Child porn laws are particularly draconian here but they're actually pretty harsh everywhere.
There are rumoured to be stupid and unenforceable laws being introduced so that families can choose to have better filters for porn at home in the UK as well. I don't mind them in principle - letting parents control what their children can see is a good thing IMO, as long as the parents actually do it - but they're not actually going to stop adults seeing porn if they want.
]]>But actually I'm pretty sure the law would consider the materials to be in the hands of the police investigating the crime, and the people from GCHQ would be technical experts removing the encryption on the data. Chain of custody and all that. Some copper might have gone to GCHQ carrying the hard drive, or more likely, someone from GCHQ might have carried their laptop to the right place and hooked it up but the GCHQ person hacks through the password, shows they can get into the file structure and shows the cop how to do it too, or copies it onto a non-encrypted disc also part of the evidence chain. All under the orders of the investigating officer. Perhaps "some forensics specialists" in Charlie's original piece covers this too?
]]>I rate it somewhere on a par with the Daily Mail and the like.
Actually, that's unfair. The Register is capable of printing the truth, it just frequently doesn't bother. I'm not entirely sure the Mail's editorial staff wouldn't just dissolve into a seething puddle of slime if they let any facts in with no careful admixture of half-truths, non-sequiturs and outright lies.
]]>There's a bizarreness to this, but at some point, somebody is going to use this data and we'll be getting some odd and very precisely targeted porn out of this...
]]>That's my US-centric view, anyway. It's possible that it's different in Britain, but I don't think human nature varies that much from country to country. To assume that prosecuting authorities will always behave with discretion and common sense seems awfully naive.
Somewhat relevant story: A friend from Michigan was once pulled over while driving through rural Texas. After going over the car for evidence of malfeasance and being disappointed, the cop made it clear that they were going to get a ticket for SOME offense, he just hadn't decided what, yet. They eventually "agreed" that the ticket would be for a broken tail light, and then he was allowed to drive on.
This kind of harassment is not that uncommon for people with out-of-state plates, in rural parts of the country. The assumption in those conservative areas is that if you're Not From Around There, you must be up to no good. My wife and I were once pulled over in Montana for speeding, and required to pay the fine in cash, on the spot, before we were allowed to continue.
]]>In fact, you are not safe, even if you are one of the "Right People" ( And, in this case "right" has two meanings, just for fun) as the arrest of Patrick Rock shows Now this guy is an aide to No 10, & he was publicly known to be working on the problem of child abuse imagery on the web. But he's been arrested - though not charged, as yet, & he may never be - it may turn out to be "no case to answer". But, the condemneation is in the public outing & process, isn't it?
Personal view: I SUSPECT that, although he was legitimately working on this horrible stuff, he probably hadn't necessarily ticked every last possible box, to allow him to work with such imagery & someone has decide to "obey the law". Which just shows how dangerous this sort of Strict Liabilty legislation can be.
Oops - Second thoughts - just in time, before hitting "send". This guy, (PR) has been around since the days of the madwoman. It's also distinctly possible that he treated the cops with whom he must have been working as , ahem, "plebs", and therefore that this is an internal stabbing by the police, to get their own back.
NOTE: Charlie posted this: 27/02/2014 P. R. was detained 13/02/2014, but the information was only released today, 4/03/2014 This shows OGH's presicence to a scary degree - I hope some other of his nastier visions don't turn out to be as accurate [ "Dark State" for a start ]
Oh dearie, dearie me, what a tangled web.
]]>Rule 1 (Thou Shall Not Interfere with #10 Downing Street) applies, pretty much (and, I suspect one of the reasons why is beings like Angleton-he knows where the rules can be bent, and otherwise where the rules can't be broken...).
]]>What legitimate reason would an aide working in a policy unit have to retain material like this in his possession? I mean, yes, he might reasonably have been exposed to this stuff in briefings so that he knows what sort of material needs to be addressed, he might even need regular updates if the nature of the material is changing, but actually retaining the stuff???
Not one little bit convinced...
]]>That one was introduced in 2003. Now we know why.
]]>