Met police firearms

[Fedster + 1,307]

Charity says a search warrant should be obtained before using tool to extract information from the phones of suspects, witnesses and victims.

An urgent review must be conducted into the use of a policing tool, which can pull data from mobile phones without the user knowing, a charity says.

At least 26 forces are using data extraction tools, such as Cellebrite, with a further eight trialing or intending to trial the technology.

It enables police to extract information from the phones of those convicted of no crime, witnesses and victims, according to Privacy International.

According to the charity, forces are acting without clear safeguards for the public, and no independent oversight to identify abuse and misuse of sensitive personal information, which creates blurred lines over whether the use of the software is lawful.

It should also be a mandatory requirement for police to obtain a warrant for searching the contents of a mobile phone, issued on the basis of reasonable suspicion, it added.

There are additional concerns over the retention of information and it says there should be regulations over how long obtained data can be held before being deleted, especially if the suspect is innocent.

Camilla Graham Wood, solicitor for Privacy International, says one of her main concerns following the research was that forces had insufficient knowledge of the tool and its legalities, which is being “used under the radar.”

Ms Wood adds police cannot restrict the certain types of data, so if detectives were searching for a particular text message from a specific date, the tool is unable to single this out, thus retrieving every message.

It is now calling for an immediate independent review by the Home Office, the College of Policing and police and crime commissioners, with widespread consultation with the public.

Ms Wood said: “It is disturbing the police have such a highly draconian power, operating in secret, without any accountability to the public.

“Given the serious problems we still face in the UK with discriminatory policing, we need to urgently address how this new frontier of policing might be disproportionately and unfairly impacting on minority ethnic groups, political demonstrators, environmental activists and many other groups that can find themselves in the crosshairs of the police.

“The police are continually failing to be transparent with the thousands of people whose phones they are secretly downloading data from.”

The report has received support from David Lammy, MP for Tottenham.

"The lack of transparency around new policing tools such as mobile phone extraction is a serious cause for concern. There are no records, no statistics, no safeguards, no oversight and no clear statement of the rights that citizens have if their mobile phone is confiscated and searched by the police,” he said.

“Without the collection and audit of data about the use of mobile phone extraction powers scrutiny will be impossible.

“Given the sensitive nature and wealth of information stored on our mobile phones there is significant risk of abuse and for conscious or unconscious bias to become a factor without independent scrutiny and in the absence of effective legal safeguards.

“We entrust so much personal information to our phones that the police having the power to download every message and photo we have sent or received without any rights and protections is another worrying example of regulations not keeping up with advances in technology."

A spokesman for the Home Office said it was important for police officers to have "the appropriate powers to tackle crime".

"Current legislation allows data to be accessed when there are reasonable grounds to believe it contains evidence in relation to an offence and only then in adherence with data protection and human rights obligations.

"The government is clear that the use of all police powers must be necessary, proportionate and lawful."

View On Police Oracle

[SimonT + 1,185]

I've never heard of this before. It does, on the face of it seem a bit much 

[Growley + 2,436]

Is this referring to the phone download machines we have at police stations? Because I see nothing wrong with them. They're only used if there is a realistic prospect of getting some usable evidence, and the amount of data you get is such a pain to sift through that nobody would do it without a good reason anyway.

[Hyphen + 693]

Yeah that’s what it’s on about. 

Nobody would just routinely download a phone without any good reason. They’re saying a warrant should be applied for on the basis of reasonable suspicion. The only reason a download would be done now is if there is a reasonable suspicion that evidence is going to be on there. 

The part of the story I don’t get is the bit about the subject not knowing, if the suspect has their phone seized then they are normally told that it will be interrogated. A victim or witness would usually hand their phone over on a voluntary basis anyway so not sure of the relevance or how they wouldn’t know? 

The other issue is as time goes by this will be more and more of a ‘routine’ enquiry due to the usage of smartphones and the fact a lot of evidence will be captured in a digital format.

[Mac7 808]

Is this referring to the phone download machines we have at police stations? Because I see nothing wrong with them. They're only used if there is a realistic prospect of getting some usable evidence, and the amount of data you get is such a pain to sift through that nobody would do it without a good reason anyway.

I do agree. A few months ago the police were being criticised for not examining the phone of victims. Now they are being criticised for doing exactly that.

This report would lead you to believe that police are randomly downloading persons phone for no purpose, almost for fun. Not every phone that is seized is examined but if an officer believes the phone may contain evidence then it could and should could be seized using Pace powers (no mention of that in the article).

However, to examine a phone requires no legislative authority. But to obtain the subscribers details only of a particular number does. I do find that strange. Perhaps the article does have a point but not to the extent of what they are reporting.

[Hyphen + 693]

Also, the title of the actual article is unhelpful. I’ve never heard of this being used in the same way as stop/search. It’s very misleading. If people are thinking that cops are randomly searching peoples phones then they likely will demand safeguards.

