Bloke charged under UK terror law for refusing to cough up passwords British police have charged a man under antiterror laws after he refused to hand over his phone and laptop passwords. Muhammad Rabbani, international director of CAGE, was arrested at Heathrow in November after declining to unlock his devices, claiming they contained confidential testimony describing torture in Afghanistan as …
"Sit down, Savage."
"Yes, sir."
"Savage, why do you keep arresting this man?"
"He's a villain, sir."
"A villain..."
"And a jail-bird, sir."
"I know he's a jail-bird, Savage, he's down in the cells now! We're holding him on a charge of ... [reads] 'Possession of curly black hair and thick lips."'
"Well - well, there you are, sir."
"You arrested him, Savage!"
"Thank you, sir."
"Savage, would I be correct in assuming that Mr Kodogo is a coloured gentleman?"
"Well, I can't say I've ever noticed, sir."
More like:
1. Stop and search him because he matches a profile - flies regularly to and from terrorist central, and is head of an organisation that is an apologist for, and supports and interacts with known terrorists like "Jihadi John" and Michael Adebolajo.
2. He doesn't cooperate to an illegal extent, and therefore gets charged.
Great. Lock him up until he hands over the passwords.
I assume he wasn't flying to the USA.
It seems he's used to being stopped. Why carry any sensitive data in that case. I'd simple have it heavily encrypted on a microSD card and only open it when I get where I'm going.
This comment doesn't make any assumptions about his motives except that if this is the 20th time he's been questioned, maybe he's trying to make the point that he shouldn't be stopped.
Sorry but I was once nabbed by police for trying to buy a travelcard in Charing Cross station AFTER travelling on the train, Reason: i had a meeting with my father in town and jumped on the train, not wanting him to wait half an hour for me until the next train. I had refused to give my addtess to the train company jobsworth who performed a citizen's arrest on me for 'trying to evade a fare', never mind that I was trying to buy a ticket from the excess fares booth at the time. Coppers were duly called, and threatened to arrest me on terrorism charges if I didn't cooperate and give my address. So I 'cooperated' like a good baby and gave them my address of course. it's easy to pontificate about cooperation with the forces of law and order from your plush armchair somewhere seemingly safe in middle class suburbia, but when this kind of thing happens to you, your love and admiration for the system and 'our boys in blue' or whatever colour they affect might take a bit of a hit.
"Coppers were duly called, and threatened to arrest me on terrorism charges if I didn't cooperate and give my address."
"There are 2 dozen pages of paperwork you have to fill out if you want to go that route and my lawyer will make sure you fill in every single one of them. Do you really want to be tied to a desk for at least the next 3 days?"
Jihadi John, the man who was harassed by authorities until he broke and turned into what the authorities accused him of being.
Unlikely, though it is the myth put about by the like of CAGE. What is more likely is that the severe blow to his head[1] damaged his frontal lobe on that side with the consequences that are well known, including psychopathy. Hence the brutal and terrifying deaths of so many innocent civilians in the desert, whose well being you conveniently skate over with your weak argument. Moreover, even without evidence of cranial trauma, it is necessary to ask what his premorbid condition was prior to being recruited, it being highly abnormal that a supposedly 'beautiful' 'gentle' young man would turn into a psychopathic murder, or do you claim that there was absolutely nothing deeply pathological about his behaviour?
To attribute his bestial violence to investigations by the authorities is, to put it kindly, utter piffle. Many untruths have been told about their interventions. The British int & sy services were checking and approaching all individuals showing the same signs of interest in terrorism, because failure to do so in the past led to people's throats being slit, tall buildings falling, buses and tube trains exploding, and British soldiers heads being removed on the streets of their home country.
Your claim represents to me the most odious and truth avoiding of inflammatory political correctness, and it is the sort of loaded disingenuousness that has led to young girls suffering in Rotherham, never mind the vicious deaths of people like Ken Bigley, who sought only to do good, for whom even the murderous Al Qaeda spoke defensively.
As an ex soldier who was treated very badly in this way by civvies from the politically correct wing of society the only apposite thing that I can say is that I hope you never rely on British service personnel to haul your arse from out of the fire. Because I know they will be as reluctant to help you as you have been to admit the truth.
[1] It being a recorded fact, backed up by statements from his age cohort that his personality changed from that moment on.
He doesn't cooperate to an illegal extent, and therefore gets charged.
One of his colleagues (Qureshi) described the murderer Mohammed Emwazi who beheaded innocents as "extremely gentle, kind” and a “beautiful young man", so I'll take his innocence and that of all of them with an extremely large sack of salt.
Bollocks to that. Give me one example where this rule was properly applied - just one.
I know the guy has a terrist beard and I can imagine that he is a lot more suspicious-looking to paranoid racists because, gasp he's not Caucasian, but those elements on their own do not legally constitute proof of terrist intent - yet.
So good on him for standing up for his rights because this circus has been going on for long enough already. I hope that he gets that law struck from the books.
I know the guy has a terrist beard and I can imagine that he is a lot more suspicious-looking to paranoid racists
CAGE has plenty of form as apologists for active extremists. As an example, CAGE are the outfit that mentored Jihadi John and subsequently described him as a "beautiful young man".
I'd have the bastards shut down.
"CAGE has plenty of form as apologists for active extremists. As an example, CAGE are the outfit that mentored Jihadi John and subsequently described him as a "beautiful young man"."
See this is the kind of detail lacking from an article that in the face of it shows gross abuse of power. If what you say is true then I'm inclined to agree with you and it serves to remind me I need to be wary of not having the full picture before passing judgment.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/18/cage-admits-mistakes-report-mohammed-emwazi-jihadi-john-isis-chief-executioner
"An external audit commissioned by Cage of its handling of the Emwazi affair is blunt in exposing the shortcomings of campaigners."
