9 ms·

AusCERT arrest - yes, "arrest"

95 points by justatdotin 15y ago

justatdotin 15y ago
I'm just posting this recount because discussion on the previous article (and assertions by the tweeting police) suggested he wasn't arrested. and I read here http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-story-arrest-disputed-on-twitter/story-e6frfro0-1226057758607 http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-story-arrest-disp... that the queensland police thismorning tweeted again: "Our bad @bengrubb was arrested for questioning briefly Our tweet last night was based on information provided at the time Apologies,"
- fungi 15y ago
  > Our bad @bengrubb was arrested ... its absolutely infuriating that cops can be so drunk with power that they can be so publicly blasé with the fact that they are fucking with someone's life and liberty.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    If you think that's bad then there's this: Detective Superintendent Brian Hay today likened the issue to receiving stolen goods, but refused to go into details of Fairfax journalist Ben Grubb's case. "Let me give you an analogy. Someone breaks into a house and they steal a TV and they give that TV to you, and you know that TV is stolen, and you apply it to your own use ... that's receiving stolen property," he said. [0] [0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/18/3220071.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/18/3220071.htm
    - alexqgb 15y ago
      And that's EXACTLY why talking to the police about IP cases in particular is such a catastrophically bad idea. Most of these guys have absolutely no understanding of the law, which is hardly their fault. After all, IP law was established decades ago, in the pre-digital world. For most of its evolution, it functioned as a highly obscure branch of industrial law, used almost exclusively to govern relations between corporate publishers with large legal and clearance departments. It was manifestly NOT designed to govern the conduct of private individuals. In other words, police are as well-equipped to deal with this as they are to handle international trade disputes, which is why 'additional training' isn't the solution, since no amount of training can turn a blue collar union guy into the kind of highly educated corporate lawyer whose domain this really is. I agree with every other poster here - if you really want to balance your desire to be a good citizen with a measure of intelligent self-preservation, say you're happy to help with their investigation. Ask them to leave a number where they can reach you, and let them know that your legal representative will be contacting them there. Your lawyer can start by insisting that your cooperation is contingent upon a grant of total immunity. If there's any hesitation here, you'll know that actually, their request wasn't so friendly after all, and that they were, in fact, viewing you as a possible suspect the whole time.
- usedtolurk 15y ago
  Just to be clear, the police have not apologised for the arrest, just for initially denying that he was arrested (I misread it at first).
ck2 15y ago
It doesn't matter what country you are in - there is no such thing as a "friendly conversation" with any level of law enforcement - there are so many laws about everything and anything and you can be contributing to your own arrest and prosecution without even realizing it, doesn't matter if you are actually not guilty, why set yourself up? Laws aren't necessarily logical or fair and you might never grasp the danger of that until you are on the wrong side of one. Unless you are purposely trying to get arrested to make a protest, stop chatting with cops! Their policy is typically "arrest anyway, get them in the system, let the courts sort it out later". Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning. What's really surprising in this case is only that this particular person didn't grasp the concept. He probably got to walk away only because they knew the ipad data could make much better evidence to arrest others than forced testimony. But they obviously used his arrest to leverage him giving it up without a fight.
- bigiain 15y ago
  Here's ~50 minutes of video from Moin A. Yahya, Associate Professor of Law at U. Alberta explaining why you don't ever "just talk" to police. http://lawiscool.com/2009/04/16/why-you-should-never-talk-to-the-police/ http://lawiscool.com/2009/04/16/why-you-should-never-talk-to... Tell them what you have too by law (and make sure you know enough of your local law to be reasonably sure where you are required to answer and where you are not), and never ever ever "just chat". It's not that "the cops are out to get _you_", it's mostly that the metrics and motivations they're operating under while doing their job will _very_ rarely end up even aligning with your civil rights, never mind aligning with your best interests... They're not joking when they say "anything you say can _and will_ be used against you." That very much includes anything you say before they miranda you...
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    I strongly second this. Watch the videos linked in the article, which includes a former police officer. Unfortunately, your best bet is always to just shut up. It is too easy to incriminate yourself in something unrelated that you didn't even know was illegal.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- gitarr 15y ago
  The way I understand the story, it's not the researcher who got arrested but an unrelated journalist who covered the story. The police abused their power and then right out lied about it, only when they get caught in their lie they say oops our bad. This stinks. Austrialian police just lost a lot of trust and they will have to work hard on getting that back. A first step would be to give the iPad back they stole.
  - etherael 15y ago
    For one to have lost something, they must at one point have possessed that thing.
  - jstevens85 15y ago
    That should be Queensland police, not Australian.
pieter 15y ago
I wonder if it's legal to remote wipe your iPad with MobileMe after they've taken possession of it. Or what about "Oh, you're going to arrest me? Can I have one second before you read my rights?" and then wipe it?
- orborde 15y ago
  Short answer: No. Destruction of evidence is a crime. See the second bolded point of the EFF's advice here: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/protect/retention https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/protect/retention
