UK to introduce new laws and a code of practice for police wanting to rifle through mobile phone messages A new UK law will explicitly authorise the "voluntary" slurping of data from mobile phones of crime suspects and witnesses. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which was introduced to Parliament this week, contains clauses that will allow police and others to extract data from mobile phones if the user "voluntarily …
"Reforms intended to protect the innocent from miscarriages of justice became the focus of BBW's campaigning, with the pressure group arguing the pendulum had tilted too far against victims of crime."
This is a fraught area. Those who are subject to a false accusation are also victims of crime.
IME investigators really do want to do the right thing by the victim but working out who the victim is is far from straightforward.
I like Marty's answer over quora...
Marty Riggs
Answered 10 months ago · Author has 112 answers and 306.6K answer views
Question asked: Joseph Goebbels coined the term "if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide". Does that bother law enforcement? If their argument to search without a warrant is quoting a Nazi, how does that give them the moral high ground over taxpayers?
Everyone has something to hide. But, that’s another story.
I would be more concerned about your elected scum, called politicians, who use this phrase to justify monitoring the Internet, your phone, and mail, as well as justifying invasive practices on the war on drugs and the war on terror.
For me, I never asked unless I was certain I had a damn good reason. One that would get me a warrant if I asked. In other words, I was giving you a chance to HELP me instead of making me be the bad guy. Being able to say, “Your Honor, he was extremely cooperative and helpful during the incident” could actually get them a lesser sentence or charge if the judge was in a good mood. Hell, I could even overlook some minor shit that didn’t matter (in the real world).
Let’s face it, all governments are evil in a way. The Nazis are just demonized today so that others can look better. Read up on Hitler’s speeches and then compare them to today’s American politicians. Reagan was the last one I heard who spoke against a larger government and didn’t quote Nazis. Since then, including Clinton and Obama, they have used the same old lines and then done whatever the hell they wanted to do once elected. At least Trump didn’t do that. Yet, he’s seen as the worst of them.
Trump?
1 - Drain the swamp (he filled it with bankers, oil execs, and other corporate shills)
2 - Make America Great Again
3 - The best healthcare regorm ever.
4 - Build that wall.
I don't recall him promising to lower taxes for the rich, but that was one of the first things he did.
while I share the general sympathy with the notion that 'the government is NOT your friend', and I'm absolutely not versed in what constitutes a valid argument, I feel that this one is misguided, i.e. 'all governments use Nazi arguments, therefore, by association, they pick up some of that very nasty nazi-smell. I would reduce it to the simpler one: Hitler built the motorways, therefore all governments that do, are like Hitler. Clearly motorways (never mind narrow and broader impact on environments, death rate, etc.), are not 'evil'. Somehow, I feel, the problem is not with arguments themselves, but what purpose they are used for by politicians. And here, I could happily agree that all politicians use more or less the same, generally populist arguments to achieve one goal, and one goal only, i.e. to rule, and to do so by gaining a whiff of 'legitimacy', both for the interior public (well, we chose him, the will of the people, yeah, if he gets too crazy, he'll be voted out with next elections, etc..) - and to derail international criticism and potential action (well, they chose me, so fuck off / well, they chose him, so it's not our problem).
Somehow, I feel nothing's changed, i.e. Hitler was a sign of his times, which people generally accepted that you prosecute and persecute minorities (convenient that those minorities were disliked elsewhere). Nowadays, he wouldn't be, because times have moved on. He'd be one of those 'radicals', offering simple solutions to complex problems. But yes, the populist ideas and arguments live on, as we know, only they're packaged differently. Message is the same: I give you a simple solution to ALL your problems, just give me POWER and 'together'... (yeah, together ;)
Hitler's speeches weren't all original to him either. If something works, use it. But then this is what happened to the Nazi party in Germany. Previously a well respect socialist movement, however was taken over (as it was there) and the end results were plain to see. Likewise, the Eagle and Swastika were symbols that were taken over and (ab)used and now seen as bad. Hitler was a master of manipulation therefore of course he was going to use phrases and words that others used previously, it's called learning. Modern leaders using similar phrases and words isn't necessarily a bad thing, however it does depend on context.
On the other hand where politicians are proven criminals and repeated liars, that's really bad. From Trump's apologists who carefully ignore that almost every time he opens his mouth he lies about something and/or attempts to sow division, to those that see BoJo as "just a harmless, slightly eccentric buffoon" and also carefully ignore that he is also a repeated proven liar.
Depends, actually investigating a crime, or looking for a crime to investigate based on a hysterical loonie or incorrect understanding of the law?
Probably just pedantry, as it just depends at what point it becomes "investigating a crime".