"In opting for a “lengthy argument” rather than a “soundbite” Cage was unsuccessful in “clearly articulat[ing] its distance from Emwazi’s actions to prevent any portrayal of them as ‘apologists for terrorism’ ”, the audit states."
"The review added: “These two shortcomings, along with a clear distancing from Emwazi’s actions, and the ‘beautiful young man’ comment allowed the media to easily portray Cage as being on the side of [Isis’s executioner].”"
"In response, Adnan Siddiqui, the director of Cage, said: “This review was difficult to undertake, however it was important to help us learn and develop.
“We are a relatively young organisation with a small team and a huge challenge but we strive for the highest professional standards.
“On this occasion we made mistakes and we recognise this. We will be studying the report carefully and looking to implement the recommendations.
“Despite the mistakes made, we feel our intervention still made an important contribution to the debates around security services’ accountability, and abuses of the rule of law in the war on terror.”"
Sounds like a very interesting review. What I get from your short summary of it is that CAGE messed up by underestimating the rabid, moronic fury the UK media can unleash when their stultifying, 6-brain-cell cartoon soundbites and "narratives" are questioned.
I'm blaming the UK media, but this habit extends far beyond that (ermm, "area"? "industry"? "bubbling botulism-infested sump of warmed-up excrement?") to the PR-management of the TWAT (The War On Terror) worldwide.
Terr'sm is just EVUHL, geddit? Don't ask any questions or try to think about how it came about, otherwise you're On The Terr'sts Side Innit?
" "Terr'sm is just EVUHL" ..
It is, no matter how it came about; or do you think otherwise?"
The French Resistance were terrorists by today's definition. I wouldn't consider them evil. There is little black and white certainty in the world. Unless you are dull, unimaginative or thick (or any combination thereof).
"The French Resistance were terrorists by today's definition."
And they were called "terrorists" by the Nazis.
Meantime a good chunk of the population there actively supported Nazi points of view, to the point that France actually sent a greater proportion of its jewish population off to be exterminated than Germany did.
Remember also that Germany welcomed jewish refugees with open arms in the 18th and 19th centuries and was a bastion of enlightenment right up until the early 20th century. It only took 20 years to turn that around, which should be a sober reminder to anyone saying "it can't happen here"
"Our grandfather's did lay down their lives, this was one of the things they died for, looks like too many folk today have forgotten what they sacrificesed themselves for..."
One should not assume, that we all came up with the same reason why so many people laid down their lives ---- for a start I think that they had swallowed a whole heap of democraticmonopolisticbullshite which they had read about in the "free" Press AND they were also Terrorised into taking up arms by their own, so called - "betters", people who offered to bull whip them at the very least or execute them by firing squad - if they didn't pick up arms and charge over the top ...........
What utter utter bolloxs some folks have swallowed. We see the side you picked ...........
"Im pushing 60. Both of my grandfathers were born in 1901."
Likewise. My grandfather (three years older) was a Canadian, about to be shipped over to the RAF, when WWI ended.
And here's a rule of thumb: the more exclamation points in a post, the less likely the poster knows what he or she is talking about.
Too young to legitimately fight in WW1
There was quite a bit of blind eye turning to people who falsified their ages, especially when there were frequently request for volunteers to keep numbers up.
(had a relative who was in the armed forces underage in WW1)
To: Al fazed
You Sir, are full of shite!
If you had been around in Germany in the 1930's, you might have a different perspective. Nazism was about eugenics and the extermination of all bar "the Master Race" (which included Germans, Scandanvians, Scots, English, Irish and Dutch) - EVERYONE else was included in "the Final Solution" so became candidates for the gas chamber/firing squad.
Maybe you should read a history book or two, before coming out with comments that are nothing short of insulting to the memory of the people who secured the continuation of freedoms; freedoms that include the opportunity for you to write your misinformed drivel here. I doubt if Londoners (or any other major UK city) stopped to consider "a whole heap of democraticmonopolisticbullshite" when German bombs were dropping on them.
And as someone said, your comment "if they didn't pick up arms and charge over the top" would have been the First World War, not the Second. That would make it your Great Grandfathers. This shows your ignorance to a conflict which cost the lives of 50 million people.
While I might agree with you in spirit, I need to mention that famous Monty Python scene ref. your claim about "extermination of all bar "the Master Race" (which included Germans, Scandanvians, Scots, English, Irish and Dutch) - EVERYONE else was included in "the Final Solution".
I would like to point out that you failed to mention the Finns, (some) Chechs, and quite a lot of other European nations, who might have enjoyed the master race status if the III Reich had its way in the end. Also, surprisingly, a huge majority of Poles (minus the intelligentsia, to decapitate potential resistance) were not destined to the gas chambers, or other forms of extermination, "merely" to server as semi-intelligent labour in the east. Sort of modern Roman Empire style with its outposts, masters, slaves and savage tribes with 20th century extras on top.
And I don't mention the issue in the "what good did the German Master Race" bring to us"? spirt, but to veto "EVERYONE else" bit, because I find this SCREAMED generalization quite misleading. So, to quote your own words again, "Maybe you should read a history book or two".
p.s. I'm "one of those" (Nazis), and the proof is in my Bayern ancestry
p.p.s. I might carry some merit though, and the proof is my upbringing, a few miles nw of Kiev.
(not a swipe, just food for thought)
Obviously reading and/or understanding history books isn't your strongest point.