- Jco_ 15y ago
  Or you can make sure nobody can access your data. Truecrypt, anyone ?
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    This is why my next phone will be compatible with Whispercore (http://whispersys.com/whispercore.html http://whispersys.com/whispercore.html) and hopefully my next Tablet too. This is also why I automatically encrypt all of my incoming email with my public pgp key on the mail server. So any mail sat on my phone/laptop/server is encrypted with my password protected private pgp key (https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_Email https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_E...) I'm in the UK, so unfortunately they can demand that I give up my encryption keys and passwords and charge me if I choose to refuse, but at least it will slow them down enough so I can get a lawyer involved. And at least I have the choice of refusing.
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      >I'm in the UK, so unfortunately they can demand that I give up my encryption keys and passwords and charge me if I choose to refuse do they have the right to scan your brain if you forgot the password or produce the wrong one under the stress of the arrest (my hands shake, heart races and i have hard time finding insurance card lying in plain view in glove compartment even when i'm having a traffic stop, less hard to imagine how i'd feel when/if i'd be "arrested for questioning")?
djmdjm 15y ago
The Queensland police have form for overzealous prosecution. A couple of years ago they arrested and charged a man with publishing child-abuse material after passing on a viral video that had already been shown on national TV: http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/net-video-crime-epidemic/2008/12/11/1228584982919.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/net-video-crime-e... Moral of the story: don't use the Internet in Queensland.
KaeseEs 15y ago
How long have Australian police been in the habit of reading suspects their Miranda rights (or are they required to)? I'm really curious how that made it from our law to theirs.
- Joakal 15y ago
  Miranda rights only exist in USA. Here's Australia equivalent, it's pretty loose: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Miranda_rights#Australia https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Miranda_right...
- bobds 15y ago
  It's called Eagleland Osmosis. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EaglelandOsmosis http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EaglelandOsmosis
shareme 15y ago
Rules when dealing with police: 1. Always assume that police and computers are a disaster waiting to happen and thus that law officers are often overwhelmed by complexities of computers. 2. Always fight any request to impound any computer device. Its taking control of your property under somewhat shady if not illegal circumstances. 3. Have a business card with someone reachable 24-7 that will go to bat for you and claim that the device in question if company property and cannot be confiscated or impounded. 4. Be a little less naive, as breaking into two FB accounts that I won or control is not illegal, breaking into someone else's is somewhat illegal even for demo purposes. However, what saves this journalist's ass is its just a photo that does not have large company copyrights attached to it.
- uxp 15y ago
  > 4. Be a little less naive, as breaking into two FB accounts that I own[sic] or control is not illegal, breaking into someone else's is somewhat illegal even for demo purposes. FaceBook's TOS specifically states that anything uploaded onto their site, including the text of a status update, pictures, videos and comment text, is the irrevocable ownership of FaceBook. This gives them the ability to use your friend's pictures inside targeted ads, as well as take general screenshots of the site that may contain your comments or pictures as marketing tools for their own benefit and not yours. I wonder if unauthorized access to a FaceBook account is deemed theft of stolen property with the owner of the account as the victim, or if this was to go to court, would FaceBook be in the prosecution chair claiming their property was stolen†. If the latter, does anyone besides FaceBook have any say on how an unauthorized entry to some account should be treated? †Stolen in this context just means the "downloading" of page assets that occurs when one visits a web page.
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    Not totally correct. FB wouldn't be able to legally republish your photos on your friend's profiles were it not for a legal grant permitting them to do so. While you are giving them the unrestricted right to do pretty much anything they want with material uploaded to their site, they are not going so far as to claim that you're transferring clear title as well. You remain the copyright holder, they remain a (very privileged) licensee.
16s 15y ago
This is a very good example of why you should never, under any circumstances, use a proprietary computing device that cannot be fully encrypted where you alone hold the decryption key. The convenience these devices provide comes at the cost of your personal privacy and security. You basically give up control of your data when you decide to use an iPad. Most people just don't realize it. I really wish the device manufactures would allow, open-source, transparent whole device encryption that can be externally validated (Droids may have the capability already thanks to Linux and dm-crypt). In general, user's don't demand it, so the Apples of the world have no incentive to do it. All the while, they provide full access to the device's secret/undocumented data recovery/snooping features to governments leaving their user's private, personal data easily accessible.
- mahyarm 15y ago
  Apple has had FileVault for a while, and Lion will have whole disk encryption when it's released. Corporations of the world demand these things and you'll start seeing them once they can start dictating feature demands more and more. Apple does add encryption here and there, but only in small bits unfortunately.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    A few years ago Rio Tinto (a massive mining company) flat out banned staff from using iPhones because they weren't encryptable. This came about because an executive based in China was arrested and his iPhone taken.
