http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38183819
Not sure where to stick this story, so "catch-all cop thread" is being definition tested. It could also go in a privacy thread.
tl;dr: In order to bypass a suspect's phone lock and encryption, the cops waited for the suspect to make a call, which requires unlocking. Then the cop just kept it active to prevent it from re-locking. So... hey; anyone think of a UI fix for this? Time-limited access? Require password/PIN every 10 minutes of active use?
Or, as per the effort required on the part of police to go through the hoops to get to the point of the article: you could simply not be involved in organized crime on a level to attract the attention of a dedicated police task force.
Okay, that's a cheeky response, but still. From my professional perspective, notwithstanding the "melodramatic" phrasing of the news article, I view the above simply as good, albeit creative, policework. (By "melodramatic", I think the provocative use of "mugging" a suspect is likely an absurd characterisation of the event. It might just as well be described as "the police were able to catch the suspect by surprise when they lawfully arrested him.")
Regardless, there are two aspects here, which come up again and again in recent years when it comes to the conflict between evidence gathering vs. encryption. There is what law enforcement is justified in doing according to the law versus what they are capable of doing, in a technical sense.
Police, especially those investigating serious, organized crime, need to be able to effectively do so. I do not know the state of the law in regards to warrantless cell phone searches incidental to arrest in the USA, nor Britain. (Though in the latter, I would guess based on the article, the fact they planned such an operation, and got a guilty plea, suggests they felt they were on solid ground, legally). I do intimately know the state of the case law for Canada, so I'll use that for my analysis.
In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search of a cell phone incidental to arrest
may be justified/admissable given a certain test. 1) Most obviously, the arrest itself must be legal. 2) The search of the cell phone must be for evidence related to the offence for which the subject was arrested. This makes sense, to me. It means no "fishing expeditions", that the officer can't just browse through a phone aimlessly upon an arrest for impaired driving, or causing a disturbance. 3) There must be some reason for the officer to believe that evidence of the offence may be found on the phone, and that there is a need to search the phone at the time, rather than wait for a search warrant to be obtained. It is a standard less than "reasonable and probable grounds", but more than mere speculation. The articulation that an officer may not be able to search the phone later, even
with a search warrant may be a factor here.
I believe that the above is a reasonable take on the issue. This sort of case law
is most relevant to "task force" level policing, that most people shouldn't really stress, imo. If you're
really worried about a plainclothes police officer arresting you by surprise for no reason while you are on the phone and then searching through your phone before its locked, that's a level of paranoia/fearfulness that just isn't reasonable, to me.
LOL
(Image removed from quote.)
also: Not enough "
"s in the world......
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-man-frankie-taylor-eastpointe-michigan-blind-beaten-police-tied-chair-dui-alleged-a7463541.html
Fucking hell
