villal Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 It was a little before 8 at night when the breaker went out at Emily Milburn's home in Galveston. She was busy preparing her children for school the next day, so she asked her 12-year-old daughter, Dymond, to pop outside and turn the switch back on. As Dymond headed toward the breaker, a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me." Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy." One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat. As it turned out, the three men were plain-clothed Galveston police officers who had been called to the area regarding three white prostitutes soliciting a white man and a black drug dealer. more here I'm quite speechless to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Police set to step up hacking of home PCs THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant. The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws. The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room. Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging. Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned. A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he “believes” that it is “proportionate” and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime — defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years. However, opposition MPs and civil liberties groups say that the broadening of such intrusive surveillance powers should be regulated by a new act of parliament and court warrants. They point out that in contrast to the legal safeguards for searching a suspect’s home, police undertaking a remote search do not need to apply to a magistrates’ court for a warrant. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the human rights group, said she would challenge the legal basis of the move. “These are very intrusive powers – as intrusive as someone busting down your door and coming into your home,” she said. “The public will want this to be controlled by new legislation and judicial authorisation. Without those safeguards it’s a devastating blow to any notion of personal privacy.” She said the move had parallels with the warrantless police search of the House of Commons office of Damian Green, the Tory MP: “It’s like giving police the power to do a Damian Green every day but to do it without anyone even knowing you were doing it.” Richard Clayton, a researcher at Cambridge University’s computer laboratory, said that remote searches had been possible since 1994, although they were very rare. An amendment to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 made hacking legal if it was authorised and carried out by the state. He said the authorities could break into a suspect’s home or office and insert a “key-logging” device into an individual’s computer. This would collect and, if necessary, transmit details of all the suspect’s keystrokes. “It’s just like putting a secret camera in someone’s living room,” he said. Police might also send an e-mail to a suspect’s computer. The message would include an attachment that contained a virus or “malware”. If the attachment was opened, the remote search facility would be covertly activated. Alternatively, police could park outside a suspect’s home and hack into his or her hard drive using the wireless network. Police say that such methods are necessary to investigate suspects who use cyberspace to carry out crimes. These include paedophiles, internet fraudsters, identity thieves and terrorists. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said such intrusive surveillance was closely regulated under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. A spokesman said police were already carrying out a small number of these operations which were among 194 clandestine searches last year of people’s homes, offices and hotel bedrooms. “To be a valid authorisation, the officer giving it must believe that when it is given it is necessary to prevent or detect serious crime and [the] action is proportionate to what it seeks to achieve,” Acpo said. Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, agreed that the development may benefit law enforcement. But he added: “The exercise of such intrusive powers raises serious privacy issues. The government must explain how they would work in practice and what safeguards will be in place to prevent abuse.” The Home Office said it was working with other EU states to develop details of the proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 4, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4, 2009 How the hell is that even allowable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 4, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 4, 2009 so people will start doing the naughty stuff on pay as you go phones, seriously yet another pointless erosion of civil liberties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Wasn't sure whether this should go in t'internet or police thread THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant. The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws. The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room. Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging More here Hmmmm, this sucks - they can go f*#k themselves OOOPS - Already posted above!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Hey they're just playing catch up: Magic Lantern Cyber Knights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Total and typical over reaction to a non-story again. I can now understand how the conspiracy theorists actually make money. Interesting that the story that Snowy posted had no comments other than from a "spokesman" but rent a quote from the Tory Shadow Home Secretary making this to be a major thing. Hmm I wonder if he has the same issues with any sort of surveillance techniques that the police use? Probably does because he like all MP's are above the law ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 How the hell is that even allowable?Hey, if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Total and typical over reaction to a non-story again. So are you saying that it doesn't happen or it doesn't matter that it happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 What are you saying Snowy? My view is fairly clear, I note with interest that you haven't posted any sort of view again, so maybe you would like to share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 What are you saying Snowy? With reference to this part of your post Total and typical over reaction to a non-story again. I am asking is it a non-story/overreaction because it doesn't happen or because it doesn't matter that it happens? My view is fairly clear. I don't think it is otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 So Snowy you wont share your views with us on this story, OK fair enough, I thought the fact that you had posted it may have meant that you had a view on it, obviously not the case and must have been posted for another reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 So Snowy you wont share your views with us on this story, OK fair enough, I thought the fact that you had posted it may have meant that you had a view on it, obviously not the case and must have been posted for another reason :? :?: I have no idea what you are suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 I have no idea what the heck you are talking about again Snowy. I can only assume that you posted the story to get a reaction and then try and rip apart the replies from certain individuals, or were you trying to prove a point in some way. Most conversations and debates are a two way thing but as you obviously don't want to post your views it's somewhat wrong of me to reply to your demands from me, especially when I have shown the common decency of saying what I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 I posted the story from the Times because I thought it was interesting and rather shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Edit: Way above this sort of game ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 I have no idea what the heck you are talking about again Snowy. I think he's asking you why you think it's a non-story, and to be honest I'd be interested in the answer as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 maybe you'd like to share your views first Richard on the story before demanding I explain further. THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant. definition of Routine? 1. a customary or regular course of procedure. 2. commonplace tasks, chores, or duties as must be done regularly or at specified intervals; typical or everyday activity: the routine of an office. 3. regular, unvarying, habitual, unimaginative, or rote procedure. 4. an unvarying and constantly repeated formula, as of speech or action; convenient or predictable response: Don't give me that brotherly-love routine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 5, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2009 I can only assume that you posted the story to get a reaction and then try and rip apart the replies from certain individuals Unreasonable assumption there drat and putting words in mouths. Sometimes articles are reproduced for no reason other than because they are interesting or relevant to a topic. To assume underhandedness with no real evidence renders any subsequent discussion improbable; and at best sets it off on the wrong foot - which has happened here. If we could all change our discussion style we might be able to have a discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 If we could all change our discussion style we might be able to have a discussion! Which is what some of us have been trying to do. Two people "demanded" me to explain my posts without offering any views of their own on the story. Still that is way off topic, I've had my tuppenceworth and can't be really arsed to address the issues of others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts