Slashdot Mirror


British Cops Hack Into Government Computers

CmdrGravy writes "The British Police have hacked into Government computers as part of the on-going 'cash for peerages' investigation. They've uncovered evidence which has, so far, led to one arrest and charge of perverting the course of justice for a leading Labour party figure. This charge carries a potential life sentence. The British police have the power to hack into computer systems as part of an investigation. On previous occasions they have said they did not believe the government was providing them with the information they had been asking for and had warned that they would seek other methods to gather evidence. The police won't say what tools they have used. From the article: 'The investigators did not have to notify No 10 if they were "hacking" into its system. One legal expert said: "In some cases, a senior officer can give permission. In other cases, you might need the authorization of an independent commissioner, who is usually a retired judge appointed by the Home Office."'"

247 comments

  1. lol by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1, Redundant

    So now it's the government hacking into itself, not just /.ers...

    1. Re:lol by l33t_f33t · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're American, aren't you? In england we have wonderfu;l laws meaning the police aren't part of the government, and MPs and the PM can be prosecuted.

    2. Re:lol by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, you would be informative. I don't think a good percentage of Americans are even able to imagine a legal world in which this happens.

      --
      +5, Truth
    3. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Recently I've been considering where to move when I leave America, if I can still reach the top of the toilet bowl to get out. After reading that the police can prosecute the Prime Minister...

      England++

    4. Re:lol by gertrudecm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they are wonderful, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Communist Blair effect kicks in sometime soon. If you hate privacy, and want to live in a big government tax hell, then maybe you too can hire Tony Blair.

      --
      Have Fun!
    5. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but just about everything else is wrong with us. I would recommend Ireland or one of the Nordic countries; considerably better civil liberties, public services etc.

    6. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're American, aren't you? In england we have wonderfu;l laws meaning the police aren't part of the government, and MPs and the PM can be prosecuted.

      Yes, the British system of government is fabulous.

      Especially if you want to buy a peerage.

    7. Re:lol by turgid · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or Scotland, if you can stand the rain, cold wind, sarcasm, fried food and alcoholism.

    8. Re:lol by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      See, they say a long time ago a guy named Nixon went into deep shit for wiretapping just one hotel. A president. Must have been a fairy tale.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    9. Re:lol by JoGlo · · Score: 1
      Australia has a govenrment based on the British model, plus we're better than the poms at all sports (was going to say most, but in light of Australia beating the Pom soccer squad last time up, I'll stick with all).

      We have better weather, too!

      --
      Will those of you who think that you know what you are doing, get out of the way of those of us who know what we are doi
    10. Re:lol by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      Australia has a govenrment based on the British model, plus we're better than the poms at all sports

      Ah yes, Canada has a British style parliamentary government AND we speak English...well, the cool ones do at least.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    11. Re:lol by cortana · · Score: 1

      I think the sickening reliance on the public sector would discourage most of those fleeing America.

    12. Re:lol by Cramer · · Score: 1

      He got in hot water over bugging his rival's office. And getting caught... When you go to tap someone's phone line, you do it from the pole; you don't break into their house and run a wire directly out of their phone. In today's world, it's possible to tap your phone without even getting off my couch. (even though CALEA terminals are supposed to be protected, telco security is notoriously lax.)

    13. Re:lol by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

      But the government still pays for the police. So, therefore, they are part of the government, just as our post office is.

    14. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least cash for peerages doesn't hurt anyone, unlike the US favourite, cash for post invasion oil rights.

    15. Re:lol by solitas · · Score: 1

      >> He got in hot water over bugging his rival's office. And getting caught...

      And THEN trying to cover it all up. Most likely, things wouldn't have gone so badly if everything was admitted when they were caught.

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    16. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, its just like the BBC being "independent". Err who determines how much money they get to take? That's right - those men with the guns - the government.

      As an aside, tax is communism - central planning & violence at its bestworst.

    17. Re:lol by nickco3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the UK, each police force is monitored by a committee of local representatives called a Police Authority. Their role is to ensure effective, efficient and fair policing for their area.

      Complaints are handled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission which is fully independent with its own investigators. Seats on the commission are not open to former police officers.

      There are lots of things wrong with the way things are run in Britain, but policing isn't one of them.

      An old joke makes that observation. In European heaven, the chefs are French, the engineers are German, the Italians are the lovers, the British are the police and it's all run by the Swiss. In European hell, the French are the engineers, the Germans are the police, the British are the chefs, the Swiss are the lovers, and it's all run by the Italians.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    18. Re:lol by ibbo · · Score: 1

      2006 was certainly a good year for Oz sports.

      2005 was a disaster though, so I'll take your thread and laugh it off.

      Ozzy sportsmen are good but not undefeatable. Sadly ours are just plain crap and I am shocked it took you guys so long to thrash us.

      --
      Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuKC WenpmXoA7LNydllVQOwCfdjyzXscd
    19. Re:lol by turgid · · Score: 1

      I'd have thought the opposite. Fair point, though.

  2. We don't have 'cops', we have 'police officers' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I hope they get Ruth Turner and Tony Blair on this, should be good practice for them before they face the a tribunal over Iraq.

    1. Re:We don't have 'cops', we have 'police officers' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the truth comes out which I am sure it will, they will have bigger things to be scared of than the Police.

    2. Re:We don't have 'cops', we have 'police officers' by sigzero · · Score: 0

      Riiight. I am sure that is going to happen. Not.

    3. Re:We don't have 'cops', we have 'police officers' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And then we can send you to a shari'a tribunal and afterwards watch the video of your beheading on YouTube.

      That would be cool.

    4. Re:We don't have 'cops', we have 'police officers' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking international law and conspiring to deceive the electorate are serious allegations against a PM. There'll be easy political points made by nailing him when the tide turns, as illustrated in a recent drama.

    5. Re:We don't have 'cops', we have 'police officers' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      conspiring to deceive the electorate is a charge that every politician is guilty of the minute they put their foot on the bottom rung of the greasy ladder.

      Ted Heath, for instance, has admitted on camera that he lied about the European Economic Community to get us to join the Common Market. He was never charged for an arguably treasonous action.

      Though I must admit he would argue that it benefitted Britain. After WW2 I didn't think I would be a citizen of a country which undertook agressive wars for no credible reason.

    6. Re:We don't have 'cops', we have 'police officers' by Phillup · · Score: 1

      When the truth comes out which I am sure it will, they will have bigger things to be scared of than the Police. All that fear mongering...

      Hey, Cheney! Is that you?

      I didn't realize slashdot was an "undisclosed location"...

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
  3. That's Hot by Prysorra · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing like hot state-on-state action, eh?

    1. Re:That's Hot by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh, no joke. Our local papers have stories about cops from two different jurisdictions getting into actual gun battles occasionally. I also get a kick out of watching the elephants battle it out. Too bad we never learn anything from it.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:That's Hot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guarantee you that the target politician had information on the police that had to be destroyed to protect police interests. (Most likely information on police connections to the marijuana trade that is so lucrative for the police.)

      One day it will be war. I cannot wait. The fucking pigs have it coming. You can only exploit people for so long before they will rise up and take you down.

  4. Curiosity by Thansal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, I know next to nothing about legal systems outside of the USA. In the US the police would need a warrent (I am goign with the bassis of our laws, not the mockery that is today).

    Is the approval that the british cops gained:
    "In some cases, a senior officer can give permission. In other cases, you might need the authorisation of an independent commissioner, who is usually a retired judge appointed by the Home Office."

    The same basic idea? Or is this a change, or what not. Basicly can some one more familiar with the british legal system explain this?

    thanks.

    --
    Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    1. Re:Curiosity by simm1701 · · Score: 1

      IANAL but I think this revolves around it being the computers belonging to the goverment - this would mean the home office has the authority over any data on it. Since it is in charge of the overall investigation it is allowed to go after any data the goverment has.

      Systems belonging to private individuals or companies would still be safe unless a court order were issued (atleast I would really hope so!!)

      --
      $_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
    2. Re:Curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So, I know next to nothing about legal systems outside of the USA. In the US the police would need a warrent (I am goign with the bassis of our laws, not the mockery that is today).

      You do realise that the basis of your laws is English Common Law?