Hitler was a separatist - he didn't want to exterminate people of other races (well, except the Jews after the plans for relocating them to Madagascar or Israel failed).
To quote the man himself: "Pride in one's own race - and that does not imply contempt for other races - is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."
In addition to his well-known cooperation with the Japanese, there were actually non-white ("brown" Muslims) SS troops, and more.
Anon because, well, apparently people think you want to fire up the gas chambers and ovens if you have actually studied the policies of Hitler, even if you don't agree with them...
"Hitler was a separatist - he didn't want to exterminate people of other races (well, except the Jews after the plans for relocating them to Madagascar or Israel failed)."
"Anon because, well, apparently people think you want to fire up the gas chambers and ovens if you have actually studied the policies of Hitler, even if you don't agree with them..."
You are Ken Livingstone and I claim my £5...
so you were around in the 1930's then Domquark?
I ask as history is always written by the winners of a war and they do tend to be biased against the loosers. From what I have read Eugenics was just used as just another tool of nationalism, most Germans of the time didn't think to hard about it or kept quiet so as not to stand out and be next on the list. Europe had grabbed great chunks of the world with control over populations 1000s of time their own, of course they believed they were special and better than everyone else and it was not only the Germans. Along comes a nutjob and uses the credibility of science to seemingly support his idea that European whites were more evolved and this was why they got their dominion over the "less" advanced races. Also bare in mind that the general population across Europe were quite parochial and got their world view from patronising news reels with the fuzzy wuzzy's jumping up and down. The Germans were not "evil" they were just doing what their group identity defined as normal and the follow the group identy rather than think for yourself is still in control today
The political, turn your population against the minority to gain unlimited control technique is still very much in use, fatties, smokers, dolites,disabled and extreme islamics are all "evil" and the general public needs to know who they should hate so they do not step out of line or think to deeply about where the real problem lies or why their lives are less free or prosperous than their parents.
I wasn't alive in the 1930's either but I need only look around to see history repeating itself and the same follow the herd idea that allows those in control to do anything they like whilst the ignorant sheep scream their approval.
> CAGE has plenty of form as apologists for active extremists.
It doesn't matter. This law is overreaching, and we can hope that cases such as this one may put it to test so that we ordinary citizens can know what we risk if we fail to provide the plods with a working password (whatever the reason may be, including genuinely having forgotten it).
ElReg!comments!Pierre
> CAGE has plenty of form as apologists for active extremists.
It doesn't matter. This law is overreaching,
----------------
Hmm there is all sorts of morality surrounding this issue, for example if you have a kidnapper who has a child who is in danger and the police have the suspect in custody how far do you let the police go in order to extract information ?
1 ) As a parent then full medieval torture.
2 ) As a wrongly accused suspect, mild questioning.
A couple of really good films on this, The Offence (1973) with Sean Connery and more recently Prisoners (2013) with Hugh Jackman. Also the very brutal "questioning" by Samuel L. Jackson of Michael Sheen in Unthinkable (2010)
Completely untrue and twisted; one of CAGE's members said that Emwazi WAS a "beautiful young man" when they were dealing with his case many years ago. If you have trouble understanding past tense sentences, I can recommend some primary schools for you to attend.
"CAGE has plenty of form as apologists for active extremists. As an example, CAGE are the outfit that mentored Jihadi John and subsequently described him as a "beautiful young man".
I'd have the bastards shut down."
That may well be an appropriate position. But being an apologist for extremists isn't a crime, and we all have a strong interest, whatever our views, in not being forced to disclose our private material.
used only in extreme terrorism cases
It might well be, no way of knowing. Problem is schedule 7 isn't for this. There's nothing stopping them taking a screwdriver to the devices to make sure there's no explosives in them - THAT is what schedule 7 is for. If his legal reps don't get him off fairly sure he needs better legal reps.
Re CAGE more generally, I've heard these guys - they are terrorist apologists - but that shouldn't be what this is about.
"I know the guy has a terrist beard and I can imagine that he is a lot more suspicious-looking to paranoid racists because"
If terrorism is being commited by one particular group who often have one particular look then people who look that way will be looked on more suspiciously than the rest of the population. That might upset a lot of fluffy SJWs but thats the reality of things. Calling it paranoid racism is the usual handwaving dismissive putdown from the liberal left which solves nothing and just polarises people even more: "Call me a racist for having an opinion you don't like? Well f**k you then, I'll vote UKIP!" etc.
"this circus has been going on for long enough already. I hope that he gets that law struck from the books."
Yeah, good luck with that:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39949726
The problem with your post is that there is plenty of terrorism around, but a lot of it is effectively ignored when it doesn't fit into the whole "clash of civilizations" agenda. There's quite a long list of far-right white terrorists in recent history who have done terrible things, but somehow they are always excused as "one-offs", "loners", "mentally-ill". A description which would fit many of the perpetrators of recent outrages like the one in Westminster a few weeks ago.
Murderer of Jo Cox who shouted "Britian First" - mentally ill middle aged man.
Westminster attacker - Jihadi inspired by ISIS.
They both seem a bit bonkers to me; they've also both imbibed hateful propaganda which has got nothing to do with the way most people think, whether they are white, asian, arab, Christian or Muslim.
One of the big problems with "profiling" is it doesn't work, as shown hilariously by Chris Morris' film "Four Lions". While the police continuously harrassed a innocent and devout Muslim with a long beard, they ignored his cousin who was drinking, taking drugs, planning a terrorist outrage, etc. Like all the best satire, it was uncomfortably close to the truth. Profiling means - "I'll filter everything through my prejudices and that will help us catch bad guys more effectively than boring things like looking for evidence of criminal behaviour".