adamc 15y ago
More evidence that the police (and the governments behind them) are out of control. Makes me think you should never answer questions without a lawyer of your own present. Of course, that presents serious problems for the poor.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning : "the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him."
  - adamc 15y ago
    Fair enough. In the last month I was part of an attempt to empanel a jury (in Texas) for a misdemeanor. We were told that the defendent was defending himself and that in Texas there was no right to an attorney in such cases (I think because the maximum punishment was a fine).
Duff 15y ago
There's a great lecture by a law professor on YouTube called "Don't Talk to Police". Watch it for some great insight on this. A key concept to understand is the phrase "Anything that you say can be used against you." That's a key phrase because of what isn't stated -- that words you say will be not be used to help you. A prosecutor has broad discretion to prosecute, and can (and will) cherry-pick information to use against you. Most cops and prosecutors are great people to have a beer with, and are not corrupt. But sometimes their position gives them a myopia and they see things or make connections are convenient or expedient. They are also invested with powers that make them extremely dangerous to interact with in many scenarios.
JoeAltmaier 15y ago
Lots of advice about stonewalling police. Then you get robbed, and imagine your frustration when the neighbors, who witnessed the van pull up while you were away and empty your house, turn their backs and walk back into their houses. You get the world you're willing to participate in. Enlightened self-interest may be in play here.
- JoachimSchipper 15y ago
  To some extent, yes; but in that case the neighbours have much better reasons to think that they are not a suspect than when a police officer starts chatting to them for no apparent reason. [EDIT: make it clear that I'm referring to the neighbours, was "To some extent, yes; but in that case it's a much more reasonable assumption that you're not a suspect."]
  - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
    Missed the point: the neighbors are ignoring the police, and you suffer. Now you are frustrated at the advice "don't talk to the police for any reason". Just an example.
    - alexqgb 15y ago
      Unless, of course, your neighbors consider themselves potential victims as well, and cooperate based on a sense of self-interest, rather than concern for your well-being.
      - hugh3 15y ago
        This would also make sense, and just goes to show how the "never talk to the police for any reason" meme is just plain silly, not to mention antisocial and dickish (if nobody ever talked to the police for any reason, then no criminals would ever get locked up). It's just part of a paranoid mindset which gets you karma on the internet but probably doesn't do you any good in the real world. By all means have your wits around you when talking to the police, especially if you think they suspect you of something, but the police are not out to get their jollies by locking up innocent folks for no reason, and your chance of winding up in prison for a crime you didn't commit based on a random off-hand innocent remark to a police officer is... much lower than other things you hardly ever think about. Hey, did you know that you have a one in eight hundred chance of getting multiple sclerosis? Go worry about that for a while instead.
hugh3 15y ago
Since I was one of the ones doubting that he'd really been arrested in the previous thread I should throw in a mea culpa at this point. It seems like they arrested him primarily because they wanted the evidence on that iPad to charge the other guy. I assume that the actual one-on-one demonstration had taken place on that iPad? The details aren't given, but it kinda makes sense. The justification they used to arrest him is iffy, and I suspect they know it, but it's just strong enough that it doesn't count as a false arrest (though they're certainly not going to bother to charge him with receiving stolen goods). While some people are using this as an opportunity to spread the "don't talk to police" meme, I'd like to use it as an opportunity to spread the "don't do illegal stuff with your computer or let other people do illegal stuff with your computer" meme, as this seems to be an easier way to avoid running afoul of the law.
- dkarl 15y ago
  You seem pretty determined to give the police the benefit of the doubt; why? It's a lot easier to believe that someone at Facebook called them up and made a lot of scary noises about "information about the commission of a crime" and "threat to the personal safety of our customers" and "possible dissemination of proprietary data and trade secrets in the form of illegal hacking techniques." (Maybe that's not impressive, but I'm just an amateur; a lawyer could sound much more scary while being a lot less specific.) Maybe whoever was in charge of the investigation was too easily cowed, too scared of bad PR, too easily panicked by vague specters of anarchy, or simply too trusting of a successful and established business. That seems pretty believable to me, and I haven't heard an equally plausible explanation. (I agree its a little silly that "don't talk to the police" dominates this page so much it's a pain to find the posts about the actual article.)
satori99 15y ago
Here is some interesting information about the Arresting officer Senior Constable Errol Coultis. Seems he may have a penchant for bittorrents. lol. http://www.zgeek.com/showthread.php/101079-Article-Queensland-cops-now-say-they-didn-t-arrest-Ben-Grubb?p=1669346&viewfull=1#post1669346 http://www.zgeek.com/showthread.php/101079-Article-Queenslan...
Nick_C 15y ago
I wonder if AusCERT will be held in Queensland ever again. If I was one of the organisers, I would be having a long hard think about that.
daimyoyo 15y ago
It's been said, but it bears repeating: NEVER talk to police without a lawyer present. Ever. The fact is that the the people interviewing know you law better than you do and know how to gain information they can use against you without you being aware of what's happening. There are people who contend that "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide" but frankly, the risk is too high of having something I said misconstrued. I'd rather look guilty and be free, than know I'm innocent and be in jail.