    3. Re:Curiosity by Agelmar · · Score: 3, Informative

      While it's true that Common Law is the basis of our legal system, most of the applicable laws when it comes to computer crime are much newer than Common Law. I.e. wiretapping (either phones or email) is not something for which common law is cited, but rather telephone acts from the early 1900s. As such, in the area of gathering computer records, I think it's a safe assumption that there may be very substantive differences between the laws of the US and the UK, making it not such a stupid question to ask. Of course, IANAL :-)

    4. Re:Curiosity by DavidAtkinson · · Score: 1

      They probably used the RIPA law.

    5. Re:Curiosity by redalien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The parent is most probably right. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP Act) is a fairly new law that allows the parts of the government to do all sorts of horrible things to people, such as 6 months for forgetting your PGP key.

      Just one of my fav'rite net things..

    6. Re:Curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Have you considered that maybe a warrant *is* the authorisation of an independent commissioner, who is usually a retired judge?

      Really the lesson here is that the British can fool an American by replacing a word with its definition.

    7. Re:Curiosity by jguevin · · Score: 2, Funny

      True, just like a President can fool a Prime Minister by replacing material evidence with a really firm handshake. Or I can fool you by replacing your coffee with Folger's Crystals.

    8. Re:Curiosity by Thansal · · Score: 1

      Well, let us see. A warrent in the USA is issued by a Judge, no one else. A senior officer is not a judge, and a independent commissioner, who is usually a retired judge appointed by the Home Office., does not sound like a judge to me either (what is the home office for that matter?). I am used to a 3 bransh system (Legislature, judical, executive), where each 2 can check the other (yes, it is gettign horribly messed up atm, but alot of what is happening is unconstitutional, however the actual system is a rather good one). What I see here is the ability to set up a wire tap (a wire tap and hacking a system are generaly considered rather similar in the USA), witho nly needing a senior officer, or some one appointed by the "Home Office", and the home ofice does not seem to be a judical section of the govn't either.

      So I would say that it was not "fooling" an American by "replacing a word with its definition". Troll better.

      Now, a poster further up actualy pointed out that this was the govn't investigating govn't computers, and thus would not normaly need a warrent. And I thank that poster. Soem one else also mentioned the RIPA, and I have to look into that.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    9. Re:Curiosity by massivefoot · · Score: 1

      Dude, I really hope you mean for (forgetting password to / deleting) you PGP key. You're saying I actually have to remember my whole PGP key? I have trouble remembering my own telephone number!

    10. Re:Curiosity by az_bont · · Score: 1

      As wiretap evidence is inadmissable in British courts, it is not as regulated as searches of private premises, for example, which do require a warrant.

      It is arguably still a tremendous invasion of privacy, and one lacking in judicial oversight, but there is no concept of a general right to privacy in British law - something which I'm sure is much appreciated by sleazy tabloid journalists with telephoto lenses.

    11. Re:Curiosity by jtull89 · · Score: 1

      Administrative law is also involved. And our handy-dandy Constitution, which we quote and appeal to as we please. If I'm not mistaken, you British don't use one of those, but IANAL.

    12. Re:Curiosity by pjt33 · · Score: 1
      Here in the UK we don't have the separation of powers. The executive is a subset of the legislature and appoints the judiciary.

      In this case the relevant legislation for you to look at is the Police Act 1997, sections 91 and following.

    13. Re:Curiosity by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, you British don't use one of those, but IANAL. Oh, we have a constitution, we just haven't seen the need to keep it in one place, It's based on multiple documents including the Magna carta, the bill of Rights various Acts of Union and many more besides (the most recent is probably the human rights act), all combined with a healthy dose of tradition.
      However IMO it's about time we compiled it into a single document like other modern constitutions.
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    14. Re:Curiosity by VJ42 · · Score: 1
      Article 8 of the human rights act (1998) does give us the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life:

      1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

      2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    15. Re:Curiosity by h2g2bob · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the millionth time, that act only requires you to provide passwords and keys which you may reasonably expected to know. So if you use a password every time you log into your computer, you would be expected to provide it, and if you forget a PGP key you haven't used in years then they won't put you in prison for it.

    16. Re:Curiosity by zxsqkty · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the "reasonably expected to know" bit has never (AFAIK) been tested in court, so we don't have a legal definition of "reasonable".

      So it could still be argued that if you have a password protected file or folder on your computer you should be "reasonably expected to know" the password. Forgetting that password could legally be construed as obstruction, and would constitute a jail term under this act.

      I have sha-1 signed files in my backup documents from *years* ago, unused precisely because I can't remember the bloody pass phrases. I also have a binary dump from a "password keeper" type program for Windows from a company that are no longer producing the software. Without access to the contents of these files, I have no way to prove that these are, in fact, innocent files. My inability to unlock these files, when asked, could see me in jail.

      --
      Caution: May contain nuts.
    17. Re:Curiosity by Builder · · Score: 1

      What about a file I encyrpted yesterday with some horribly long passphrase that seemed like a good idea at the time, then forgot? Work on a helpdesk for a few days and you'll find that it is quite reasonable to expect users to forget a password in under 48 hours.

    18. Re:Curiosity by druxton · · Score: 1
      I have sha-1 signed files in my backup documents from *years* ago, unused precisely because I can't remember the bloody pass phrases.


      So thank goodness for this, then: Chinese Prof Cracks SHA-1 Data Encryption Scheme

  5. I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Reverse+Gear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder who the British police hired to do this, according to the article they used "computer experts" to do the job.
    But now that these "computer experts" have done this once with police blessing, had a nice look at the systems I wouldn't wonder if they could do it again without the blessing or knowledge of the police.

    From the article it doesn't look like the sys-admins at Downing Street have been all that involved in this, I sure hope they have now been notified of how this was done and whatever way was used to get into the systems have been closed.

    One could suspect that with the police having known these/this "computer expert(s)" it might be an indication that it wasn't a white hat they got hold of, but really that is just speculation, it might also have been a white hat person.

    Anyhow I know nothing but what it says in TFA, which really isn't a lot, but for the sake of british security I sure hope this has been done in a sensible way.

    1. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      From what I heard on the news, the Police only arrested Ruth Turner so they could execute a warrant to seize evidence from her house. I'm assuming this evidence included her (Government) computers, and the "hacking" in question was limited to breaking the passwords.

    2. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anonymous Experts"???

    3. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked with the British policy on previous security investigations, they do have some reasonably smart intrusion and sniffing software to gather evidence for them.

    4. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by smorken · · Score: 1

      The police probably just asked medium level bureaucrats for the passwords they needed to get into the system, and called it hacking.

    5. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hopefully, it was the sysadmins at number 10, they have a duty to report serious crimes like this & do anything they can to help the investigation

    6. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by risk+one · · Score: 1

      My guess is that they have forensic experts in their service, that help them research computer related crime, specifically internet related stuff (anything from rolling up zombie networks to ransom demands delivered over the internet). People whose job it is to find the very best of the black hats, I expect would have no problem getting into the machines of a bunch of politicians.

      And if they're in police service, they probably report all the way up the chain. At least two people above them will have the technical know-how to understand the report, so there'll be no keeping the backdoor open for yourself. I expect Blair can get access to those reports as well, so this particular leak will probably be plugged too. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if they just used some basic social hacking tricks.

    7. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by attonitus · · Score: 3, Informative

      With the appropriate authority, the police can do things that your everyday hacker on the street might find very difficult, e.g. gain physical entry to Downing Street, so there's no reason that there would be a gaping hole waiting for black-hats to enter through.

      There are several organisations in the UK that regularly do IT security work for the ministry of defence, the police and the security services and have staff who are cleared to high security levels. I worked for Detica about 10 years ago and I think that they would have had the capability to assist in this kind of thing then, don't know if they still do. Qinetiq might be another firm that would have people with relevant expertise.

    8. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Chances are they went and asked GCHQ, the british telecommunications survelience people to provide someone.

      I am sure they have some very good staff being that they invented the idea of codebreaking using computers over 60 years ago.

      Also worth noting that after RSA came out and published their work on public key cryptography GCHQ admitted they had known how to do it but kept it secret. This page has some decent info:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographer

      Anyone pointing out that the refences to GCHQ are all very old should also know that they would never dream of telling anyone else if they had cracked every encyrption method known. Why create more work for yourself when your primary role is listening in to other peoples communications?

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    9. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by permaculture · · Score: 1

      One valid explanation might be social engineering. A senior police officer and a senior civil servant probably met at their old Oxford college for a drinky-poo.

      "Have you heard this awful nonsense about the 'cash for peerages' evidence? Old Chigwell just isn't playing the game at all. It's a dreadful bore."