@boltar
"If terrorism is being commited by one particular group who often have one particular look then people who look that way will be looked on more suspiciously than the rest of the population"
While it would make me feel safer, I'd still be uncomfortable with the idea that rounding up all the sovereign individuals, white supremacists and militia groups. That is who I presume you mean by the identifiable group who does the majority of terrorism.
Or am I to believe that mass killings and political assassinations by white right wingers are only ever done by mentally ill people, but every attack by a brown fella is due to religious beliefs.
I am notably more in danger of death from terrorism due to a group that believes in right wing/nationalist than from someone motivated by the shitstorm in the middle east. I am several more times likely to be shot by a toddler or a dog than either of these things. But strangely, no-one is trying to disarm those damn toddlers :)
How long will it take until it's regarded as unlawful to not have any electronic devices on you? Just imagine some checkpoint person can't find anything on you that he could ask you to unlock, wouldn't that be suspicious?
"Must have something to hide, she's/ he's clean, better be safe, detain and check the home."
<cicero quote>
"[...] he's clean, better be safe, detain and check the home."
IIRC a man was the subject of a street stop and search under the Section 44 anti-terror law - even though there were no grounds for suspicion. Nothing was found - but this was then taken as legally enabling a search of his home too.
Can't quote the relevant news reports as Google brings up too many on misuse of Section 44 - which was judged by the ECHR as illegal. Not sure how the government of the day reformulated it - with even teh police acknowledging that officers misused it too often.
Page 156 of this treatise analyses the way sections 44-47 allowed such practices.
http://projects.essex.ac.uk/ehrr/V8N1/Dent.pdf
So, we have a situation where we are seeing 1 side of this - third hand
He was stopped 20 times before and didn't get prosecuted. This time he is...
Now, there are several things here that we don't know
- What evidence do the police have? And before you say 'none' think carefully first and if that fails, site your verifiable sources.
- Could it be that he's just good at hiding his real activities and getting sympathy vote? Most terrorist / high level criminals (or all ethnics background) tend to look 'normal'
- He could well be innocent and win the case
I can't help thinking that profiling is going on both sides of the fence here. People responsible for our safety - the ones that people bitch about the most - tend to look at people like his gent and think 'could be'. On the other hand, you have the rest of the population that look at him and go 'no can't be'. Both approaches, in my books, is racially motivated. Would you think the same of a white middle aged man in the same way? be honest with yourselves.
The police / protection people have a hard job to do and yes they sometimes get it wrong. But when they get it right it allows us to live safely.
>waiting for the downvotes<
I don't care if he has been stopped 100 times.
He hasn't been charged as there is no evidence. This should be the right we all have under law, namely we can't be charged without evidence.
If he is guilty of something, so what? The law is the law, for both those that follow it and those who break it. There should be no distinction. However, it seems that perceptions are creating tiers of laws in the minds of people, these days. Law enforcers included.
"white middle aged man"
I would expect nothing less than the cops applying the same blunt profiling since they use the "even a fucked clock..." mentality.
Cop 1: Hmm. Middle aged, white, male.
Cop 2: Flew in from the Phillipenes.
Cop 1: By himself.
Cop 2: With a laptop...
Cop 1 & 2: PEADO! GET HIM!
""white middle aged man""
I travel on my own a lot. I can be certain that at least once on my (usually) four trips through airport security I will be stopped and searched thoroughly. generally I'm asked to unpack all my camera gear and demonstrate it all working as well.
That said I've never had the rubber glove treatment and I've never been asked for passwords etc.
My last trip I was searched as I was leaving my holiday destination so forgive me if I take all the "profiling" stuff with a pinch of salt although presumably I'm the subject of a different kind of profiling.
Single man, frequent flyer, nearly always alone, carrying large amount of "gear" plus big suitcase in the hold.(which had also been searched this time)
You seem to be conflating the issue here. You say he could well be innocent? Innocent of what? Innocent of the suspicion of terrorism? That's not what he's been charged with here. He's been charged with withholding passwords. So, technically, on the face of it he's not innocent; he didn't hand over his passwords when asked and there is a statute in place to prosecute him as a result. Whether that's right or not is another matter.
"So, technically, on the face of it he's not innocent; he didn't hand over his passwords when asked and there is a statute in place to prosecute him as a result. Whether that's right or not is another matter."
In this country there is, theoretically, a presumption of innocence. Making it an offence not to hand over passwords without good reason sets aside that. If there is reason to believe that there might be something incriminating locked by the passwords then the appropriate course of action is to present that evidence to a court and get a warrant. It's called due process of law. It seems that having given the idea a trial for 8 centuries (hint: look up what happened in 1215) we seem to have decided it wasn't a good idea and ditched it.
When I was a young man I happened to live in an area the police would only come in in groups. I was stopped and searched a number of times and being a law abiding young man I was never arrested nor had anything illegal found on me. The problem with the no smoke without fire aspect of your argument is that it leaves innocent people venerable to metaphorical arsonists.
He would be pretty damn STUPID to have something incriminating on him, having been stopped "20 times".
that said, with the law being anything but clear-cut about what is legal and what is not (see "legally inappropriate" for google hospital data swap), they could catch you with pretty much anything that YOU consider legal, and then - bang bang - you're a criminal. So was he stopped as a little warning, to remind him that "we're watching you", and "if you don't stop doing what you're doing, we can nab you anytime, anyway"? A little harassment goes a long way :(
What evidence do the police have? And before you say 'none' think carefully first and if that fails, site your verifiable sources
That's not how it works. Innocent until proven guilty; it's the obligation of the prosecution's side (that includes you today) to provide the evidence. Verifiable sources of somebody's innocence are not needed until there is verifiable evidence of their guilt.