It just doesn’t happen.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

Sigh, the people campaigning haven't taken the time to even research the subject matter.

It's not an intercept - it's a download of a phone. It's no different to examining a laptop or PC. It's been possible for years but as the tech has become easier to use at the front line it's use has increased.

I can't understand how anyone can not be aware their phone is liable for download. A suspect will know why his phone is seized - it's obvious. A victim/witness similarly will know they are handing their phone over for a download.

You most certainly can narrow down data downloads by time/date/file type and so on.

I would agree there is an overreach in this area - many phone downloads are excessive because OICs/forces would rather have a huge amount of data which is irrelevant and hold it unused than be criticised for not securing relevant data. There are also valid concerns in relation to retention  and use. Many Intel senior officers have invested in tech/projects which allow indexing and storage of phone downloads from nominals which then have analytical software linking persons, mapping geodata visually, facial recognition on photos and so on. Phones are a goldmine of information but I believe in the respect I talk about the police are overreaching. It's akin to going to each suspects house and seizing every piece of paper, letter, email, bank statement etc and then copying it all and keeping it on police systems.

Also, whilst people are saying that 'officers wouldn't download a phone willy nilly'...that used to be the case with BWV. You wouldn't record or be expected to record. However now both those areas the CPS are putting these things into a ticklist. Phone downloads, hugely intrusive, are now being mandated for low level weak 'harassment' jobs. And because of app based messaging or social media messaging you don't just download text messages for set dates...You do end up having to take alot of data.

Personally, getting a warrant wouldn't bother me. The jobs where it's proportionate a magistrate would issue one, it's just an added layer of bureaucracy when we are told that red tape is being cut...It never has been. What seems to be terrifying some people is that quantitive data is not easily obtainable so they can't have it in a pie chart on their iPad.

[bensonby + 3,503]

It’s like saying I can seize a notebook but I can’t look in it until I have a warrant. If I have a power to seize something as evidence logic would surely dictate that I could look at it (subject to the usual caveats around legal privilege etc).

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

^

Exactly this! Unless it's subject to legal privilege then it's available.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

2 hours ago, bensonby said:

It’s like saying I can seize a notebook but I can’t look in it until I have a warrant. If I have a power to seize something as evidence logic would surely dictate that I could look at it (subject to the usual caveats around legal privilege etc).

It's born out of the fact (I imagine) that people are only just catching onto how much data a (smart)phone can provide.

Until I had an input from Hi Tech Crime a few years ago I had no idea.

[Inbtsiyp + 347]

I am curious and perhaps someone on here can answer as I personally have had no experience with phone downloads.

If for example an iPhone is password protected and I refuse to provide the password would the information on the phone still be downloadable and readable?

If it is can anyone tell me or explain why or how high profile cases like the one in America where the FBI needed to get some Israeli company’s hack an iPhone came about if the technology to view the phones contents is so easily accessible.

If the password does protect the phone how often in the experience of officers on here who have carried out downloads does this simple measure frustrate investigators and prevent any further work on phones?

[Pavillion 43]

5 hours ago, Mac7 said:

I do agree. A few months ago the police were being criticised for not examining the phone of victims. Now they are being criticised for doing exactly that.

Completely untrue, manipulating the individual cases circumstances to suit the boring mantra of poor Police, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

5 hours ago, Mac7 said:

This report would lead you to believe that police are randomly downloading persons phone for no purpose, almost for fun.

Poor show if that is how it came across to you.

 

5 hours ago, Mac7 said:

Not every phone that is seized is examined but if an officer believes the phone may contain evidence then it could and should could be seized using Pace powers (no mention of that in the article).

I would suggest thats obvious.

 

The search should be limited to the what suspicion is present.

[Pavillion 43]

4 hours ago, bensonby said:

It’s like saying I can seize a notebook but I can’t look in it until I have a warrant. If I have a power to seize something as evidence logic would surely dictate that I could look at it (subject to the usual caveats around legal privilege etc).

I would have to disagree to your logic that one can equate information held in a notebook to the information held on a smart phone. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Pavillion

[Beaker 817]

I would suggest thats obvious.
 
The search should be limited to the what suspicion is present.

How do you define what is relevant? Text messages? Could be stored as text files instead, or a picture, or a WhatsApp chat, or stashed to email, or sent as snapchat. Inside those they could saved in drafts, or deleted items, or even locked in hidden conversations.

I've done phone reads with reg after a fatal RTC. Everything was grabbed because you don't actually know what data is relevant until you look at the actual data.

[Pavillion 43]

2 minutes ago, Beaker said:

How do you define what is relevant? Text messages? Could be stored as text files instead, or a picture, or a WhatsApp chat, or stashed to email, or sent as snapchat. Inside those they could saved in drafts, or deleted items, or even locked in hidden conversations.

I've done phone reads with reg after a fatal RTC. Everything was grabbed because you don't actually know what data is relevant until you look at the actual data.

Well maybe if you seize a phone after an RTC then cant see why picture files would need to be searched.