      "Oh I wouldn't worry about that old fellow. Have a whisky.
      I'm sure we can work something out."

      Much like an episode of "Yes, Minister". :)

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    10. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      "We have top men working on it now."

      "Who?"

      "Top... men."

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/quotes

    11. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      I am sure they have some very good staff being that they invented the idea of codebreaking using computers over 60 years ago.

      That's not very sound reasoning. Those staff members have retired long ago, and organizations tend to decline in effectiveness over time. There may be reasons for believing that GCHQ has some very good staff, but the accomplishments of the organization during World War 2 are not among them.

    12. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      I wasnt specifically talking about the world war 2 work. Look at the bit a little further down with regard to inventing RSA encryption then not telling anyone util after the inventor had died.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Ellis

      The fact is that the most recent thing they would publish now is something they did in the 70's. Anything more recent than that is still classsified. Alot of the work they did before then is still classified if it is deemed to still be relevant. It is only in 1976 anyone actually admitted they organisation existed even though it had been going for 30 years.

      If someone had tried to publish anything about their work there before then they would have been thrown in prison under the official secrets act then the entire story would have been D-noticed so the press are not allowed to cover it or they suffer the same fate.

      These people like their privacy :)

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    13. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by moggie_xev · · Score: 1

      20 odd years ago my Maths teacher who was IMHO very very bright mentioned that they had asked him quietly if would like to join up, he politely declined. He was about 25 when he was teaching me as fair as I can remember. If that was the calibre of people they have then they have some good people.

    14. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I very much doubt it. GCHQ would not most likely not get directly involved in something at a political level as there may be a view of conflict of interest or inappropriateness. Also, GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 have no "executive powers" within the United Kingdom - they are there to advise functional groups such as police when required. AFAIK there are still rules in place to prevent the security services from tapping/investigating politicians (not sure how this has changed recently though...)

      The Metropolitan Police has a special directorate which has the Computer Crimes Unit. Those staff are full police officers with normal police powers but with computer/forensics/security training and/or from that background. They may have also had help from SOCA (Serious & Organised Crime Agency) which absorped the NHTCU (National Hi-Tech Crime Unit) last year. SOCA are the UK's equivalent of the FBI.

      Any active "hacking" or intrusions would have had to be authorised by someone VERY senior. The reason for this is that without proper authorisation from someone at a sufficiently high-level, the officers involved would be liable under Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. More likely the evidence was seized as per normal procedure then subjected to forensic examination with something like EnCase.

    15. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      I wasnt specifically talking about the world war 2 work.

      You specifically mentioned that pioneering work over 60 years ago means that they have good employees today, and my position is that organizational effectiveness that long ago does not let one make accurate predictions about an organization today. Undoubtedly there are several organizations that did pioneering work long ago but have decayed into irrelevance in the years since. I suspect that GCHQ is not one of those organizations, but that's just a guess (I don't have access to their current work or the expertise to evaluate it.)

    16. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's very unlikely to be GCHQ - that would represent somewhat of a conflict of interest. GCHQ are tasked, among other things, with *securing* government communications and systems... see here.

    17. Re:I wonder who these "computer experts" are? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The cops have "Computer Crime Units", and their own serving Police Officers who do the hacking. Obviously, giving Johnny l33tpants access to 10 downing street would be absolutely ridiculous.

  6. Cash for peerages? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, how dare someone be able to get a peerage because of wealth. Everyone knows that's not how it's supposed to work. If this were to continue, well ... completely undeserving people could get one!

    1. Re:Cash for peerages? by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Funny

      They even treat some people here like they are royalty.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    2. Re:Cash for peerages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know it sounds laughable on the face of things, but the real problem is that the Labour Party got the money, which they then used to (partially) fund their election campaign, and once they won the election, they started handing out these peerages to the people that gave them money.

      It's a case of a political party abusing their authority for the benefit of the party and not the government or the people.

    3. Re:Cash for peerages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up.

    4. Re:Cash for peerages? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Until today, I had never even heard the word "Peerage." In America you can't just buy your way into power. You have to be born into the Bush family to get it.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Cash for peerages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's a case of a political party abusing their authority for the benefit of the party and not the government or the people.
      So you're saying it's OK for a political party to abuse their authority as long as they are being altruistic about it?
    6. Re:Cash for peerages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he directly say that?

    7. Re:Cash for peerages? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! A much better system would be to have an elected House of Lords, which could just automatically pass any legislation passed by the Commons because its makeup would be virtually identical!

    8. Re:Cash for peerages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is different to the way that the Conservative Party and previous Labour governments used to do it. How exactly it differs I'm unclear, but since none of them used to get arrested for it, it apparently did.

  7. Charges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a source for the claim that charges were made, given that the article says the exact opposite?

  8. What's wrong with the UK? by Salvance · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's what I don't get: this is the British police, not some elite hacking group. They are probably using pretty basic hacking methods to hack into government computers. If this is the case, why aren't the computers more secure to begin with? If the police can do it, I'll bet your kid's lunch money that your teenage neighbor can as well. To me, the lack of adequate security is a far more significant embarrassment than the hacking itself.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    1. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by hejog · · Score: 0

      You really REALLY under-estimate the resources the UK Police service has.

    2. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by thetroll123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >If the police can do it, I'll bet your kid's lunch money that your teenage neighbor can as well.

      Well, there is the matter of physical access, of course. Lots of police working in Downing Street and other government and party premises on - ostensibly - security/protection duties etc. I'd like to see your "teenage neighbor" stroll in there and connect up a PC...

    3. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why would the British Police be using "basic hacking methods"? They're a government organisation, which means they have the funding (and power) to hire and use professionals in situations such as this. Not to mention they're also probably part of a WAN which means they could well be "on the inside" of the Government's network already.

    4. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If the police can do it, I'll bet your kid's lunch money that your teenage neighbor can as well."

      You seem to underestimate British Police. You probabally shouldn't.

      "They are probably using pretty basic hacking methods to hack into government computers. "

      Who was it cracked Enigma without a computer again? And they probabally have the best tools available.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    5. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by arevos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here's what I don't get: this is the British police, not some elite hacking group. I think it's safe to say that no matter the level of security expertise of police computer experts, it's always going to be greater than the expertise of government IT staff.
    6. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't like making assumptions, but I do believe that the British police are part of the British Government. Odds are they have access to some systems inside the Government network that commoners don't, and could leverage that to get access to what they wanted.

    7. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was actually the Polish that did most of the cracking of Enigma. The British just took their work, automated it, and produced ULTRA.

    8. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by solevita · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the British police already runs some very powerful online crime investigation units. Who staffs these? I'd guess someone with some knowledge of Information Security. The same people who could probably perform some of the actions they investigate on a daily basis

      Whoever modded the GP up as interesting and insightful was obviously smoking as much crack as the GP was. Mod down please, for the love of common sense and decency!

    9. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by mitcheli · · Score: 0

      sarcasm: Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the British Police the home of Scottland Yard? Aren't they a police force that secures one of the largest cities in the world? Would it no be inconceivable that they might have an IT budget? Perhaps one that might even support a computer forensics facility? With, I don't know, security professionals skilled at intrusion and such? Just a thought.. I'm sure those backwoods idiots working in the British Police just might, maybe, be a little more skillful than you are giving them credit for.

      --
      Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
    10. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Funny

      >Who was it cracked Enigma without a computer again?
      I think I'm safe in saying it wasn't the Metropolitan or City Police.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    11. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

      [Offtopic] What is 'GP'? Google wasn't my friend this time :(

    12. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by solevita · · Score: 1

      Grand Parent, unless I've made some awful mistake...

      The Grand Parent of my original post on this topic was the parent to your post.

      In short, I liked your post and didn't like the post you originally replied to.

    13. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grandparent (poster)

    14. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      in this context, GP = "Grandfather Post", ie. the parent post's parent post.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    15. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      not to mention these are probably just email accounts and document shares on desktop PCs i doubt very much there's a shortcut on Tony Blair's laptop to a nuclear missile launch VB app.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    16. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by VeryProfessional · · Score: 1

      Grandparent post. HTH.

    17. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are probably using pretty basic hacking methods to hack into government computers.

      "Here's our warrant; we want your backups for the last month and your encryption keys. If you don't co-operate or tell anyone, you are committing a serious crime."

      Basic but effective, no?

    18. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by thelost · · Score: 1

      how dare you assume anything but the British Police being totally incompetent!