For the latter, i'd offer up all those times a plod has "demanded" to see, and sometimes wanted to delete, photographs someone has taken in public places that were not otherwise dubious.
I've been stopped by cops a couple of times for "routine checks" that are clearly not investigating a specific crime but that the individual cop wants to get a promotion by nabbing more criminals. The cop chooses to harass individuals who have no power in the current situation.
I understand that there is a lot of sarcasm in your comment but the cops were always implying they were investigating while just doing random searches.
my point, on top of sarcasm, was actually, that you _can't challenge_ the officer who tells you he's investigating a crime, when he asks to see your phone and you refuse. Then you say: ok, but you can only do that when you're investigating a crime, to which he says: but I am, now, let me say to you one last time: show me your phone! What do you do then, tell him 'prove it!'? Walk away? Or call the police? Wait to be handcuffed and then charged with 'obstructing a police officer in the course of carrying out his duties'? You might get away with it, when you do show him / her you know your rights, but who's going to argue coherently in the heat of the moment, especially with a policeman, who's used to this day in day out? My point is: the law is worded vaguely and therefore, it will be used - but also ABUSED by police. And it's not because they're evil, but because it will, at times, make their job easier, particularly, when there are no checks and no accountability for your claims. And how many people do NOT prefer the 'easy' way?
I was once sitting outside a seaside pub near Brighton (UK) enjoying a beer on a break from some production recording, when I was approached by two "officers" who were initially quite confrontational, demanding that I identify myself. On requesting their reasons, and was told that "someone described as similar in appearance" had threatened to jump of Beachy Head (several miles away). When I pointed out that it would be a pretty impressive leap with a pint in my hand, the officers departed, visibly deflated. If I hadn't challenged them but instead provided my identity, it would have been "voluntary".
Suicide is a crime, so attempted suicide would be an attempted but failed criminal act with intent. A quick and easy "solved" to add to their tally. Whether the "criminal" would then go on to be given help is another matter and may depend on the officers or force in question.
I have an impression it's still a 'crime', in several other countries, due to imprecise legal wording, i.e. any death that does not occur of 'natural causes' needs to be investigated, and then, if facts are established, whether people investigating like it or not, they must pass it on for potential prosecution. But I think it generally (always) stops at that point, i.e. 'no case'.
...
gosh, it's 2021 so I'm weary of the magic google ball to ask a question "is suicide illegal?". Who knows where such questions end up these days...
I suggest that Police were bored and wanted to feel powerful, did you get a crime incident number and officers ID?
This is useful and you can confirm if you actually match any discription,location etc given. Some people join the police to have power over others so it is always best to check if they are not abusing it.
I have been stopped many times and I am white,it happened so often that eventually I got bored with it so the next time when I was asked what was in a bag I was carrying I pointed out that it was a paper bag with the name of a bakery written upon it and the end of a bloomer loaf sticking out the end, what did he think it was? I asked for incident number and he had to leave suddenly mumberling over his shoulder.
So you can understand how I see giving the police further powers without any responsibility or oversight is reminisent of the "pick up the can" from half life game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJshjMyg6no
In related rifling of citizens' data...
"Home Office tests web-spying powers with help of UK internet firms"
Whoever wrote this at the beeb must have had a quiet chuckle :(
"The Home Office said the trial was small in scale and in its early stages"
- this is what they said before re. face-recognition. And earlier still, re. id cards. And about dna testing. And about every other intrusion, mostly introduced. And it won't get undone, EVER.
They should put it in big letters as a motto on Home Office site: 'Our mission is currently small and in the early stages'.
I completely agree with you, however ID cards have so far not become compulsory, Labour back tracked and cancelled the scheme.
However they have been talked about again, and every sensible person knows the Tory party are always the 'big state' party in reality (IP Bill for example..) Tories are only ever small state usually when it comes to helping people (pandemic withstanding) and protecting rights.
good article. but what's the difference between campaign group and pressure group?
it seems some oarts refer to BBW as pressure group and other parts both pressure and campaign group, and Liberty a campaign group.
Can you please outline the differences between campaign and pressure groups in the context of this article?
Sorry for question if the answer is obvious, no harm meant. I am autist seeking understanding.
Thank you.
it's a joke, but the same, as between an armchair and electric chair. That said, the joke has little merit here, perhaps a (good-natured) comment would be that the difference is the same as 'lying' and 'being economical with the truth', i.e. none? A pressure group I do not like would call themselves a campaign group, and they would call all those that campaign against them as 'pressure group'. That said, in the current climate, the best approach would be to call them 'oppressors', 'enemies of public debate', why mince words? :)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