Or at least - that's not how it used to work.
SO has olive complexion, but with a bit of decent sun exposure soon goes dark and very Middle East stereotype looking..
When in "pale" state, sails through airports hassle free.
When "darker" invariably pulled aside for additional checks / pat down etc.
As name the same, same type of travel, only difference being skin shade, then I would go for "racial" profiling, being generous could say subconscious not overtly directed, but still makes it bias.
Bitlocker doesn't do this - it encrypts but doesn't conceal you have done so. However, there are several successors to TrueCrypt such as BestCrypt and VeraCrypt which do support Hidden Volumes / Hidden Containers which are what you're referring to.
Because all of an encrypted partition or file appears as random noise, there's theoretically no way to distinguish empty space on the disk from used space. So you can have two encrypted containers appearing as one and determine which you're accessing by the password. Think of it as a magic door. You knock three times and it opens on a room where you've stored a few innocuous things like your email password. Knock five times and it opens on a room where you hide the state secrets you just stole. The magic is that the number of knocks can't be guessed so you just tell the interrogator it's three knocks and that's the only room they'll ever see and they can't prove that a different sequence of knocks would show a different one. It adds the last vital component of encryption which is deniability.
The difference with TrueCrypt was that the "hidden" partition was actually the same partition as the main one, just read in reverse and with a different key. The theory is that as all the "blank space" in a TrueCrypt volume is randomised, it should be impossible to tell whether such a reverse volume even exists. i.e. it provides at least plausible deniability.
Of course, it was up to the user to ensure that the total space used on both partitions was sufficiently small to ensure that they didn't collide, and that there was enough on the "declared" partition to justify its existence other than as a "cover" - I believe that a few (legal) porn videos that one might wish to hide from SWMBO was the most common content.
On the legal aspects of this, he was not actually in the UK. He was in that no-mans land between the aircraft door and border security. This is the area in which we want Border Security to detect, challenge, and stop any wrong-uns.
It happens here, it happens in the US. It happens everywhere. The State you are entering does not have to let you in, even if you do have a passport for that country.
I get stopped going in to the US. I get asked to power on an unlock devices. Normally, that's it. They just want to see that you can unlock the device. Actually searching it is something that will take hours if not days.
But thanks, Border Security at St Louis, at 3am, after a 5 hour delay in Chicago. Good to know that I could remember my passwords!
The State you are entering does not have to let you in, even if you do have a passport for that country.
Are you sure about that one? I'm pretty sure they do, even if it's just to take you straight to jail.
PS - on a related note, a friend of mine found when she got her laptop back after a search at LAX that they'd given her the wrong one! Unfortunately she didn't notice until she was back in the UK. The woman who had hers got in touch (via Apple) and I believe the two machine are winging past eachother on UPS flights as I type.
> when she got her laptop back after a search at LAX
If your device has been out of your sight in the hands of Security Services, and especially if you unlocked it for them first, then you should never trust it again. Back-to-the-wood re-formatting of storage, and reflashing the BIOS might work...
Still more important, revoke any PGP (or other crypto) keys for which you were carrying a private key.
That's why my laptops get only a less-important PGP private key to use when travelling. Not one by which the world knows me, and which it would cause grief to revoke.
"They just want to see that you can unlock the device. Actually searching it is something that will take hours if not days."
Quote from the article in question: "After he unlocked his iPhone SE, agents took it out of sight for five to 10 minutes before giving it back and sending him on his way."
It's likely that once unlocked, the content of the phone was effectively cloned. So I suppose, yeah, searching the contents of the phone would take hours, if not days, but in that brief window they can take everything.
Strange though isn't it that I have had a very careful watch kept on me by our spooks + police for 40+ YEARS,including illegal post interference,phone tapping and house bugging,all because I had/have abilities that they find useful,but told them to get stuffed when they tried to recruit me until I was aged 47 (oldest you can join army)
They have suspected for decades that I possibly have an arms cache somewhere,I have hands on experience of electronics and digital devices,have had official access to some of our most sensitive sites in the UK,live very close to possibly the most important RAF base in the country,am sympathetic to groups that our governments consider terrorists,such as the Palestinians and some of the Kurdish groups etc .
BUT not once have they ever tried to use any of the recent legislation to lift me and intimidate any harass me further,unlikebthis guy and others,possibly because A) they know that I would never have evidence on a device they could place in my presence B) would tell them to get stuffed and happily sit in a prison and cost them 50k a week for the priveldge of my lovely company
And it's been on the UK books for a couple of decades.
But 'Ol Tone thought it a good idea to drop that into the T'rist Act to help look tough.
If you want a nations civil liberties flushed down the toilet elect a lawyer.
"If you want a nations civil liberties flushed down the toilet elect a lawyer."
A more common factor appears to be a politician who "does God" for one of the major Abrahamic religions. Their identity is shaped round the concept of an omnipotent dictator who must be obeyed.
>A more common factor appears to be a politician who "does God" for one of the major Abrahamic religions. Their identity is shaped round the concept of an omnipotent dictator who must be obeyed.
Although in the case of Blair it wasn't that he got God - more that he decided he was God
Almost completely wrong on all counts.
RIPA was introduced in 2000, during Tony Blair's premiership.
The Terrorism Act was also introduced in 2000, and included various search powers, some of which have been amended or repealed since.
Section 7 applies to ports and airports, and says:
"A person who is questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 must—
(a)give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests;
...
(d)give the examining officer on request any document which he has with him and which is of a kind specified by the officer.