      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    19. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      But to be fair, the police did arrest Alan Turing for being gay. So it all works out in the end.

    20. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by jafac · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      . . . why aren't the computers more secure to begin with?

      The fundamental rule of corrupt politicians is that they are corrupt, because they are lazy and stupid, and have obtained power through means other than being clever and working hard (ie. lying, and being well-connected).

      The idea of PAYING someone to do the hard work of securing their computers is an anathema to them. They would rather spend their money BRIBING the police to not investigate them. Unfortunately for them, they seem to have stumbled on to the rare "good" cop. (or their offering price wasn't high enough).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    21. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Funny

      >a nuclear missile launch VB app
      Worringly, I would say it's quite likely there's a compiled VB4 package somewhere that runs under Win95 on an old Compaq 486 (DX, yay!) that has a tickbox marked 'Have you asked the Americans if it's OK?' that then enables a big red button that does the deed. Worse still, it's 30 lines of code, a 3rd party OCX (From the 'Custom Nuclear Controls Corporation') and cost £3.5bn to develop by a consortium of consultancies. Oh, and they lost the source code and the PC isn't backed up.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    22. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      A better example of British IT: http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

      Of course, the Turing Police ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Police ) are on the job now but the British police and the British in general were the idiots in the 1950's. Hmmm ...

    23. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Zadaz · · Score: 1

      Yeah. A kid getting into a secure area would be inconceivable .

      But probably wouldn't need that since there's a wireless access point somewhere around there.

    24. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the British Police the home of Scottland Yard?

      No, London is the home of (New) Scotland Yard...

    25. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      A longer and more accurate answer would be:

      It was the Poles who cracked the first two rotors of Enigma without computers.

      It was the British Navy who captured the rest of the rotors and the code-books.

      It was Turing and Flower who built the first electronic programmable computer that enabled a theoretical crack to be actually used in real-time to read German traffic and produce ULTRA.

    26. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the cleaners turn this server off regularly so they can vacuum...

    27. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Who was it cracked Enigma without a computer again? The Poles did. What does that have to do with this discussion?

    28. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is incorrect.

    29. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by thetroll123 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't possibly comment on US Airport security, other than that my impressions were it's more about intimidation and theatrics - of a type that wouldn't affect any real threat - than security.

      The story is about the UK government's computer security. There may well have been security breaches in the past, but a kid getting on a plane 5000 miles away isn't an example.

    30. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... no.

      It's actually in COBOL. It sits down the Hole at Northwood. Backed up at the ACCs (Alternate Command Centres) in Scotland and Holland.

      I wrote it in 1988, and I suspect it hasn't changed a lot.

      Though, funnily enough, I did delete the source code for one of the compiled modules once ...

    31. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      t's quite likely there's a compiled VB4 package somewhere that runs under Win95 on an old Compaq 486 (DX, yay!) that has a tickbox marked 'Have you asked the Americans if it's OK?' that then enables a big red button that does the deed. Worse still, it's 30 lines of code, a 3rd party OCX (From the 'Custom Nuclear Controls Corporation') and cost £3.5bn to develop by a consortium of consultancies. Oh, and they lost the source code and the PC isn't backed up.

      That's a feature, not a bug.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    32. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Maybe your initial assumption is just baseless? It'd be more reasonable to expect that the government computers are safe since there's been no incidents so far eventhough the target is high profile. Which would indicate that cops are quite the hackers. Maybe they use contacts and know-how from the cyber-crime units that every european police force has?

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    33. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by owlnation · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're part of the Government, but not Parliament. The Police, Judiciary and the Armed forces ultimately answer to the Queen, not necessarily to Parliament.

    34. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Thansal · · Score: 1

      Just remember that the TP are not Brits, they are an organization with deals going on with most govn'ts (they are not a govn't org them selfs), and tend to just ignore all laws any way. Oh, and dont' forget that they are mostly incompetent anyway.

      grumble, I am almost sure that Wiki article is wrong, Freeside is NOT a casino, it would be close to calling it a resort town. And blade runner has nothing to do with the Turing Police (and thus Neuromancer), aside from both taking place in Cyberpunk worlds.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    35. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      Their is and the override password is 'buffalo'

    36. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by permaculture · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You may be right.

      Another valid explanation might be social engineering. A senior police officer and a senior civil servant probably met at their old Oxford college for a drinky-poo.

      "Have you heard this awful nonsense about the 'cash for peerages' evidence? Old Chigwell just isn't playing the game at all. It's a dreadful bore."

      "Oh I wouldn't worry about that old fellow. Have a whisky.
      I'm sure we can work something out."

      Much like an episode of "Yes, Minister". :)

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    37. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe that the British police are part of the British Government

      Not really. There is no monolithic entity known as the "British police". Each region has its own police force; in this case, the Metropolitan police, which is responsible for Greater London (but not the City of London, which has its own force). Ultimately, national government doesn't have any "discretionary" control over the the police, although the law gives the home secretary certain specific powers.

    38. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Occasionally, you need other friends.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    39. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by jeremyp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not a more accurate answer.

      The Poles originally cracked three rotor Enigma.

      The Germans made it more secure (by adding two new rotors so the daily key used three rotors from five).

      The Poles realised they didn't have the resources to crack Enigma anymore and handed everything over to the British.

      The British (esp. Alan Turing) enhanced the cracking methods including building an electro-mechanical device called a "bombe" to help with the key cracking (NB, the Polish also had such a device, but the British version was much improved).

      The German Navy used a four rotor enigma and much stricter key generation protocols such that for much of the war it could only be cracked by capturing daily keys from u-boats etc.

      Colossus, the first electronic programmable computer, was built to crack a completely different cipher called Lorenz. Alan Turing had very little to do with that. NB, I'm fairly sure Colossus was not Turing complete. The engineer who designed Colossus was Tommy Flowers.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    40. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An even longer and more accurate answer would be:

      It was the Poles who cracked the first two rotors of Enigma using a mechanical computer (the bomba).

      It was the British Ministry of War who captured the rest of the rotors and the code-books.

      It was Turing who designed a method of quickly cracking the codes by considering the probabilities of unknown configurations of the German machines.

      It was Tommy Flowers and Harold Keen who built the computer that implemented this method and improvements by Gordon Welchman to quickly decipher intercepted German messages.

      Turing never designed a computer and had no practical electronics credentials. Saying Turing built the Bombe is like saying Jobs built the Apple II. Flowers' achivements were infinitely more important to the war effort than Turing, who was only one of a large team of cryptanalysts, because without his initial designs there could have been no electronic decrypter. Still, computer scientists need a hero because they've got fuck all else.

    41. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by turgid · · Score: 1

      What's double-triple-funny and ironic is that this was done under laws that this government brought in, eroding centuries-old civil liberties and legal precedent, to bolster their War on Terror. You know, the old argument that "terrorist suspects" don't have the same "rights" as everyone else, so you have nothing to fear. The laws were never going to be used against white middle-class^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hho nest, hard-working members of the public.

      Ho hum.

      As for the computers being insecure, this is the British Public Sector we're talking about here.

    42. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole 'The English didn't crack Enigma the Polish did' smacks of opening a stuck jar lid for someone then having them claim they had already loosened it and then not offer you a pickle.

    43. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by mikael · · Score: 1

      And then the Police arrested a couple of Oxford students for calling a police horse gay/. The journalists had a field day over that one - calling the decision "Blackadderesque". One could only imagine the script for that.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    44. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for them, they seem to have stumbled on to the rare "good" cop. (or their offering price wasn't high enough).

      They haven't gained any sympathy from the Police force with their constant stream of political correctness, lax sentencing (offenders normally get half the sentence off for good behaviour due to prison overcrowding - according to the head of the prison service this isn't enough time to rehabilitate repeat offenders). Retirees
      will be put in jail for refusing to pay rising property taxes, while violent muggers and burglars get off with community service.
      Even the judges get cheesed off because their sentences aren't being carried out. The latest wheeze is that judges shouldn't determine the duration of prison sentences - this should be left to parole boards. And the Police are wise to their tactics - if anyone ever takes the slight pot-shot close to critizing the government, the whole cabinet comes out with guns blazing. So each time an announcement that there might be evidence that a crime might have occurred, Downing Street goes ballistic, only to go completely silent as soon as the actual evidence is presented.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    45. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      Big red button? Never! It's a standard VB button widget with "CommandButton34" written on it, right next to "Label76".

