 2 days before it supposed to have ended). Was that GCHQs 30 day bulk internet surveillance?
So, I suspect 10 is the real first item of these, NSA were probably doing bulk surveillance for possible 'threats' of chats. <Alias4> could be one of their guys, he pretends to be a hacker hexing the military. Chats to NSH about NSH's hack. Via the Anonops31337 email address. NSA uses PRISM to grab that data, so then they know their army server was hacked.
FBI gets it a tipoff from the NSA to go look for the coldfusion hack of that server, and then a parallel sequence of evidence is constructed.
i.e. Fishing expedition -> Fish -> Fake evidence trail.
Rather than simultaneously super-competent and incompetent webmaster.
Yeh, 11. the Observer Magazine article on anonymous hacker 'nsh'. We know from Snowden that GCHQ have 'anonymous hackers' as a target and so would have done a filter on 'nsh' and read everyone emails, chats etc. Anything that their 'nsh' filter threw up. So if you accidentally used 'nsh' then GCHQ would have read your private conversation.
So the chat they list on 10 would have been thrown up by that filter and would likely be the first 'nsh' that actually was useful in that filter.
Which would have then caused them to get the the 'anon' email address, which in turn would have given them 'love'. Which then kicked off the fake evidence trail listed here.
Which means the courts are being fed a load of shit.
All illegal of course, which is why Toxic Theresa is trying to legalize it. That prosecutor (from the previous Love story) who mentioned a secret informant who logged the chat and passed it to the FBI, he's iffy on it too. He wouldn't have mentioned it, it if didn't bug him. I think if 'nsh' lawyers concentrate on this chat that was intercepted it might one of those Snowden moments. Where we realize how much horsemeat is in the sausage.
"The UK and US government are dragging China to court for cyber spying and sabotage. There's evidence on encrypted Chinese hard drives and the Chinese have been ordered to supply the key. So far the Chinese have refused to answer to these allegations.
The US and UK have decided to vent their anger by frying some small fish instead .... "
Now - seriously. Shouldn't the priorities lie in protecting Military and Government Systems?
Just imagine what a million government backed hackers can do - as compared to 3 guys out Mum & Dad's basement ....
"The agency believed their courier ruse had been necessary because, they claimed, intelligence had suggested that Love's computer equipment could be encrypted “at the press of a button”"
"the NCA denied that any such assurances would have been given, stating that “all officers at the scene were experienced Cyber investigators [who] would know the length of time it takes to forensically examine computers"
-- forensically examine their asses the only thing they would know. If they think typical (terabyte) HDD can become magically encrypted at the press of a button, they are idiots.
I think this story is crafted to misinform without actually telling a lie.
For example, the parents claim they were told they would get their computer equipment (presumably necessary for their work as prison guards) back within 21 days - 3 weeks - but did not get it back for 96 days - 3 months. And the officers said they would not have made such a promise. Ok but who made the promise, and most importantly was it done on paper & therefore provable?
Another one is they sought to prohibit him from using the internet, but this was rejected because he had no prior history of criminality. Meaning that he was under no prohibition? So if he was released without such prohibition then what's the problem, why even mention it? It's suggesting that the cops are being excessive, yet if no such prohibition is imposed - then what's the problem! Sounds like complaining for the sake of being butt-hurt, or something.
Next was the news that a Vicar's son in Suffolk was charged with computer offences. But if that's what was broadcast - was he named, was his address provided? I mean obviously a lad in Suffolk involved in computer crime could only possibly mean one individual, and everybody knows it - but was he explicitly named & shamed? I'm wondering if it is at all possible that there was another person, who actually was a Vicar's son, who coincidentally was charged on that day as well. The article doesn't dwell on such possibilities, nor does it get around to explaining how journalists had put 2+2 together and identified "Lauri" as the Vicar's son. Is he actually a Vicar's son? Or is he a prison guard's son. I'm confused.
I actually deal in computers, second hand and parts. Or I would if I could....they keep stealing them is the problem, so they've cost me hundreds of thousands of pounds at least. Can't trade at all now and haven't been able to for few years now. Never min dthe dislocated jaw, back and the rest....I can't even walk sometimes. Can't even find out who any of the are, but certainly pigyobs involved. No doubt on that. Contacting IPCC just leads to more violence....so what can i do?
The fact that the country to which the suspect could be extradited had failed to keep confidential matters confidential ought to be sufficient grounds to invalidate the extradition request.
The fact it does not have a working judicial system should also be taken into account.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019