UK Cops Want "Breathalyzers" For PCs 545
An anonymous reader writes "One of the UK's top cyber cops, detective superintendent Charlie McMurdie, says the top brass want to develop the equivalent of a breathalyzer for computers, a simple tool that could be plugged into a machine during a raid and retrieve evidence of illegal activity. McMurdie said the device was needed because of a record number of PCs were being seized by police and because the majority of cops don't have the skills to forensically analyse a computer."
So they want GOV spyware? (Score:3, Interesting)
So they want GOV spyware? They will still need people to look at the data.
Re:Right (Score:5, Interesting)
Well put.
But the governments of this world routinely ignore law (obtain warrant naming specific evidence desired) and instead do exactly what you described - go on a fishing expedition. "Well we came here to get marijuana, but instead we discovered porn on your PC, so you go to jail buddy."
They do this same ____ in the U.S. with random searches of cars. They are supposed to be looking for illegal immigrants, but instead they bring in the dogs and have them sniff for marijuana/cocaine. Then they arrest you.
This shouldn't be allowed.
I can see (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Right (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO, searching a computer is akin to searching someone during questioning.
Questioning someone who has been Mirandized: fine.
Going through their belongings with a search warrant to find something specific: fine.
Going through a computer willy-nilly on a fishing expedition: not fine.
Re:Outlaw encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Interpretation (Score:4, Interesting)
It costs too much money for the Police to pay quality IT Forensics folks. The police want a simple green, yellow, or red light that the police can follow, that is closed source and has it's AI written by policy makers to decide what is legal or questionable.
Re:Right (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't this kinda depend? Just because you found something else while looking for your actual thought doesn't mean you have to IGNORE it. If you came looking for credit card fraud and found, say, illegal hacking activity, should they just ignore it? If you go into a house looking for marijuana and you find people being tortured, do you have to go back to the station, get a warrant for looking into that, and then come back?
Now, if they pull you over for "presumably" running a stop sign and sniff your car, that's different. On the other hand, since illegal immigrants and drugs seem to go together, since drug trafficking and immigrant trafficking is a similar thing (smuggling), I don't actually see a problem is searching for both at the same time.
I'm not saying they should be allowed to just randomly show up and search your house without giving a reason, by the way.
It's a fine line between hampering catching criminals by giving "too many rights" and stepping over the bounds of innocent until proven guilty...
Re:Probable Cause (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to me this would bring up all problems about probable cause. Just because there is a computer doesn't necessarily mean it's been used for anything illegal, and can't be investigated because of that. It's kind of like, if the cops have a warrant to search for marijuana, and they find a gun, they can't take the gun in as evidence and run it and find that it's the murder weapon in something unrelated. Their warrant is for the marijuana, and just because they find a gun doesn't mean it's anything sinister.
Had you read the first word in the headline ("UK"), and had you a single iota of knowledge about the UK, you'd know that handguns are illegal and other guns are meant to be kept in a locked cabinet when not in use.
In which case, finding a gun almost certainly is evidence of something sinister.
Yes, and I want a Pony.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, wanting something does not make it appear or even possible to exist. Most people have learned that by age 5. My take is that today it is not even possible to determine what illegal contents is automatically, regardless of what amount of ressources you throw at it. I belive that the AI problem would need to be solved first, and that has been eluding humanity for several decades now, to the point that it is still unclear today whether it will be solved ever.
The solution is of course simple: Decide how important this really is, and then throw the appropriate amount of money at hiring experts. Chances are this turns out to be basically a non-issue. The hard stuff (children harmed in production) is identifiable for cops as well. The soft stuff (music, films, games) is not relevant to continued prosperity of the human race and only gets this much attention because some people turned it into a goldmine. It does not have to be at all. I would expect that broadband Internet and large HDDs make significantly more profit than Hollywood and the music industry combined. And the artists? I do not see any problem there either. Go to a donation-model and the ones that are creative and good will still live well. The others are not of any importance anyways.
Now, THIS would be entertaining... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm just waiting for the day when a botnet herder decides to find out the answer to the question of "what will the government do when *everyone* is a criminal?"... and malware sends a "care package" to 1,000,000+ computers, consisting of illegal content {child porn / whatever) - then reports the IP addresses to the authorities.
Really, what would the response be? Arrest EVERYONE? Admit that their laws/processes are idiotic? Prosecute a few "as examples" (thereby proving that although the law/process IS idiotic, they would rather sacrifice the principle of laws being applicable to everyone, than admit failure)?
Lawl CAPTCHA: "Uniforms".
Re:Right (Score:5, Interesting)
At least in the US, evidence found against you found in an illegal search* cannot be used against you. If the search was legal (warrant attained or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing), then it's your fault for having done whatever other stuff you get hit with, regardless of why you/your home/vehicle was searched. Don't confuse this with secondary offenses, like not having your seat belt on in many states (they can't pull you over specifically for that, but can add it to the ticket).