    46. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Or, your assumption could be completely inaccurate. The police have access to many, many talented hackers in various aspect of their own organisation, as well as Government agencies such as GCHQ, as well as legal rights to request any ISP to comply with their criminal investigations. Your average 14-year-old couldn't even DREAM of the resources the police have at hand in dealing with computer crime, and gaining access to systems in order to collect evidence. But please, continue to debate on flawed assumptions as if you know what you're talking about. It's funny.

    47. Re:What's wrong with the UK? by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      Sorry. The Turing Police item was just included for humor.

  9. Interesting... by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whilst it's good that Goverment bodies get the same level of investigation as anyone else would, I believe it to be a bit of a 'flogging a dead horse' situation. Blair is leaving this year, and I very much doubt he'd be under the hammer in this sitation (he's already been interviewed and released). Indeed it is important to catch those that are guilty, but I don't feel it is going to damage Labour any more than they already are.

    I do find it quite hypocritical that the British Government have such power as to be able to break into any system in the name of investigation...

    1. Re:Interesting... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There are quite a lot of things which amuse me about this whole episode:

      1) It's a Labour government being accused of selling Peerages when it is really only them who have ever been opposed to this idea.

      2) Various members of the Labour party moaning that Ruth Turner is a lovely lady and that its in extremely bad taste to go around to arrest her at 6AM in the morning with 4 police officers. This is a bit like saying to the police who are arresting you for a blatant crime "Don't you have any real criminals to catch ?"

      3)Trying to hide evidence and then being undone by your own laws to retrieve it.

      4) Just the general stupidity of the Labour party in general, I really hope this Ruth woman is charged, convicted and sent down for life as a lesson to all the others that blindly follow the party line and are willing to say or do anything provided it's "on-message" regardless of the obvious facts.

    2. Re:Interesting... by DaveCar · · Score: 1

      It's a fairly minor point, but he wasn't "released" because he was never detained. "Mr Blair was not interviewed under caution and he was not accompanied by a lawyer, his spokesman said". Basically he was questioned as a witness, not a suspect (heh, yet ;).

      It would be funny (though I'm not suggesting likely, as the second part of the bill hasn't come in yet I believe) if Jack Straw got put in the position of having to provide a password/phrase for some account/key or other that he had either forgotten or never knew on pain of five years in prison if he doesn't or speaks about it to anyone else but his solicitor pursuant to the Regulation Of Investigatory Powers act he was pushing for.

    3. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she wont get jailed for life. Even if this actually makes it to court and she is convicted of perjury or perverting the course of justice, she'll get 4 years, put in an open prison and released after 18-24 months like any other convicted politician (I'm looking at you Jeffrey Archer).

    4. Re:Interesting... by aug24 · · Score: 1

      By the same logic, all fraudsters should not be charged if they agree to retire (with their ill-gotten-gains intact).

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    5. Re:Interesting... by stevedcc · · Score: 1

      Whilst it's good that Goverment bodies get the same level of investigation as anyone else would, I believe it to be a bit of a 'flogging a dead horse' situation. Blair is leaving this year, and I very much doubt he'd be under the hammer in this sitation

      I find it curious that anyone could ever claim investigating political corruption is "flogging a dead horse". The house of lords is an appointed chamber, and the labour party gets to appoint people. Selling peerages (if it's proved) would be a serious breach of public confidence that would have ramifications for people far beyond Blair: after all it's the labour party that nominates their peers, not necessarily their leader. This could have serious implications for the next labour pm (Probably Gordon Brown).

      --
      todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
    6. Re:Interesting... by walter_f · · Score: 1

      I do find it quite hypocritical that the British Government have such power as to be able to break into any system in the name of investigation...

      Obviously, not the British Government, but the British Police.

      The Police is an entity different and independent from the Government in Britain, I learned.

      This is a great thing.

      Alas, this is not the case in most countries I know, among them the country I happen to live in.

  10. In fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nobody has been charged as a result of this investigation. The official who was arrested was questioned on suspicion of perverting the course of justice and was later released.

  11. get some of your own by Byzboy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The British government is reaping what it has sown. Often the most dangerous people are the well-intentioned few who know no bounds when it comes to implementing things for our own good. To them the ends always justify the means. The government has given the police the power to search almost anything in almost any way they see fit so of they go biting the hand that feeds them.

    Must end have run out of cliches.

  12. Labour party? by RandoX · · Score: 1

    That doesn't sound like much fun.

    1. Re:Labour party? by AddressException · · Score: 1

      Think "Organized-" not "Child-" or "Birthing="

    2. Re:Labour party? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think "Organized-" not "Child-" or "Birthing="

      Sounds like even LESS fun!

      (You may not have HQ (Hunour Quotient) be aware of the fact that the parent was obviously making a very good pun. If your HQ is that low, then know we are laughing at you, not with you.)

    3. Re:Labour party? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're having a Labour Party ! BYOB (bring your own baby)

  13. Why am I not surprised? by webvictim · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So the British government is trying to cover something up... quelle surprise.

    Actually, I shouldn't be shocked. They've lied about funding, the health service, taxes and just about everything else... they'd be the first to try and protect their own livelihoods when it came to the crunch.

    Is it just me, or is my country going to the dogs? Or is it just that there is no such thing as an honest politician?

    --
    When did I realise I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realised I was talking to myself.
    1. Re:Why am I not surprised? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

      We need to think up some kind of safeguards to protect politics from politicians as they are giving it a bad name.

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    2. Re:Why am I not surprised? by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >Is it just me, or is my country going to the dogs?
      Going? Wrong tense.
      What I find most sad is that when Blair et al first came to power, they were a genuine breath of fresh air compared to the previous Tory incumbants and for the first year/18months they did a lot of really good stuff. Somewhere along the line though they just turned in to carbon copies of those they replaced, if anything worse. I can't think of any aspect of the labour government which doesn't have a whiff of hypocracy, corruption or shallow/misguided thinking. They just seem to churn out reams of badly drafted laws whilst spinning their stories faster than a fast spinny thing. Half the time though the electorate are so uncaring they just get away with it. Heck, Blair even tried to change the ways laws are enacted so he can add/amend them without any reference to parliament, effectively making him a dictator. Luckily my MP was savvy enough to object (and rather strongly at that) to it when I emailed him.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    3. Re:Why am I not surprised? by kentrel · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Is it just me, or is my country going to the dogs? Or is it just that there is no such thing as an honest politician?

      Maybe it's your Chicken Little attitude, and your tarring of all politicians with the same brush. No-one was charged or convicted with anything here, yet you've already jumped on a bandwagon and declared them guilty. Even if they are guilty that doesn't mean there aren't many more local politicians and MPs, etc who are really trying to make life better for their constituants.

      In a democratic society the politicans are the employees of the people. They are a reflection of the people's own strengths and weaknesses. If an employee in your company is suspected of stealing you don't declare all of your employees to be thieves, or would you? Politics is no different even if you're of the opinion that you're helpless and can do nothing.

      The fact that the police have no problem going to these measures to investigate possible criminal actions within the government is a sign that this country is far from "going to the dogs", and is exactly how a democratic country should be run, where the politicians live in fear of the people's disapproval, and not the other way around. I'm not afraid of anyone in Parliament - are you? We put them there, we can get rid of them. If they break the law, we'll deal with them. That's democracy.

    4. Re:Why am I not surprised? by nicklott · · Score: 1

      The really funny thing is that everyone's known that this has been happening for decades, if not centuries (note the silence from the other parties). The thing that has got them in trouble and could potentially bring them down is the lengths they have gone to cover it up. We're only a couple of steps from Watergate UK, methinks.

    5. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is it just me, or is my country going to the dogs? Or is it just that there is no such thing as an honest politician?
      When you reach an apex, the rest is downhill. As such, your country has been 'going to the dogs' since World War One, or maybe just before it. Whether it is there yet or not is a debatable matter, though.
    6. Re:Why am I not surprised? by webvictim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the truth is essentially that politicians care about one thing and one thing only - and that is votes. Yes, they are scared about what the public think of them, so much so that they will go to any length to keep themselves the positions of power that they hold so dear. This is why they will lie, cheat and deceive in any way possible just to make themselves look good, or at least better than their rivals. There is no "none of the above" option on poll cards. What are you supposed to do if you want to vote, but despite the things they say you know that all the candidates are driven by the same greed and lust for power?