This new interpretation of refusing to disclose a password as obstructing a search is novel. It is not a power explicitly granted by the terrorism act and is a Police/immigration use/abuse, although the CPS clearly concur.
Expect a conviction at the magistrates and then an interesting appeal before a proper judge who actually understands law. I wouldn't want to call it (although once the judge is named we can have a good guess).
"A person who is questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 must—
(a)give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests;
...
This new interpretation of refusing to disclose a password as obstructing a search is novel. It is not a power explicitly granted by the terrorism act and is a Police/immigration use/abuse, although the CPS clearly concur.
Officer: Give me your password
You: Sod off
Officer: Under paragraph 2 or 3 you must give the examining officer (that's me) any information in your possession which the officer requests. So give me your password.
It's not a new interpretation, it's plainly written in the law. If the police wants to know how many times you wanked that day they can ask and you must provide that information.
He's the director of CAGE, a thorn in the side of the UK govt. Cage campaign against excessive state policies brought into law to fight the "war on terror" including torture & Guantanamo. The government has a strong dislike of Cage and pushed the Charity Commission into preventing UK charities donating to CAGE - the CC later had to retract this when Cage brought a judicial review.
I think they do good work and have donated to them in the past. I'm not muslim either.
"I do believe I am doing what any reasonable person would do under the circumstances in order to protect the privacy of a client."
Well, your problem is, you visited a police state with unreasonable laws, sorry! Thanks to May's addition to the arsenal, the MET can and will make up any "evidence" it requires to further the case.
If you are going to be in this kind of position (e.g. you're an activist of some sort):
PHONE
- Don't take your normal phone.
- Factory reset phone prior to arrival in UK (or US).
- If necessary, have a dummy email account that mostly collects spam.
LAPTOP
- Do everything via a virtual machine.
- Store everything in the cloud, using strong encryption.
- Destroy the virtual machine prior to arrival in the UK (or US).
Take it seriously. You might have nothing to hide/nothing to fear, but should the police be looking at the data of friends and family without their knowledge or permission?
Anon because i) I'm wearing my tinfoil hat today, ii) certain people seem to delight in abusing what power they have.
The advice in the medium article says pretty much, if you're not an terrorist / activist but you just don't like being searched and revealing the contents of your phone. Don't try some half hearted security which won't protect you but will make it look like you've got something to hide.
That's good advice. I might not want a border agent to look through my personal photos and facebook account but to be honest GCHQ are probably hoovering all that stuff up anyway so it would be foolish for me to make an issue of it at an airport where I'm at my legally most vulnerable.
However, this guy really does have something to hide (that doesn't mean he's a criminal but he does have information he wants to hide from the government). And the issue of making himself a target by adopting suspicious looking security practises doesn't really apply because he's well known so is going to get stopped every time he flies regardless.
Therefore in his case I think it really would have been sensible to store his sensitive files encrypted in the cloud somewhere then cheerfully hand over a laptop which contains an OS with a browser (which has been used for various innocuous browsing, VirtualBox and nothing else plus a phone with a logged in facebook account that you genuinely do use to say happy birthday to people plus the passwords for both devices.
Re "virtual machine" & carry no data.
It would be nice if it worked.
The thing is...
All your data is in "the cloud" so any access to it goes through NSA, the other 5 eyes, and local government scanning if they have the capability.
I am not sure that is how I would like to record a scared person giving evidence of torture or even local government malfeasance.
Or whether the local internet connection, if there is one, would support that amount of data to setup a session.
Hence TOR and other tools for getting small amounts of data in and out without it being scanned (hopefully).
Ladies and Gentlemen, rest assured, there is NO cause for alarm, this does NOT apply to you. Instead, look at the guy, just LOOK at him! Without saying anything that might be misconstrued as "racist", do YOU have anything to fear? And if you're blind, just READ (large captions) who the guy is, what the guy does, who he mixes up with! SURELY he's got SOMETHING to hide and the State needs to know. For your security and for the security of our CHILDREN. You sir, you madam, coming back from your hard-saved for holiday in the Lake District, and entering the outer security perimeter of the inner security perimeter - do you SERIOUSLY believe you might be asked to give up your precious facebook password to inspection?! NO! It only applies to those, carefully selected wrongdoers and highly suspicious individuals as this man!
That said, off the record, if you shave this stub of yours off your chin, sir, it would help you avoid cavity search next time. Oh, and by the way, travelling to these countries, here's the list... yes, you might reconsider visiting in the future. For your own sake, of course, I freely admit, some people share your grumble (I heard) that you feel raped, and to be raped is no pleasant thing, I tell you that! There, good lad... sir. And if I may mention, there are certain activities and organizations that the HMGov believe would our citizens should be weary of. There are those, so-called, charities and organizations, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know what I mean...
> Without saying anything that might be misconstrued as "racist"
Your comment is nothing but stereotypical, prejudiced, and racist. 0.02% of people stopped under Schedule 7 have ever been charged; there is NO sane argument to say it's used to "carefully select wrongdoers".
Beard - Check
Not white - Check (get real idiots he was NOT white)
Believes he will be rewarded in Heaven for his suffering - Check
Goes round smashing up town centres in the name of religion - Check
Intolerent of other religions - Check
Preaches to larges crowds outside normal places of worship in a funny language - Check
Disappeared into desert for 40 days - Check
Dies as a martyr - Check.
Yep, Gitmo candidate right there.
