Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Hot Comments

Comments: 382 +-   UK Police Want Plug-In Computer Crime Detectors on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:20PM

Posted by timothy on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:20PM
from the type-I-errors-type-II-errors-and-bonus-privacy-invasion dept.
privacy
government
security
hardware
news
An anonymous reader writes "UK police are talking to private companies about using plug-in USB devices that can scour the hard drive of any device they are attached to, searching for evidence of illegal activity. The UK's Association of Chief Police Officers is considering using commercial devices that can perform targeted searches of text, pictures and computer code on hard drives, allowing untrained cops to detect anything from correspondence on stolen goods to child pornography. Police in the UK are desperate for a way of slashing the backlog of machines seized by the police in raids, with many forces having a backlog that will take a year to process." Maybe they shouldn't seize so many computers.
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:23PM (#28200507)

    this is probably something everybody should have, just to make sure they're in compliance.

          • by rtb61 (674572) on Thursday June 04 2009, @12:43AM (#28206025) Homepage

            Now if you are going to get down to the nitty gritty, how about reading the warranty 'er' end used licence agreement on the windows operating system. You know the bit, where it says that they do not warrant the operating system is free of viruses (illegal content) when they sell it to you. Now the law wants to make every person 100% legally responsible for all the content on a computer when the operating system supplier will emphatically not take any responsibility for the security, stability or reliability for that software when thy initially supply it to the consumer.

            As it stands now, just the contents of a hard disk drive should never ever be considered the sole defining evidence of a persons innocence or guilt for any crime because only the most competent computer security experts are capable of keeping a computer secure and safe when connected to the internet and they must make continued efforts to keep it that way. So the law and the courts are turning a blind eye to the reality of the situation.

            How many computer geeks out there actually believe that the typical computer using noob should be held legally liable for the activity of their computer, so when it is used in a botnet to commit credit card fraud should that family spend the next five years in jail for the crime they have committed for which they must now prove innocence. You can't even claim that there was no evidence of a virus, as the operating system warranty itself states that they may exist (benefit of the doubt) and of course a smart criminal will clean up any evidence that leads to them after using someone else's device in a major crime.

            So the police hook up a device based upon using a operating system that does not warrant that it is free of viruses, to a suspects PC, and claim that the device is now free of viruses when the manufacturer directly refutes that claim, so the police will try to claim they did not infect the suspects machine and put the illegal content on that computer. A a very minimum I would hope they use publicly audited software, open source and not closed source proprietary software that the manufacturer believes already contains viruses as per their warranty and that includes the whole and complete evidence chain.

  • by BitterOak (537666) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:24PM (#28200523)
    This should be easy to accomplish in the UK where citizens are required by law to turn over all their encryption keys or face jail time. It would be harder to make it work in the US, where people can use encryption. I suppose the Brits could employ TrueCrypt hidden volumes to keep their stuff private.
    • by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @04:11PM (#28201337) Homepage

      The real problem is writing the OOXML parser.

      • by twidarkling (1537077) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:41PM (#28200857)

        We will wake up one day and find that keys to our doors only work from the outside.

        I dunno about you, but my locks already only take keys on the outside. See, on the inside, I have this nice little knob I can use to lock the door without the key.

        • by bitt3n (941736) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @04:04PM (#28201231)

          We will wake up one day and find that keys to our doors only work from the outside.

          I dunno about you, but my locks already only take keys on the outside. See, on the inside, I have this nice little knob I can use to lock the door without the key.

          mine has the knob on the outside, and the keyhole on the inside. it's like a hardware version of DRM.

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:46PM (#28200923)

        Any citizen who believes in human rights & the sovereignty of the individual should be willing to spend a little time in jail, rather than give the encryption key. A few days in jail is a small inconvenience compared to the return of tyranny that existed in the UK prior to 1800. You have the right to not be tortured into giving false confessions - this isn't the Medieval Ages or the Catholic Inquisition.

        Remain strong; remain silent.

      • by wowbagger (69688) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:47PM (#28200941) Homepage Journal

        "Whatever happened to "You have the right to remain silent . . ." "

        I wasn't aware the Miranda decision [wikipedia.org] and the Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] applied to the UK.

                • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday June 04 2009, @04:00AM (#28206849)

                  When I see a cop, I suddenly become a deaf-mute. Anything you say, even something as simple as, "I don't own a gun and know nothing about a robbery," can be used against you.

                  Attorney: "When you arrested Mr. Smith did you notice anything odd?"
                  Cop: "Yes when I told him about the robbery he said he doesn't own a gun."
                  Attorney: "What's odd about that?"
                  Cop: "I never said the robber used a gun, and yet somehow Mr. Smith knew that intimate detail. That's why we decided to detain him and press charges as the most-likely suspect."
                  Attorney: "Any other incriminating evidence?"
                  Cop: "The store-owner identified Mr. Smith as visiting the store that evening, and acting in a suspicious manner. He was at the scene of the crime."
                  Attorney: "So Mr. Smith was at the scene of the crime, was aware of how the robbery was committed...with a gun... and acted in a suspicious manner."
                  Cop: "Yes."

                  Ooops. You might be completely innocent, and yet because you stupidly opened your mouth, now you're headed towards a probable conviction. Yay.

      • by Ash Vince (602485) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @06:28PM (#28203507) Journal

        What happened was that out current Labour government jumped on board with the war on terror then got this bill through parliament without any real public debate about the contents under the guise of fighting terror. The vast majority of the British public have no idea this shite is on the books as the press all agreed not to cover the law in any depth before it was passed.

        Maybe the bill was D-noticed but we will never know since the press are not allowed to mention what is D-noticed and what is not.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Notice [wikipedia.org]

  • Great... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chabo (880571) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:24PM (#28200525) Homepage Journal

    Now instead of having trained forensic experts, we'll have common beat cops searching your computer.

    Attorney: How do you know he had illegal material on his computer?
    Officer: I pushed the button, and the computer told me to arrest him.

    • Re:Great... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:38PM (#28200807)

      Officer: I pushed the button, and the computer told me to arrest him.

      Pffft! You think too small, and will never take over the world.

      Corrected version follows.

      Attorney: How do you know he had illegal material on his computer?
      Officer: The computer called us and informed on its owner.
      Attorney: It called you?
      Officer: Yeah. And so did yours. You still want to question me, Mr. 500Gig Chubby Porn Collection?

      • Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:55PM (#28201063)

        Attorney: Yeah I have chubby porn. It's not illegal or a crime. Are you in the habit of arresting citizens for violating non-existent laws?
        Officer: ...uh...
        Attorney: Your case history indicates you make many false arrests. Like this one: Arresting an elderly woman because she refused to let you enter her house. What have you to say to that?
        Officer: She refused to comply with our request to enter.
        Attorney: Ahhh you REQUEST to enter... so you didn't actually have a warrant..
        Officer: ...uh...
        Attorney: But you decides to arrest her anyway. Wasn't she later freed?
        Officer: Yes but...
        Attorney: And here's another case where you broke into the wrong house and damaged the door.
        Officer: It was an accident.
        Attorney: Yes but you never replaced the door, forcing the innocent person to spend $500 in repairs. You have a long, long history of abuse against the residents...
        Officer: Now see here!
        Attorney: ...and have been reprimanded multiple times by your superiors. Could it be you searched my client's computer without provocation?
        Officer: I had a warrant.
        Attorney: An *invalid* warrant. It's not signed by a judge, you never swore an oath, you just photocopied it and filled-in the details yourself. Isn't that true?
        Officer: No!
        Attorney: Remember you're under oath Officer Chiklas. This is clearly your handwriting, is it not?
        Officer: .......
        Attorney: Well?
        Officer: Yes.
        Attorney: Your eminence, I submit that this was an illegal search and seizure without a warrant and all evidence should be dismissed.

    • Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ve3id (601924) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:44PM (#28200901)
      This reminds me of another idiot device they gave to the British bobby: back in the 70's and 80's, there was a glut of illegal CB sets in England. They never legalised the use of 27MHz AM/SSB CBs and all the units sold were marked 'for export only' When they legalised CB, units that were approved could only transmit FM. Instead of overworking the radio inspectors, they gave bobbies on the beat a box that detected if a close transmitter was AM or FM, with two LEDs. The only problem was amateur radio operators can legally use AM and SSB (after all, they invented it!). One beat p.c. stopped a ham and asked him to talk in the mike, and, you guessed it, the illegal CB light lit up! Only when the amateur radio operator started cursing and swearing at the p.c. and getting red in the face did he consult another p.c. over the police radio who was a ham. This being the appropriate behaviour for a ham accused of being a CB'er, he let him go with an apology.
    • Re:Great... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ve3id (601924) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:50PM (#28200985)
      One principle of computer forensics is that if a computer is manipulated in any way, the evidence may be corrupted by such operation, and this could be used by defence attornies. Real computer forensics involves getting the computer powered down, removing the disk, setting it up in a test jig with write protect enabled, and reading the complete image from the disk onto a sterile environment for analysis. I don't think Mr. Plod will meet the test of admissibility into evidence! How is he going to prove to the court that the suspected data were not on the USB key to start with? If he has interfered with the computer in any way by plugging in a USB key, then the evidence is contaminated.
      • Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Chabo (880571) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @04:05PM (#28201251) Homepage Journal

        Not to mention that if you've published copyrighted material, they might get a false positive, indicating that you're infringing against yourself! ;)

        • Re:Great... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by corychristison (951993) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @06:37PM (#28203629)

          Something like this happened to a friend of mine.

          He owned a blog that he literally put up everything that happened in his life.

          He added pages of an essay he was writing for History to his blog as he finished and edited them.

          A few days after he turned in his paper he was asked to speak to the Dean where he was accused of plagiarism because Google turned up his blog (he uses a pseudo-name, and has google-analytics installed on his blog)

          Took him a few meetings with the education board to prove that it was his blog and his own writing.

          What a bitch, eh? The fact that the teacher merely typed it in Google and said "Good enough". He didn't bother to look for any pictures or any information that would hint that it was this particular persons blog.

  • by courteaudotbiz (1191083) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:24PM (#28200527) Homepage
    TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org]
  • Urm? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:26PM (#28200581) Journal
    So, are they saying that they want existing forensics software, with a drool-proof wizard attached, bootable from a flash drive(because hell, who needs forensic hardware write blocking when you can totally trust software to do the job under any circumstance?) or are they actually proposing that the program be able to detect evil?
  • Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Co0Ps (1539395) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:28PM (#28200607)
    I think the UK Police got this idea while watching CSI.
  • by SethJohnson (112166) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:28PM (#28200623) Homepage Journal
    Anybody want to sponsor a contest to see who can write a USB driver that defeats this within the fewest lines of code?

    Seth
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dranga (520457)

      Just rewire your USB ports to run at 120v. And label it USB120 so you can point back at them for not reading when they try to charge you with damaging their equipment.

  • by wjh31 (1372867) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:29PM (#28200645) Homepage
    that'll probably work fine for the lay-man, but will having an encrypted hard drive count as evidence of illegal activity
  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:37PM (#28200775) Homepage

    If I understand the British government, they wouldn't have any problems with this approach either:

    Let's build a live USB Linux load that knows how to read and write all known file systems including encrypted systems. Then we will write a few handy scripts that will scan for a fairly long list of known files using MD5sum or some such. Then, if it doesn't turn anything up, copy some child porn from the USB drive over to the target system and print out the arrest warrant.

    • by robably (1044462) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @04:12PM (#28201361) Journal
      That raises an interesting point, though - as soon as a police officer plugs a USB stick in to a suspect's computer, the computer surely stops being an untouched "forensic scene", and so anything on it becomes inadmissable in court? We've had speed detectors being chalenged in court, how long after these are used in the wild before they are challenged, too? The "USB stick" would have to be a read-only, use once item so that it could be used for one crime scene only to find probable cause, then bagged and stored to be presented as evidence later - if it was a standard USB stick then ANYTHING could have been on it when the police officer stuck it in to your computer.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:37PM (#28200781)

    It's called COFEE [microsoft.com]

    Q.What is COFEE?