      --
      When did I realise I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realised I was talking to myself.
    7. Re:Why am I not surprised? by TommyMc · · Score: 1
      In my opinion, your comment contains within it much more wisdom than the parent, however it is unlikely you'll be modded up due to the well known slashdot cynical-of-authority bias.

      Of course, being cynical is not inherently a bad thing when dealing with politicians, but being bias to the point of generalising them all stifles healthy debate and creates an atmosphere ripe for extremism. Most political extremes of the 20th century used perceived public discomfort of the ineffectiveness of the current politicians and pushed their own black-and-white arguments as a sign of 'strong leadership', that will steer people away from the demons and shadows that their propoganda creates.

      Anyone who thinks i'm overreacting need look no further than the modern day BNP to see evidence of a party with an economically and socially idiotic philosophy attempting to trade on the fear of 'weak' policitians trying to turn Britain 'foreign'.

      So, paint me as naive if you want, i'd rather have a healthy debate with people -politicians or otherwise- based on reason, logic and evidence rather than just whiney generalisations about a democratic country's politicians or, worse, its society itself.

      --
      Stupid people think it's cool. Smart people thinks it's a joke; also cool.
    8. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Ngwenya · · Score: 1
      So the British government is trying to cover something up... quelle surprise.

      Of course a government covers things up. It's got statutory authority to guard national secrets. What you mean, I guess, is that the government is covering up something which should be disclosed because of fear of embarrassment. In which case, I'll simply ask for your evidence (related to the honours for loans accusation) and await an answer. (Note: answers like "They're all at it", or "Everybody knows its true" don't count as evidence)

      Is it just me, or is my country going to the dogs?

      It's you. Just about every generation produces the Daily Wail/Torygraph whine about the country going to the dogs. You sound like my mother-in-law, but at least she has the decency to be half-insane. When she gets to the stage of actually believing the bile in the Torygraph, then I can ask for a Section 8 to get her into the Laughing Academy.

      Or is it just that there is no such thing as an honest politician?

      Or could it be that politicians are representative of the people, and thus can be both honest and dishonest? Seriously, your objections come across as pretty juvenile, here. The country isn't going to the dogs. Some things get better, some things get worse. In my opinion, things generally get better.

      The only times that things get really bad in a democracy is when people stop caring.

      --Ng
    9. Re:Why am I not surprised? by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Or could it be that politicians are representative of the people, and thus can be both honest and dishonest?

      Or maybe they start that way, but once politicians they have power. Power corrupts... etc.

    10. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live in Britain as well, but I'm a US citizen. I'm not sure if your country is going to the dogs, but looking at Westminster everything seems normal from my cultural perspective. Are the MPs not normally partisan jerks who lie during corruption investigations?

    11. Re:Why am I not surprised? by residents_parking · · Score: 1

      It's all part of EU harmonization, there's probably an EU directive somewhere ...

    12. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Some things get better, some things get worse. In my opinion, things generally get better.

      Are you living in the same f'ing country as me?

      > The only times that things get really bad in a democracy is when people stop caring.

      Have you looked at a tabloid recently? The big brother the public are reading about isn't the same one that's making me consider emigration.

    13. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me, or is my country going to the dogs?

      No, and no. It isn't just you; OTOH, in most countries, the ability to use your office for personal gain is considered a perk of the job, not something which merits a police investigation. E.g.: in the US, big-time Republican donors such as Halliburton got vast amounts of money from no-bid contracts relating to Iraq. In France, the president is given his annual budget in the form of two suitcases of cash, to ensure that it can be spent without leaving any records in the banking system.

    14. Re:Why am I not surprised? by nasch · · Score: 1
      They just seem to churn out reams of badly drafted laws whilst spinning their stories faster than a fast spinny thing.
      Best. Simile. Ever.
  14. The police won't say by TheCybernator · · Score: 5, Funny

    The police won't say what tools they have used Kidnapping. Torturing. Unknown Prisons. Britney Spears.
    1. Re:The police won't say by LizardKing · · Score: 2, Funny

      Britney Spears.

      Yup, someone holding my eyelids open so that I had to look at another picture of Britney's cellulite? Or that "upskirt" shot of her rather ravaged beaver? It would have me confessing to anything.

    2. Re:The police won't say by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >her rather ravaged beaver?
      I keep reading about these shots of either her or Lindsey Lohan's 'angry beavers' from their recent commando nights out but I've never seen any. I clearly need to improve my Google skills.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    3. Re:The police won't say by chill · · Score: 1

      http://www.hollywoodrag.com/index.php?/weblog/brea king_britney_spears_buys_panties1/

      Google on "britney spears gas station" and it is the 6th link. It was closer to the top, but it seems Miss White Trash has offended the public yet again by heading barefoot into a public restroom.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:The police won't say by eMbry00s · · Score: 1
      Britney Spears.
      Leave Sony out of this, they removed the rootkits ages ago!


      (For those impaired at sensing really bad jokes that aren't really funny at all: This is one.)
    5. Re:The police won't say by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      Thanks dude - looks a bit gnarly tho!

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    6. Re:The police won't say by darCness · · Score: 1

      Bad breath, colorful language, feather dusters. What do you think they're armed with? GUNS YOU TIT! GUNS!

  15. What is meant by "hacking"? by seanyboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm guessing that the "hacking" that is being described is actually a standard analysis of the hard drive after the computer has been taken by the police as evidence. There's nothing unusual in this at all. They'll be looking for deleted files and examining the disk on a sector by sector basis. The Government (or a stupid journalist) is defining this as "Hacking" when in fact it's what the police do with all seized computers.

    --
    Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
    1. Re:What is meant by "hacking"? by matt4077 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you'd RTFA, you'd notice they're talking about "remote accessing of computers", which is exactly what the term hacking usually refers to. And no, don't even bother to explain the difference between hacking and cracking.

    2. Re:What is meant by "hacking"? by stevedcc · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt the police strolled in to no.10 and took a hard drive fore analysis. That would have been in the media LONG before any news regarding what they'd discovered. You just can't go round taking politicians assets like that. Can you imagine what would happen if the FBI took George Bush's hard drive? (insert image of cruise missile targeting FBI headquarters here)

      --
      todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
    3. Re:What is meant by "hacking"? by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      (insert image of cruise missile targeting FBI headquarters here) Or better yet, Bush gets his terrorist connections/friends to hijack an airliner and fly it into the FBI headquarters!
  16. Thank You by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    . . . for making me blow hot coffee out of my nose and all over my keyboard.

    Seriously - that was funny.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Thank You by foobsr · · Score: 1

      ... hot coffee out of my nose and all over my keyboard.

      You hopefully use one of those :)

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:Thank You by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This "LOL GUYS I BLEW BEVERAGE OUT OF MY NOSE" shit got old a really long, long time ago. I don't welcome our new beverage spilling overlords.

    3. Re:Thank You by kv9 · · Score: 1, Funny

      This "LOL GUYS I BLEW BEVERAGE OUT OF MY NOSE" shit got old a really long, long time ago. I don't welcome our new beverage spilling overlords.

      in soviet russia, beverage blows you!

    4. Re:Thank You by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

      Did my post piss you off?

      Ruin your day?

      Good.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Thank You by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. Perhaps your overestimate your ability to annoy people.

  17. Here's some more by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

    If they cry foul they will be hoist by their own "the innocent have nothing to fear" petard. A taste of their own medicine.

    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
  18. "Hack" by Fr.+Teddy · · Score: 1

    I believe that for "hack" you should read "looked at the backups of the Exchange servers".

  19. Fascinating by biglig2 · · Score: 1

    One aspect no-one has commented on, I'd have assumed that the Security Service would be closely monitoring the Number 10 ISP etc. to look for hostile intrusions... Why didn't they catch this?

    --
    ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    1. Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...

      You could measure the British Security Service (used to be MI5) by the Hollywood standards of J. Bond et al, or you could take a look at what they have actually done in the last 40 years that was useful (diddly squat) and measure them by that.

      Looked at from their film and tv reputation, of course they would be on top of monitoring such intrusions. Looked at from their actual reputation, doing and knowing nothing is situation normal.

      (Incidentally, looking after the security of classified government computers is actually the job of CESG, part of GCHQ. They know a bit more about it, but they still look for a strongly secured perimeter. Once you are inside, anything goes. Perhaps they should have listened to the UK government group which was developing commercial IT security in the 1980s, instead of closing them down?)

    2. Re:Fascinating by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I believe the police are actually responsible for security at No. 10...