>>Not white - Check (get real idiots he was NOT white)
It is very probable Jesus existed, but what his race was in modern terms there's really no way to say. It's been argued that he was everything from Caucasian (for reasons of racial ideology), Black (for reasons of racial ideology) and even North Indian (because why not?). Jesus's race has been a political football for centuries but nobody knows what it actually was. It's fairly safe to say he was Jewish and was probably what we call olive skinned and dark haired. Probably. IF he came from Nazareth as described, then that whole region was a heavy trade centre with people from many different places and a big ethnic melting pot. Unless you think Jewish people aren't White for some reason (which if you don't, has probably far more to do with modern identity politics than science), then it is at least as possible that he was White as it is he was Black.
I'd personally go with this
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
If you are on about Jews in the current Israel, then there are very good reasons for a traditional "white" bias, the sheer volume of immigrants from central and northern Europe after the state was founded, running into the millions, causing an large scale shift in the racial makeup in the region.
Therefore comparing modern day racial make up in the region with potential past make up, is flawed.
You have fallen into a classic racist trap.
"Jew" is a person who practices Judaism. "Muslim" is a person who practices Mohammedanism.
both are religions. Neither is a race.
I've known Jews who could be mistaken for Pakistanis and Jews who would have made poster boys for the SS.
And you're wrong.
Judaism indeed is a religion, and not a race. However the Semitic race (which includes both what peoples consider Jews and Arabs) is a distinct racial group from, for instance, Caucasians. Partly this is due to the vast majority of Jews (the religion) marrying amongst their own racial group (which is also a religious group). It may seem confusing but there's basically two groups, those who follow Judaism and those who are part of the Jewish (Semitic) race. The Venn diagram has a huge amount of cross-over but it's far from a perfect circle. Sammy Davis Jr. was black and Jewish (there's quite a large number of black Jews in Africa as a result of the whole Soloman/Sheba thing). So Sammy would be considered a follower of Judaism but not necessarily Semitic.
Also your comments about knowing Jews who looked Pakistani/Aryan is largely irrelevant. There can be a huge amount of variation within a racial group. Blond Jews aren't [i]that[/i] uncommon. Just as many Arabs have red hair (more often beard hair).
Interestingly, Sikhs are also considered a distinct racial group due to the similar religious strictures around marrying within the religion.
I'm not calling you a racist (as you obliquely did the previous poster) just misinformed to a greater/lesser degree.
His name would be Joshia (yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) Davidson (Son of David) or Joshia Josephson (Son of Joseph)
We get the name Jesus from the Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs, This the standard Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua
I, too, expect that the dissenting views many have posted against Government will be held against us. Trump and Le Penn and the drift to the right in politics over the last 40 years or so indicate a strong to push by the wealthy to retain/regain power at any cost.
"The chimes of Big Ben" required only eight.
Strangely enough that episode of The Prisoner was on only the other day.
Freeview 61 or thereabouts for anyone wanting a bit of nostalgia/warning. Currently the series is running every weekday.
Be seeing you.
I happened across the restart of The Prisoner on Monday myself.
Even though I've seen it before, and I have the complete series on DVD (actually, a largely unwatched impulse purchase from a car boot sale), it had not sunk in before that the dialog in the opening credits ending up with "I am not a number... etc", was re-recorded for whoever was the Number 2 in that episode.
One of the benefits in watching the episodes close together, I suppose.
We just don't make series like that in the UK any more, I guess because we don't have characters like Lew Grade in our media companies.
A small aside.
The anonymous (but presumably senior) official No 6 fumes at before throwing down his resignation and storming out is (apparently) the Script Editor George Markstein.
Markstein was a literary agent and sometime thriller writer who seems to have been involved in intelligence during WWII. Anyone who's read his novel "The Cooler" will think "This places seems familiar."
I wonder what would happen if I was stopped. My server has a whole load of VMs where I can't remember the passwords. Of course they aren't technically mine (previous company training/sample material I never deleted), so it would be illegal for me to hack them and illegal for me to not....
... so it appears, whether commercial, legal or personal. At least, you can't bring it through the border post. Luckily there seem to be ways to get the info into the country without actually taking it through immigration, otherwise a lot of business would stop. Why even bring a laptop, you can buy one when in the UK, wipe it and install OS of your choice. Or if you're really paranoid (or if they are really out to get you), build a PC from parts.
I don't know how to put it to you, johndoe... you see, this forum is peculiar in some ways, you can safely assume that a large majority of comments should not be read as a tabloid headline. The minds working here are quirky, if not twisted, and this is reflected in how they express their views, often in a quirky and twisted way. So please, don't jump to conclusions because it is embarassing to watch, and wastes precious microseconds of quirky and twisted minds. Thank you for your consideration.
"I miss the 70s when we all the terrorists were white.
From the folkish charm of the Oirish, the reliability of the German RAF/BM and the shear exuberence of the Italian communists."
If we wait long enough, ISIS culture will "develop" enough to produce a hipster craze like ours. Then we'll get PIRA/RAF/Years of Lead-style terrorist threats. But they'll only be doing it in an "ironic" way, of course.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This can easily turn into a life sentence. In practise it probably won't, but it could.
Yeah, it's 3 months in prison. And when he's released, plod is waiting outside the gates to ask him his password. If he refuses, it's another 3 months. Rinse, wash, repeat.
I can understand the thinking. Without the sentencing power, Osama bin Glitter with his suicide vest of kiddy porn could just claim he's forgotten his password and there's nothing to hold him on. Of course, on the terraist side a life sentence is probably preferable to giving up details of your fellow freedom fighters and their plots. On the kiddy fiddler side, a suspected kiddy fiddler probably won't fare any better than a convicted kiddy fiddler in gaol.