95 points by justatdotin 15y ago

I'm just posting this recount because discussion on the previous article (and assertions by the tweeting police) suggested he wasn't arrested. and I read here http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-story-arrest-disputed-on-twitter/story-e6frfro0-1226057758607 http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-story-arrest-disp... that the queensland police thismorning tweeted again: "Our bad @bengrubb was arrested for questioning briefly Our tweet last night was based on information provided at the time Apologies,"

fungi 15y ago
> Our bad @bengrubb was arrested ... its absolutely infuriating that cops can be so drunk with power that they can be so publicly blasé with the fact that they are fucking with someone's life and liberty.
- Joakal 15y ago
  If you think that's bad then there's this: Detective Superintendent Brian Hay today likened the issue to receiving stolen goods, but refused to go into details of Fairfax journalist Ben Grubb's case. "Let me give you an analogy. Someone breaks into a house and they steal a TV and they give that TV to you, and you know that TV is stolen, and you apply it to your own use ... that's receiving stolen property," he said. [0] [0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/18/3220071.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/18/3220071.htm
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    And that's EXACTLY why talking to the police about IP cases in particular is such a catastrophically bad idea. Most of these guys have absolutely no understanding of the law, which is hardly their fault. After all, IP law was established decades ago, in the pre-digital world. For most of its evolution, it functioned as a highly obscure branch of industrial law, used almost exclusively to govern relations between corporate publishers with large legal and clearance departments. It was manifestly NOT designed to govern the conduct of private individuals. In other words, police are as well-equipped to deal with this as they are to handle international trade disputes, which is why 'additional training' isn't the solution, since no amount of training can turn a blue collar union guy into the kind of highly educated corporate lawyer whose domain this really is. I agree with every other poster here - if you really want to balance your desire to be a good citizen with a measure of intelligent self-preservation, say you're happy to help with their investigation. Ask them to leave a number where they can reach you, and let them know that your legal representative will be contacting them there. Your lawyer can start by insisting that your cooperation is contingent upon a grant of total immunity. If there's any hesitation here, you'll know that actually, their request wasn't so friendly after all, and that they were, in fact, viewing you as a possible suspect the whole time.
usedtolurk 15y ago
Just to be clear, the police have not apologised for the arrest, just for initially denying that he was arrested (I misread it at first).