* if they can see the bag of weed (or whatever) on your back seat through the window, not only is it legal for them to arrest you for it, but it also gives them reasonable suspicion to search the rest of the vehicle without attaining a warrant, even if you protest.
IANAL, YMMV, laws vary by state, etc. And all bets tend to be off at border stops, especially internationally. As far as I'm aware, they have the legal (USA PATRIOT act legal, anyways) right to search your vehicle entirely at any international border.
But back to the topic at hand, if your computer is legitimately siezed, I think you should at least be able to know what processes were used to search for X when Y was found. If they want to arrest you for possession of goat porn, and then they find CP, you should be able to find out that the latter came up when they did a general search for porn, rather than when they explicitly searched for it. Or if they find pirated media when searching for CP, which would be a lot harder to accidentally find by the same 'legit' search. It'll never happen, and good luck auditing the police's methods even if you had the right to do so. Just encrypt all of your crap, and don't have illegal stuff.
My 2c
Re:Outlaw encryption (Score:2, Interesting)
If you aren't completely dumb, there are always ways to keep your data private.
Re:Be careful though. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, unless they decide to search anyway and claim you consented.
Re:Right (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is probably why there are so few elaborate bank-jobs
And I could actually understand the motivation for an elaborate bank-job. You disable the alarm, tunnel into the bank, break open the vault and walk away with a cool million or so. I could get behind that. A million bucks is worth the chance of going to prison......
What isn't worth the chance of going to prison is the dumbass who holds up the bank with a gun and walks away with a lousy $10,000. Even worse is the dumbass who holds up the gas station with a gun and walks away with less than $100. Clearly they didn't do a proper cost benefit analysis ;)
Re:Right (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is exactly why we'll code our application to flag any encrypted files or hidden partitions, plus a full scan of your unencrypted swap file.
I don't have swap files. I have swap partitions and they are encrypted with a random key at boot time using dmcrypt.
How can forensics easily tell the difference between an encrypted file and a file filled with either random or binary data?
Re:Right (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't this kinda depend?
Kinda. But when in actual practice, things are routinely done such as pulling over cars going through sections of state and national forests by game wardens so that the local K9 unit can sniff the car for drugs you have to take notice. Why game wardens? Because they have broad powers to search a vehicle on any park land, even through roads, looking for game poaching. This is being used TODAY all the time to pull "suspicious looking" people over, search their cars, and end up making a drug or DUI arrest. I know this from second hand experience, as a family member is married to a former Virginia park ranger who's job, for the most part, is to do exactly this. He told me this directly. I have no reason to not believe him, as he doesn't even think he's doing anything wrong. Just telling me what he does for a living.
Enjoy your freedom, America.
Re:Right (Score:5, Interesting)
I knew a bank robber. I didn't know he was knocking over banks at the time, but he later was in a long distance high speed chase ending in suicide by cop. Pretty surprising to everyone that knew him. I think he got ground down by his circumstances for too long. He spent so many years having to scrimp and do without it made him crazy. I remember him going out to eat a lot and buying little gifts for his friends and seeming happier than usual. I guess for him a lousy $60k (assuming he got $10k per bank) was worth dying for.
The truly weird thing was when he got away from the 5th bank it was very close. He was driving on medians and shoulders, through fields like a maniac during rush hour with dozens of cops on his tail. Somehow he got away and instead of ditching the car and going straight he laid low for a month and did it again.
Re:Now, THIS would be entertaining... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm just waiting for the day when a botnet herder decides to find out the answer to the question of "what will the government do when *everyone* is a criminal?"... and malware sends a "care package" to 1,000,000+ computers, consisting of illegal content {child porn / whatever) - then reports the IP addresses to the authorities.
If the sort of people who ran botnets were the sort of people who want better laws and police, that would happen. I rather think that is the last thing they want.
What is more likely (if it is not happening already) is that more targeted hacks are being used to plant material on computers, hidden where are non-knowledgeable user would not easily find it, and then blackmailing them. A few files could be placed in open view to prove that the threat was real - or perhaps a random illegal image could be popped up at intervals to keep the pressure up.
Most people would be too scared to get help, and would roll over.
Re:Be careful though. (Score:4, Interesting)
I was watching cops (not a regular viewer but was being sociable) and saw a cop search a car claiming a "furtive gesture" as probable cause. I could hardly believe it, here was a guy who knew he was being filmed who apparently decided that showing his ability to get around the need for a warrant was going to be taken as a good thing by viewers. What sticks with me isn't the injustice of it all, it was that a potential jury of peers sitting around watching TV seemed to support the action.
Re:So they want GOV spyware? (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't get the point. Currently all analysis of computers must be done by computer forensic specialists, who are relatively expensive and limited in number. So, say you are investigating Joe Smith, who has 3 computers, a PDA, and a cell phone. You deliver all these to the forensic analysts. At least half a year passes before you get any information from them. At that point, the information is only really useful in a trial, but not in the investigation.
They want something where cheaper people in greater supply (i.e., regular officers) can, in a forensically-valid manner, look for preliminary information so that they can take advantage of it in the investigation and so they can limit the evidence they send for forensic analysis (e.g., the one device out of those five that was used in the crime).
Re:Be careful though. (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, my respect for the law greatly diminished when I received a ticket that stated I'd turned left where prohibited by sign – at an intersection I'd driven straight through. In fact, I hadn't even entered that intersection when the cop turned his lights on.
"Seeing" a bag of "weed" (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem I have with that scenario is that, it's pretty difficult to identify plant material visually, unless the plant is still in it's 'whole' form (that is, you can actually see leaves, stems, etc and determine from the physiology what kind of plant it is).
You might say, if someone has an unlabelled baggy with chopped up plant material, it is likely to be marijuana, but the truth is, unless you can smell it, or have a trained dog sniff it, or analyze it in a lab, you can't really make an identification just on visual appearances alone. It could be some sort of cooking herb, tea, etc.
So what *is* reasonable suspicion? Is a cop seeing a ziploc bag of plant material on your seat sufficient evidence to give that cop the right to enter your vehicle, grab the bag, and make further identification?
It's my opinion that it should not be. Whether it is, or not, of course is a matter of the laws governing whatever jurisdiction you are in.
In a great many circumstances, visual 'identification' can be very, very wrong. Therefore, it seems like the logical conclusion is that visual identification, alone, in many cases, should not be sufficient for 'reasonable suspicion'. There are, of course, some cases where visual identification should be sufficient, like seeing a beheaded corpse in the backseat or something (sure, that *could* just be a theatrical prop, but in that case I'm willing to concede that the cops should be allowed to investigate).
Re:Be careful though. (Score:2, Interesting)
Worth becoming a regular viewer. You can learn a lot about current manipulative tactics used by police. Just treat it as a real-time game - your job is to roleplay as the suspect, and call FAIL when the suspect makes the fatal mistake. You win when you call FAIL at the right time, and you lose when you think "Damn, that guy said what I woulda said!". After a few months of regular viewing, you can get pretty good at it. Think of it as survival training.
It's propaganda. If most of the jury pool watches the show without regarding it as a survival training scenario, the show's backers can change the popular conception of what constitutes probable cause. Knowing what the desired standard for probable cause is the real benefit of watching the show. (It has changed over the years since the show started airing.)
(Correct response in the situation is to enter an "Am I under arrest?" "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?", and "I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree that you have probable cause, and I do not consent to a search." loop. If you're very lucky, you'll get a cop who's honest enough to stop before he illegally searches you. If he's an average honest cop, his illegal search will yield nothing, and no harm, no foul. Even a corrupt cop will be less likely to plant something, knowing that he's less likely to be able to use it as evidence.)
Re:So they want GOV spyware? (Score:3, Interesting)
Dude, ethanol/alcohol does not conduct electricity. So technically speaking, your computer would not short-out if you pour alcohol on it. However, it has to be fairly pure ethanol. Otherwise you will in fact cause a short but it would be the water contained in the drink doing this.
Re:Right (Score:3, Interesting)
I see it the opposite way: There would be an enormous, highly taxable, highly profitable market. Every level of government would take a juicy slice, numerous corporations would profit obscenely, and users would have sharply higher quality goods for a lower price. Not to mention an instant freeze on criminal syndicate funding. I'm pretty surprised no canny pol or CEO has figured this angle and done something to tap this gigantic fountain of cash.
That's because you think money is the goal. If it were, then legalizing these things and taxing/regulating them makes a lot of sense. Our politicians are already wealthy and so are the people who got them into office; more power is what they want. The very monetary system itself always has more debt than dollars in circulation. That's right, there are never enough dollars in circulation to pay off all debt, there never will be, and this is by design because debt is also a form of control. Therefore, they are not interested in taxing drugs and using the proceeds to pay down the national debt or anything like that, because if they succeeded in paying off all debts there would be no money in circulation. They are interested in an entirely artificial, ubiquitous "crime" that the average person fears or despises that can be used to increase police power and police surveillance.
Drugs are perfect because this amounts to making a crime of things that are not crimes in and of themselves (that is, what adults do with their own bodies). As a result, it creates laws that are nearly unenforcable in that they would require a police state to enforce. Nothing has done as much damage to the Fourth Amendment as the War on (some) Drugs. Read up on the asset forfeiture laws alone to see what I mean. If you can weaken or ignore one part of the Constitution and get away with it, then you can weaken or ignore the rest as well.