The problem comes when you really do forget your password. And your phone records show that you frequently call Mr X, because like you he's a cricket fan. You met Mr X because he works at your favourite curry house. His brother goes to a mosque with a dodgy imam. 3 degrees of Kevin "I'm a muslim and don't eat" Bacon and you're under suspicion. So they ask for your phone password. And passwords for any encrypted files you may have. So don't forget your password.
Oh, and don't use TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt or any other encryption scheme with hidden volumes. The police can't prove you're using a hidden volume, but you can't prove that you're not (so you can't prove you're not refusing to reveal the password to the hidden volume you don't have). Years ago you could get around that one by actually using a hidden volume whether you needed to or not, then hand both passwords to plod. Then came a patch to permit nested hidden volumes to any level, and that means you can never prove that you've revealed all the layers.
"Yeah, it's 3 months in prison. And when he's released, plod is waiting outside the gates to ask him his password."
No it can't. If only because nobody is arguing that there is an authority under terrorism legislation to demand a password at prison gates. The authority at a port is yet to be clarified by the courts.
The courts have been clear that passwords under other circumstances cannot be demanded in this way and the police/SCA/customs must use RIPA.
So they have to use Part III, Section 49 of RIPA instead of the anti-terrorism legislation they used the first time around.
What practical difference does that make to the guy just being released? "Oh, this time I'm in gaol because of RIPA rather than anti-terrorism legislation." I doubt this pedantry will offer much in the way of comfort.
Whichever way you cut it, don't forget your password and don't use hidden-volume encyption. If possible, try to avoid being black.
"oh, it's a 12 character alphanumeric string, randomly generated, I never could remember it, it's usually automounted. Just give me access to a computer workstation and I'll write a script to bruteforce it - that's what I had to do last time - took bloody ages".
... Is moderated by The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The relevant phrase is: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This applies to providing access to anything that can be used as evidence against one's self in a crime.
There are a couple debates going on around this constitutional right versus the faerie dreams of intelligence collection agencies and police officials.
1) Can something you are, a physical aspect of a person, be legally used to obtain evidence against you? (Or something to that effect). - - The answer so far is YES. The common example is one's fingerprints. Yes, law enforcement can take your fingerprint and apply it to your computing device in order to unlock it. I expect this is going to remain the case.
2) Can something you know be legally used to obtain evidence against you? - - Faerie dreamers say 'yes'. Those of us who bother to take the US Constitution at its word know the answer to be NO. The common example is you providing the password for your computing device in order to unlock it. You do NOT have to.
A legal expert with whom I occasionally lock horns, and often lose, tells me that there are different situations, including those at national borders and within specific US states, where not providing your password can lead to legal complications. Therefore, I might want to defer to the knowledge of better legal scholars.
However, I comprehend The Fifth Amendment as plain as day stating the answer to be NO. Speech is testimony. "Anything you say can be used against you", as stated in the US Miranda Warning. So shut up and maintain your legal right to silence. Law enforcement can, in some cases, yank your chain about not giving up your password, not being compelled to give up evidence against yourself. But it is your right to remain SILENT. I expect that right will remain the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
Close, but no cigar.
You're talking about the good old days, back before the war on terra.
What has happened in the US since the war on terra is the abuse of contempt of court. The judge orders you to reveal your password. You refuse, saying you forgot it (or some other reasonable excuse). The judge says he doesn't believe you and that if you don't reveal your password he'll give you 3 months for contempt of court. It's not a matter of incriminating yourself because the password is not incriminating, per se any more than the key to a safe-deposit box is incriminating. It's what they give access to that's incriminating, but you yourself are not accessing those things. Yes, that's parsing words in an effort to bypass the spirit of the constitution, but that's what they did.
Some sane people argued that this was an abuse. That if you permitted things like that the next thing you know the judge would compel you to juggle running chainsaws whilst riding a unicycle across a tightrope stretched over Niagara Falls any time he wanted an excuse to imprison you just because. The insane people won.
Over here in the UK, the sane people won the battle but lost the war. The UK used to use the contempt of court dodge. After protests over the contempt of court dodge, Part III, section 49 of RIPA was activated. Bugger protection from self-incrimination.
How has this not been to the ECHR?
Well, May does not want anything to do with human rights ... she said that one of the best things about Brexit was that she could rid the British people of reasonable human rights ... I know, I will probably get a quintillion down-votes from brainwashed fellow Brits who believe the ECHR are a bunch of nasty commies ... Then again, still time to vote libDem, I guess, right ?
I heard LibDem is the last chance for Britannia to "remain" in the EU ... on the other hand, how LibDem can be trusted I do not understand, [cough] tuition fees [cough]... If you wanna remain you probably wanna vote for the tree huggers, they can be trusted, I guess ...
#FuckedUpBritannia
Excellent allusion to Niemoller's diatribe of which there are various versions a foreshortened version of which is :
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
In Canada, courts regularly send poorly-designed laws back to Parliament, with a time limit. I do not like lawyers, but this (which I think started a few decades ago with Pierre Trudeau's Charter) is brilliant. It annoys politicians, especially ruling politicians. Since many to most politicians are lawyers, I'm not bothered by their annoyance.
Anyway, it's good that this law will be tested. And look on the bright side. In some other jurisdiction, the traveler, even as a citizen, might be held in custody indefinitely, or returned to the country he just came from with a big "Kick Me" sign on his arse.
The crown crushes all opposition by any means, legal or not.
Innocent unless proven guilty. Yeah right.
Human rights - let's get rid of them and ignore the HR legislation. (Remind me, how many time did Theresa May's abuse of human rights get struck down as unlawful whilst Home Secretary? Guess she was just getting started.)
Foreign tourists, you're just better off giving the UK a wide berth - it's in your own interests.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