    A.COFEE (Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor) is a tool that helps simplify the very complex problem of gathering "live" computer evidence of cybercrime. It utilizes common forensics tools to aid officers at the scene in gathering important live evidence with a single USB device. It also provides reports in a simple format for later interpretation by computer experts, or as supportive evidence for computer investigations. This means that first-responder officers on the scene of a crime don't have to be computer forensic experts to capture live data for later analysis and that this critical information does not have to be lost once a computer is shut down to be taken for a traditional offline forensic analysis.

    Cops got even got their own web portal courtesy of Microsoft.

  • Inspired! (Score:5, Informative)

    by shadowknot (853491) * on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:38PM (#28200813) Homepage

    Maybe they shouldn't seize so many computers.

    As someone working in Digital Forensics in the UK I can honestly say that this is the most inspired piece of wisdom I have seen in a long time. Our company has literally had computers that haven't been switched on in a decade that have been sitting in a garage or attic until the cops decide to seize them. This is good for business but bad for taxpayer expenditure and the expedient discovery of data of evidential worth. The process for seizure of computer equipment in police investigations is essentially "if it has an on-off switch then seize it". There needs to be some training given to officers seizing although I doubt they will as they are scared of the first case of non-seized items containing illicit material.

    • Re:Inspired! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Idiot with a gun (1081749) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:43PM (#28200889)
      Its an unfortunate situation when cops are more afraid of not seizing a machine carrying illicit material, than they are afraid of seizing hundreds or thousands of machines containing nothing illegal, and taking forever to return them.
  • O RLY? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:40PM (#28200845) Homepage Journal

    UK police are talking to private companies about using plug-in USB devices that can scour the hard drive of any device they are attached to

    I've got a rackmount OpenBSD box that claims otherwise.

  • Why not.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:42PM (#28200869)
    Why not have an EU-wide mandate of a computer bill of rights? In this include the right to encryption and the right to keep your key to yourself.
  • by fluch (126140) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:43PM (#28200885) Homepage

    "...allowing untrained cops to detect anything from correspondence on stolen goods to child pornography. Police in the UK are desperate for a way of slashing the backlog of machines seized by the police in raids..."

    How about investing more into proper trained cops? How about better education? That might help a bit... together with "Maybe they shouldn't seize so many computers".

    • Problem... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by denzacar (181829) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @04:54PM (#28202111)

      How about investing more into proper trained cops? How about better education?

      Cops receiving official training as computer forensics are no longer simple beat cops - they are computer forensics experts and they should be treated and paid as such.
      So, besides their police training they would probably require something equivalent to a BA/BS.

      And even if there was enough time and money to educate and pay them later - system needs its beat cops too. Not just highly trained computer forensics.

      What they would like to have is a "breathalyser-style tool for computers that could instantly flag up illegal activity on any PC it's attached to".
      Which is delusional, even when you limit it to "a simple tool to preview on site and identify there's that one email [they] are looking for [so they] can then use that and interview the person now, rather then waiting six to 12 months for the evidence to come back" in cases such as "credit card fraud or selling stolen goods online".

  • USB? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bert64 (520050) <[moc.eeznerif.todhsals] [ta] [treb]> on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:57PM (#28201101) Homepage

    How would a USB device get access to the host system's drives?
    Surely that would require drivers to be loaded on the host...
    Not only would this be very OS specific, but it could easily be defeated, you could configure the host to detect the insertion of this particular type of usb device and perform a secure overwrite of all your incriminating files when such a device is inserted.

  • UK police are asking for a "breathalyser"-style tool for computers that could instantly flag up illegal activity on any PC it is attached to [today.com].

    Detective Superintendent Charlie McMurdie, who is what passes for a computer expert in the police force, said such a tool could run on suspects' machines, instantly read and analyse their email, web browsing and chat logs, identify credit card fraud or selling stolen goods online, reliably detect and assess images containing children on the five-level child porn scale and create a handy log of relevant evidence. And a pony.

    "It's surely just a simple matter of programming," said McMurdie. "We're seizing so many computers from people with a copy of Virgin Killer that frontline police need a digital forensic tool as easy to use as the breathalyser, to magically flash up 'HONEST UPSTANDING CITIZEN' or ''E'S A NONCE, GUV'. Do we need to seize five computers, all their mobile phones, their CD and DVD collection and basically everything that runs on electricity, or could we use a magical police gadget with impressive flashy lights and stuff? I thought computers were supposed to make life easier!"

    The eventual development of such a tool could help ease a backlog of digital forensic work that has officers waiting up to a year for evidence to be recovered from seized machines, though threatening to destroy people's livelihoods has proven very efficient in extracting confessions.

    EDS Capita Goatse have promised they can "absolutely, definitely, certainly, probably" produce such a tool with only an ironclad GBP100m five year contract, and also reliably determine whether a computer program halts or not. The Internet Watch Foundation also demanded to be involved, and were told their details would be kept on file.

    "It was so much simpler in the old days," sighed McMurdie. "People asking you what time it was, burglars with domino masks and striped jumpers and bags marked 'SWAG,' chirpy Cockney sparrow second-hand car dealers wiv a heart of gold ... you just can't get the wood, you know."

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Perhaps there is nothing morally wrong with it. But it is stupid. No automatic tool will completely replace a trained professional (for now). And that's even ignoring the likelihood that the UK police are confiscating way too many computers. The fact that they have way too many computers to investigate is very likely a symptom of an overzealous police force/government declaring many things illegal, as seems to be the trend in the West as of late. So really all they're doing is attacking the symptom, not the
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MozeeToby (1163751)

        Who ever said that this technology was going to replace the officers doing the work right now? I could definately imagine a system where low profile cases are automatically checked with this software and if anything is found it is flagged for review by an expert. High profile cases would, obviously, always be investigated by someone who knew what they were doing.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:34PM (#28200721) Journal
      While this move is legitimate in a structural sense(i.e. if the search would otherwise be legitimate, doing it with this would be ok, and if it is otherwise illegitimate, doing it with this wouldn't become ok); but there are practical considerations that make me nervous.

      One is write blocking. To prevent corruption, tampering, and similar issues, it is good practice to use a hardware write blocker and, where possible, work from a disk image made from the original disk through a write blocker. A USB bootable system is not going to have that level of assurance. In a lot of cases, cops will have to monkey with the BIOS to get it to boot the USB drive and, with the vast number of BIOSes, chipsets, hardware RAID boards, softRAID crap, etc, etc. out there, trusting software to prevent tampering or corruption seems potentially troublesome.

      More generally, the demand for a "PC breathalyzer" is a demand that a difficult problem be made trivial so it can be done by unskilled or ignorant people. That sort of demand is rarely a harbinger of future quality, which is disquieting when people's freedoms are potentially at stake.
    • Re:A year? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Idiot with a gun (1081749) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:40PM (#28200843)
      Then the cops wouldn't pick up any computers at all, which would be silly. I'd rather see compensation come out of the police budget if computers aren't turned over in a reasonable amount of time, similar to how US citizens technically have the right to a "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."
    • Re:A year? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sporkinum (655143) on Wednesday June 03 2009, @03:43PM (#28200895)

      Interesting little side story to this.. A co-worker's daughter had her purse stolen at college. The perp used her bank card to buy gasoline and make online purchases. They were traced and the person was caught. The local sheriff seized the perp's computer as evidence.

      Where it gets interesting is that we had a MAJOR flood last year that flooded the sheriff's office. All of the evidence on hand was destroyed in the flood, and the cases the relied on the evidence had to be thrown out. To add insult to injury, they had to replace all the evidence that was destroyed. The perp ended up getting charged with nothing, and got a brand new computer out of the deal.

      Needless to say, my co-worker was not happy!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I'd imagine these would live thumb drives, specifically to sidestep any security measures like you described. A trained digital forensics expert will usually remove the hard drive, put it in a device that prevents any writes, make an image of the hard drive, and work from that. All of this is specifically to avoid running any code on the machine designed to hide any illegal information, and to prevent any corruption of evidence which would cause issues in court.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James