    3. Re:Fascinating by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Bearing in mind that it is a government agency doing the "intrusion" and that they had to get authorisation first - they probably simply weren't flagged as "hostile".

      The "hacking" may well turn out to be connecting or logging on using an admin password legally obtained.

      I'm sure Number 10 has an IT admin (damn sure Tony doesn't do it himself) and fairly sure that said admin isn't exempted from RIPA compliance. If they went in under RIPA then (s)he's not necessarily allowed to even tell their superiors of the warrant. Calling a solicitor for advice about compliance with the warrant may be allowed - but probably not if you claim your solicitor is Cherie Blair...

  20. you know what by nomadic · · Score: 1

    I am very insulted by any insinuation that my recent elevation to the offices of Duke of Kent, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord High Admiral have anything to do with gifts paid to government officials. I assure you, they all came about because of merit.

  21. Simply imagine the DoJ or the CBO w/this oversight by Merkwurdigeliebe · · Score: 1

    with these kinds of powers.... nor more stonewalling from any parties in government. I mean, so long as they are government and as such they have checks and balances and thus have jurusdiction over each other and in special circumstances if they suspect sonewalling or lack or cooperation they could invoke these powers... imagine corruption in government going down (or in the least be exposed)...

    But given that the laws here are different and that agencies most of the time -except for egregious offences- kind of don't see, ask or tell.

    Imagine the juicy bits the executive might have (altho I susoect the legislative to have much more but not as tantalizing......

  22. The hack was actually easy because by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Funny

    all the passwords were "NigellaDoMe"

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    1. Re:The hack was actually easy because by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Except for Tony Blair of course. But, fortunately one of the hackers finally thought of trying "Bush_Lapdog123".

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  23. they followed the white rabbit by JacksBrokenCode · · Score: 1
    They are probably using pretty basic hacking methods to hack into government computers.

    Yeah, they were held up for a moment when none of his kids' birthdays was the password, but then they realized it was his anniversary in reverse.

    Police used computer experts...

  24. Perhaps now they will understand by benhaha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That the escalation in the UK's police powers has gone too far.

    --
    NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT
    1. Re:Perhaps now they will understand by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      ... or that they need to pass a law to make politicians exempt from any new police powers, lest the 'safety of the nation' be compromised. Which is actually a real possibility if they do what Blair wants and create a super-database of people's information.

    2. Re:Perhaps now they will understand by Gobiner · · Score: 1

      They definitely understand that the escalation has gone too far. What they'll do is roll back police powers just far enough that they can't spy on lawmakers any more. Everybody else is out of luck.

    3. Re:Perhaps now they will understand by westyx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, how dare the police be allowed to investigate politicians for possible breaking of the law. what nerve these plod have!

  25. Our police officers might not carry guns... by Karganeth · · Score: 1

    8|_| 7]-[3% $|_||23 45 |-|311 907 1337 $|!11-/_

  26. How Convenient by airship · · Score: 1

    So, in England there's none of that annoying 'Probable Cause' and 'Warrants' rubbish?

    It's nice to see rights being stomped on in another country for a change.

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
    1. Re:How Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think the 'probable cause' is taken care of by the fact that it was done as part of an ongoing investigation and the fact just about everybody in the UK believes the government is doing its best to cover this up. You will also probably find that the police already have permission from a Judge to gather evidence and they don't need another one just because they are sneaking a look at things the government is pretending doesn't exist.

      Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_project ion

    2. Re:How Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Effectively it's the government breaking into it's own property. They don't need a warrant to search their own property. If this was an investigation against a private citizen then a warrant would indeed be required.

      Oh and I believe you mean Britain . England is just one part of the nation.

    3. Re:How Convenient by jimicus · · Score: 1

      At least this time it's the politicians rights.

  27. +1 caustic humour by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    If this were to continue, well ... completely undeserving people could get one!

    At least the British Upper House is funny...Canada's is sad. As far as I can tell, in Canada not only to "completely undeserving people" get senate appointments from time to time, as far as I can tell it wouldn't even be illegal for someone to buy a seat in the senate from the PM. At the very least the ability to use old-school hereditary peers in Britian for political manipulation is a BIT limited. Canada has never had hereditary peers in our upper house and many (most?) of them are still not deserving.

    I wasn't aware of this "cash for peerage" scandal until I saw this story. The parallels between the old Liberal government' situation in Canada and the current Labour gov't in Britain are intriguing (both seem scandal-plagued and both have law enforcement digging around in their affairs). IIRC I think the RCMP still need a warrant to perform such searches though.

    1. Re:+1 caustic humour by samjam · · Score: 1

      The main benefit of the house of Lords, is that (unlike elected politicians) they don't have to look first to their own re-election and pocket-lining, because there is no special incentive for them.

      Instead they can just do a decent job, and keep the lease-my-soul politicians honest.

      Sam

    2. Re:+1 caustic humour by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      So it's kind of like the US Senate, if the Senate were appointed for life like the Supreme Court is. I get it!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:+1 caustic humour by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      The House of Lords is also the supreme court of the UK, as the Law lords(same as US supreme court judges) sit there as legislators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_functions_of _the_House_of_Lords

      Separation of powers? What's that?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    4. Re:+1 caustic humour by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      No, the European Court of Justice is the supreme court for the UK.

    5. Re:+1 caustic humour by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      only on matters of European law, so if you are claiming that something is a breach of your human rights, you go to Brussels's, but if you claim something is a breach of your rights under UK law, you go to the lords.

    6. Re:+1 caustic humour by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      Your case can only go to the Lords if there is a question of a general legal principle involved. It's not up to you whether your case goes there, and it won't for normal proceedings anyway.

    7. Re:+1 caustic humour by nickco3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The European Court of Humans Rights is in *Strasbourg*, and hears human rights complaints against the 40-odd signatories to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. It is nothing to do with Brussels or the EU.

      The 1999 Human Rights Act incorporates the ECHR into UK law, so there is no need for any UK citizen to go to Strabourg, the UK courts will hear your complaint.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
  28. This is getting rather serious by Budenny · · Score: 5, Funny

    My sources tell me that, as usual, the most serious charges are related to secondary offenses.

    In the present case what is terrifying Government Ministers and senior figures in New Labour is that they may be charged with anti competitive behaviour and market manipulation - distorting the free market in peerages and other honours, and colluding with other honours suppliers. If the police start to suspect something like this has gone on, the Office of Fair Trading and the European Commission could get involved, and you know that when the Competition Directorate moves, terror strikes.

    It is truly tragic. Britain was always famous around the world as the country that operated the most open and transparent market for honours of all sorts. Its a great pity it has come to this.

    1. Re:This is getting rather serious by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      And I used up all my mod points this morning :-( Someone give him a humour point.. Pleeaaase.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  29. Probable cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about "you only gave us two folders, both with one page saying "This page left intentionally blank"?

    OK, that was extreme, but the ammount of paperwork done is excessive. EVERYONE knows that. When the request turned up a small ammount of information, they said "we have a good idea that this is not all the evidence". And it seems they were right.

  30. The police didn't always have this power by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    At least not without a proper warrant.

    Somebody please tell me that it was this government that gave them the power to do this.

    1. Re:The police didn't always have this power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:The police didn't always have this power by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Ironic, isn't it?

      I was hoping that was it, but it looks like they'd have still had the power under the 1997 Police Act which was passed at the end of the Conservative term.

      Still. It is nice that the party is a victim of the sort of extreme right wing lawsthey supported. I'd just like to see some important newspaper names fall victim to legislation they pushed for.

  31. Obvious! by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Funny
    One Westminster source said police inquiries seemed to have made a recent breakthrough. "Quite clearly, in the past few days, the police have found something quite significant, possibly a file dump of some kind," said the source.
    Of course it's all in the garbage file! Obviously, they've seen the film.
  32. No. 10 by blantonl · · Score: 1

    From the article: 'The investigators did not have to notify No 10 if they were "hacking" into its system

    Just in case everyone is wondering what "No. 10" refers to - No. 10 is 10 Downing Street, the British Equiv to the White House... http://www.number10.gov.uk/

    No. 10 is not 3 higher than 007, or any single person, or secret agent, or anything else.

    --
    Lindsay Blanton
    RadioReference.com
    1. Re:No. 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "10 Downing Street [is] the British Equiv to the White House"

      Not quite. Fortunately, Tony Blair is *not* the head of state, although he thinks he is.

    2. Re:No. 10 by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      I think most Slashdotters already know what 10 Downing Street is. But what's the 'White House' place you're comparing it to?

    3. Re:No. 10 by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Where am I?

      In The UK.

      What do you want?

      Information.

      Which side are you on?

      That would be telling. We want information...

      You won't get it.

      By hook or by crook, we will.

      Who are you?

      The new Number Two.

      Who is Number One?

      You are Number Ten.

      I am not a number! I am the Prime Minister!

      Ha, ha, ha, ha...

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  33. Taking a Walk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Well they could have taken a walk down to the DC and plugged directly into whatever server was being used. However British Computer Law is pretty indepth, and for anyone interested have a read: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_1990001 8_en_2.htm#mdiv1 "Saving for certain law enforcement powers. 10. Section 1(1) above has effect without prejudice to the operation-- (a) in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure; and (b) in Scotland of any enactment or rule of law relating to powers of examination, search or seizure."

  34. All I thought of... by xaoslaad · · Score: 1

    ...when I read "The investigators did not have to notify No 10..." was the The Prisoner... I am still wondering, with a name like that, if I am the only one watching entirely too much television...

  35. Hacking as a job + Seeing hacker crime = ??? by kale77in · · Score: 1

    If even large accounting firms are bright enough to have some skills in 'forensic accounting' and so on, I'd be surprised if the whole UK police force didn't employ at least someone with hacking skills. The interesting ethical modifier is the get-out-of-jail card they have in using them. If they get caught on official business they just wave the badge and go their way. Likewise, they likely see its most distasteful sides. I wonder what affect this would have on their attitudes to hacking in their personal life?

    To give a corresponding example, a friend of the family is a highway patrol officer here in Australia: he drives some very highly tuned and customized cars that have little trouble catching almost anything that's legal to drive here. Sometimes the people he catches imagine that he's a fellow rev-head, and want to discuss the mechanics of his car. This is a mistake, as he has simply no interest in speeding, and absolutely no patience with it. On the one hand, because he can speed with impunity, and does so all the time, there's no thrill factor to it, apart from the physical sensation. Secondly, the more he has to walk around crash scenes picking up body parts and trying to figure out which bags to put them in, the slower and slower his off-duty driving becomes.

    Is there a corresponding effect in 'white hat' hacking? Does exposure to real hacker crime, combined with hacking as a job, actually result in a decreased interest in hacking in private life?

  36. She wasn't charged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She was in fact released without charge.

    Sheeeeesh.

    At least read the article before posting it.

  37. PC Hackers, Ha! by ZwJGR · · Score: 1

    In Britain, "Police hacking into government servers" means that a formal request was made to some civil servant who promptly went and retreived the spare admin authentication details from an unmarked brown file at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet that is sitting next to the boiler in the basement underneath the House of Commons, and then read out the passwords over the phone to a Police secratary.

    --
    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
    1. Re:PC Hackers, Ha! by danzona · · Score: 1

      from an unmarked brown file at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet that is sitting next to the boiler in the basement underneath the House of Commons

      But was there a sign that said, "Beware of the Leopard"?

    2. Re:PC Hackers, Ha! by 2sheds · · Score: 1

      My brain is suddenly filled with the image of a thousand hairy horsemen all shouting "why do you never have mod points when you need them?" at me.

      --

      Absit Invidia
  38. Hacking tools used... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    The police won't say what tools they have used.

    I'm sure it involved a large quantity of Xena tapes and Hot Pockets...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  39. windoze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd bet all the money to my name the computer they hacked was running Windoze.
    What happens when they try to comprimise a hacker's system in search of evidence. I suspect that they would be unable to, and find that all the previously gathered evidence stored on their computer was destroyed while the slept. Why would they bother w/ this shit, plus, were this in the U.S.A., this would certainly be illegal w/o a warrant, and if they had a warrant, couldn't they just sieze the computer? Probably would less work if the suspect was even slightly computer apt.

  40. Shiver me timbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, did you see that shit leaking out of her cooch? It was disgusting...I couldn't look at porn for a week!

    You can also see her C-section scar....nasty, but at least you know she's loose for reasons that aren't a result of giving birth.

  41. I wonder... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    Do you think she went commando so she could steal some panties from wherever she bought them, by wearing them out the door?

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  42. Use the RIP act on them by slashnik · · Score: 1

    There should be no need to hack

    I think that the RIP act alows the police to demand your password.
    If you do not provide this information the sentance is a long term in gaol.

  43. Update: by Ajehals · · Score: 2, Funny

    Luckily....

    PC James Smith (now Lord Smith of Whitekirk) and Det Sgt Margaret Jackson (now Dame Jackson of Drumadoon) have said that nothing of interest was found. The supervising officer Det Insp Michael Parks (Now Lord Parks of Worth Matravers) stated that whilst nothing untoward had been identified, the procedures surrounding the "hacking" and its legality would be revised. "This revision is to be taken as the intrusion into downing street computers has caused undue distress and concern to members of the British government, and is therefore probably in contravention of the European Unions Human Rights Legislation" said a downing street media official Martin Smith-Spinalot. Lord Parks also noted that Mr John Hackeby, the home office official that had authorised the intrusion had been fired from the home office for theft of office supples and is in the process of being extradited to the United States due to his involvement in online gambling, terrorist funding and drugs trafficing, for which the US State department has said it probably has some sort of evidence, or could find some by strengthening or introduction legislation to allow it to do "anything it wants to do to fight bad things".

    (just in case anybody missed it, the above is fictitious and intended as light humour)

  44. linkage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this was network based intrusion I would have thought the police used their priviledged position on the network to gain access, since the police network and downing streets network is run by the same contractor and there are various interconnects between the two dependant on the classification of each network. Said contractor also maintains all the IDS on the networks/interconnects so I imagine the police would simply take their warrent directly to their security team instead of trying to go through the motions of gaining access from the other end of the wire. As there is so much store put into securing the interconnects and ids there etc, the other end may be relatively soft, running open shares etc.
    Anyone else certainly wouldnt be gaining access to the segment of the network that would let you do this, so I think all the comments about "if they can do it, anyone can" are definately not valid.
      Its still very big brother though, and could be construed as the police using their powers to influence political will.

    1. Re:linkage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Its still very big brother though, and could be construed as the police using their powers to influence political will.

      It's a criminal investigation! The mind-numbing stupidity of your comment has just destroyed my last vestige of faith in humanity. There's an abundance of historical information clicks away, read some and you may appreciate why humanity does not place its rulers above the law.

  45. The ultimate security hole by extern_void · · Score: 0

    Cops hacking into computers? Must be because of the newest network "Donut Hole"..

  46. That's no diff from American separation of powers by jtull89 · · Score: 1

    Yeah. It's called separation of powers. It's in the American constitution. Ever heard of Watergate? One of our Presidents, Nixon, was indicted (or was going to be) for conspiring against another party and resigned before anything can be done. There is certainly the problem that cases like that can't be done in a normal court and therefore he was not put on trial as a normal civilian. However, there ARE corruption cases in the US, (like Abramoff). Btw, by definition, the police are part of the government even if the powers are separated. They ARE enforcing laws, after all.

  47. Legal Terminology..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    "Perverting The Course Of Justice" Oh my God. How I wish that was a technical legal term here in the States. Simply great.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Legal Terminology..... by tengwar · · Score: 1
      A friend of mine, son of a judge, remarked that the legal term "the third head of malice" would be an excellent name for a heavy metal band.

      Since common law rests on precedent, old judgements are often quoted verbatim. One I particularly liked contained the phrase "every cyclist is entitled to his wobble".

  48. Yeah but ... by Tim+Ward · · Score: 1

    Blair is leaving this year ... the trick is to force him out before the May election, got to be good for everybody else.

    1. Re:Yeah but ... by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 1

      Blair is leaving this year ... the trick is to force him out before the May election,

      You do realise that the next general election is not required to be held until June 2010, don't you? I think we can be fairly sure blair will be gone by then, since he's on record as saying he'll quit before September this year.

      --
      "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
    2. Re:Yeah but ... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Get him charged with this and found guilty. Perhaps it's a small but positive step towards getting him charged with war crimes. By keeping such a tight grip on power for so long and to such a total extent, he's put himself in a dangerous position. If he starts to look weak, you watch the rest of the dogs turn on him. It'll happen so fast you'll wonder where he went.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  49. Re:That's no diff from American separation of powe by Dysl3xicDog · · