> the last thing I'd want is for the police to say that they can't continue to work on my case unless I grant them access to my device(s) ... If anything this s

> the last thing I'd want is for the police to say that they can't continue to work on my case unless I grant them access to my device(s) ... If anything this should be part of a policy in which victims elect to volunteer information when asked if there's anything that could help the case My understanding is that the police in the UK have always been required to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry, including those that might contradict the complainant's evidence. That means when investigating a crime they must consider the possibility that the victim is not telling the whole story (where it is reasonable to do so, eg. there is no way to corroborate the victim's account). The new guidelines (which, unfortunately, I can't find the full text of) apparently tell the police when they should exercise the power they have always had: to tell victims "we don't have enough evidence to justify putting further effort into this investigation, unless you agree to hand over your phone to us, because that would increase our confidence that you are telling us the truth." Police have competing priorities and it is inevitable that some crimes go unpunished because the witnesses are not believed by police, or refuse to voluntarily provide information which could affect their credibility. I am sure I would agree with the police doing this in some extreme cases, but as another data security conscious person, it's unlikely I would fully agree with the police interpretation of "necessary and appropriate." [1] [1]: https://twitter.com/PoliceChiefs/status/1122757012859904002 https://twitter.com/PoliceChiefs/status/1122757012859904002