ck2 15y ago

It doesn't matter what country you are in - there is no such thing as a "friendly conversation" with any level of law enforcement - there are so many laws about everything and anything and you can be contributing to your own arrest and prosecution without even realizing it, doesn't matter if you are actually not guilty, why set yourself up? Laws aren't necessarily logical or fair and you might never grasp the danger of that until you are on the wrong side of one. Unless you are purposely trying to get arrested to make a protest, stop chatting with cops! Their policy is typically "arrest anyway, get them in the system, let the courts sort it out later". Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning. What's really surprising in this case is only that this particular person didn't grasp the concept. He probably got to walk away only because they knew the ipad data could make much better evidence to arrest others than forced testimony. But they obviously used his arrest to leverage him giving it up without a fight.

bigiain 15y ago
Here's ~50 minutes of video from Moin A. Yahya, Associate Professor of Law at U. Alberta explaining why you don't ever "just talk" to police. http://lawiscool.com/2009/04/16/why-you-should-never-talk-to-the-police/ http://lawiscool.com/2009/04/16/why-you-should-never-talk-to... Tell them what you have too by law (and make sure you know enough of your local law to be reasonably sure where you are required to answer and where you are not), and never ever ever "just chat". It's not that "the cops are out to get _you_", it's mostly that the metrics and motivations they're operating under while doing their job will _very_ rarely end up even aligning with your civil rights, never mind aligning with your best interests... They're not joking when they say "anything you say can _and will_ be used against you." That very much includes anything you say before they miranda you...
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  I strongly second this. Watch the videos linked in the article, which includes a former police officer. Unfortunately, your best bet is always to just shut up. It is too easy to incriminate yourself in something unrelated that you didn't even know was illegal.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

gitarr 15y ago
The way I understand the story, it's not the researcher who got arrested but an unrelated journalist who covered the story. The police abused their power and then right out lied about it, only when they get caught in their lie they say oops our bad. This stinks. Austrialian police just lost a lot of trust and they will have to work hard on getting that back. A first step would be to give the iPad back they stole.
- etherael 15y ago
  For one to have lost something, they must at one point have possessed that thing.
- jstevens85 15y ago
  That should be Queensland police, not Australian.

pieter 15y ago

I wonder if it's legal to remote wipe your iPad with MobileMe after they've taken possession of it. Or what about "Oh, you're going to arrest me? Can I have one second before you read my rights?" and then wipe it?

orborde 15y ago
Short answer: No. Destruction of evidence is a crime. See the second bolded point of the EFF's advice here: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/protect/retention https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/protect/retention
Jco_ 15y ago
Or you can make sure nobody can access your data. Truecrypt, anyone ?
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  This is why my next phone will be compatible with Whispercore (http://whispersys.com/whispercore.html http://whispersys.com/whispercore.html) and hopefully my next Tablet too. This is also why I automatically encrypt all of my incoming email with my public pgp key on the mail server. So any mail sat on my phone/laptop/server is encrypted with my password protected private pgp key (https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_Email https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_E...) I'm in the UK, so unfortunately they can demand that I give up my encryption keys and passwords and charge me if I choose to refuse, but at least it will slow them down enough so I can get a lawyer involved. And at least I have the choice of refusing.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    >I'm in the UK, so unfortunately they can demand that I give up my encryption keys and passwords and charge me if I choose to refuse do they have the right to scan your brain if you forgot the password or produce the wrong one under the stress of the arrest (my hands shake, heart races and i have hard time finding insurance card lying in plain view in glove compartment even when i'm having a traffic stop, less hard to imagine how i'd feel when/if i'd be "arrested for questioning")?

djmdjm 15y ago

The Queensland police have form for overzealous prosecution. A couple of years ago they arrested and charged a man with publishing child-abuse material after passing on a viral video that had already been shown on national TV: http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/net-video-crime-epidemic/2008/12/11/1228584982919.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/net-video-crime-e... Moral of the story: don't use the Internet in Queensland.

KaeseEs 15y ago

How long have Australian police been in the habit of reading suspects their Miranda rights (or are they required to)? I'm really curious how that made it from our law to theirs.

Joakal 15y ago
Miranda rights only exist in USA. Here's Australia equivalent, it's pretty loose: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Miranda_rights#Australia https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Miranda_right...
bobds 15y ago
It's called Eagleland Osmosis. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EaglelandOsmosis http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EaglelandOsmosis

shareme 15y ago

Rules when dealing with police: 1. Always assume that police and computers are a disaster waiting to happen and thus that law officers are often overwhelmed by complexities of computers. 2. Always fight any request to impound any computer device. Its taking control of your property under somewhat shady if not illegal circumstances. 3. Have a business card with someone reachable 24-7 that will go to bat for you and claim that the device in question if company property and cannot be confiscated or impounded. 4. Be a little less naive, as breaking into two FB accounts that I won or control is not illegal, breaking into someone else's is somewhat illegal even for demo purposes. However, what saves this journalist's ass is its just a photo that does not have large company copyrights attached to it.

uxp 15y ago
> 4. Be a little less naive, as breaking into two FB accounts that I own[sic] or control is not illegal, breaking into someone else's is somewhat illegal even for demo purposes. FaceBook's TOS specifically states that anything uploaded onto their site, including the text of a status update, pictures, videos and comment text, is the irrevocable ownership of FaceBook. This gives them the ability to use your friend's pictures inside targeted ads, as well as take general screenshots of the site that may contain your comments or pictures as marketing tools for their own benefit and not yours. I wonder if unauthorized access to a FaceBook account is deemed theft of stolen property with the owner of the account as the victim, or if this was to go to court, would FaceBook be in the prosecution chair claiming their property was stolen†. If the latter, does anyone besides FaceBook have any say on how an unauthorized entry to some account should be treated? †Stolen in this context just means the "downloading" of page assets that occurs when one visits a web page.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Not totally correct. FB wouldn't be able to legally republish your photos on your friend's profiles were it not for a legal grant permitting them to do so. While you are giving them the unrestricted right to do pretty much anything they want with material uploaded to their site, they are not going so far as to claim that you're transferring clear title as well. You remain the copyright holder, they remain a (very privileged) licensee.

16s 15y ago

This is a very good example of why you should never, under any circumstances, use a proprietary computing device that cannot be fully encrypted where you alone hold the decryption key. The convenience these devices provide comes at the cost of your personal privacy and security. You basically give up control of your data when you decide to use an iPad. Most people just don't realize it. I really wish the device manufactures would allow, open-source, transparent whole device encryption that can be externally validated (Droids may have the capability already thanks to Linux and dm-crypt). In general, user's don't demand it, so the Apples of the world have no incentive to do it. All the while, they provide full access to the device's secret/undocumented data recovery/snooping features to governments leaving their user's private, personal data easily accessible.

mahyarm 15y ago
Apple has had FileVault for a while, and Lion will have whole disk encryption when it's released. Corporations of the world demand these things and you'll start seeing them once they can start dictating feature demands more and more. Apple does add encryption here and there, but only in small bits unfortunately.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  A few years ago Rio Tinto (a massive mining company) flat out banned staff from using iPhones because they weren't encryptable. This came about because an executive based in China was arrested and his iPhone taken.

adamc 15y ago

More evidence that the police (and the governments behind them) are out of control. Makes me think you should never answer questions without a lawyer of your own present. Of course, that presents serious problems for the poor.

VladRussian 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning : "the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him."
- adamc 15y ago
  Fair enough. In the last month I was part of an attempt to empanel a jury (in Texas) for a misdemeanor. We were told that the defendent was defending himself and that in Texas there was no right to an attorney in such cases (I think because the maximum punishment was a fine).

Duff 15y ago

There's a great lecture by a law professor on YouTube called "Don't Talk to Police". Watch it for some great insight on this. A key concept to understand is the phrase "Anything that you say can be used against you." That's a key phrase because of what isn't stated -- that words you say will be not be used to help you. A prosecutor has broad discretion to prosecute, and can (and will) cherry-pick information to use against you. Most cops and prosecutors are great people to have a beer with, and are not corrupt. But sometimes their position gives them a myopia and they see things or make connections are convenient or expedient. They are also invested with powers that make them extremely dangerous to interact with in many scenarios.

JoeAltmaier 15y ago

Lots of advice about stonewalling police. Then you get robbed, and imagine your frustration when the neighbors, who witnessed the van pull up while you were away and empty your house, turn their backs and walk back into their houses. You get the world you're willing to participate in. Enlightened self-interest may be in play here.

JoachimSchipper 15y ago
To some extent, yes; but in that case the neighbours have much better reasons to think that they are not a suspect than when a police officer starts chatting to them for no apparent reason. [EDIT: make it clear that I'm referring to the neighbours, was "To some extent, yes; but in that case it's a much more reasonable assumption that you're not a suspect."]
- JoeAltmaier 15y ago
  Missed the point: the neighbors are ignoring the police, and you suffer. Now you are frustrated at the advice "don't talk to the police for any reason". Just an example.
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    Unless, of course, your neighbors consider themselves potential victims as well, and cooperate based on a sense of self-interest, rather than concern for your well-being.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      This would also make sense, and just goes to show how the "never talk to the police for any reason" meme is just plain silly, not to mention antisocial and dickish (if nobody ever talked to the police for any reason, then no criminals would ever get locked up). It's just part of a paranoid mindset which gets you karma on the internet but probably doesn't do you any good in the real world. By all means have your wits around you when talking to the police, especially if you think they suspect you of something, but the police are not out to get their jollies by locking up innocent folks for no reason, and your chance of winding up in prison for a crime you didn't commit based on a random off-hand innocent remark to a police officer is... much lower than other things you hardly ever think about. Hey, did you know that you have a one in eight hundred chance of getting multiple sclerosis? Go worry about that for a while instead.

hugh3 15y ago

Since I was one of the ones doubting that he'd really been arrested in the previous thread I should throw in a mea culpa at this point. It seems like they arrested him primarily because they wanted the evidence on that iPad to charge the other guy. I assume that the actual one-on-one demonstration had taken place on that iPad? The details aren't given, but it kinda makes sense. The justification they used to arrest him is iffy, and I suspect they know it, but it's just strong enough that it doesn't count as a false arrest (though they're certainly not going to bother to charge him with receiving stolen goods). While some people are using this as an opportunity to spread the "don't talk to police" meme, I'd like to use it as an opportunity to spread the "don't do illegal stuff with your computer or let other people do illegal stuff with your computer" meme, as this seems to be an easier way to avoid running afoul of the law.

dkarl 15y ago
You seem pretty determined to give the police the benefit of the doubt; why? It's a lot easier to believe that someone at Facebook called them up and made a lot of scary noises about "information about the commission of a crime" and "threat to the personal safety of our customers" and "possible dissemination of proprietary data and trade secrets in the form of illegal hacking techniques." (Maybe that's not impressive, but I'm just an amateur; a lawyer could sound much more scary while being a lot less specific.) Maybe whoever was in charge of the investigation was too easily cowed, too scared of bad PR, too easily panicked by vague specters of anarchy, or simply too trusting of a successful and established business. That seems pretty believable to me, and I haven't heard an equally plausible explanation. (I agree its a little silly that "don't talk to the police" dominates this page so much it's a pain to find the posts about the actual article.)

satori99 15y ago

Here is some interesting information about the Arresting officer Senior Constable Errol Coultis. Seems he may have a penchant for bittorrents. lol. http://www.zgeek.com/showthread.php/101079-Article-Queensland-cops-now-say-they-didn-t-arrest-Ben-Grubb?p=1669346&viewfull=1#post1669346 http://www.zgeek.com/showthread.php/101079-Article-Queenslan...

Nick_C 15y ago

I wonder if AusCERT will be held in Queensland ever again. If I was one of the organisers, I would be having a long hard think about that.

daimyoyo 15y ago

It's been said, but it bears repeating: NEVER talk to police without a lawyer present. Ever. The fact is that the the people interviewing know you law better than you do and know how to gain information they can use against you without you being aware of what's happening. There are people who contend that "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide" but frankly, the risk is too high of having something I said misconstrued. I'd rather look guilty and be free, than know I'm innocent and be in jail.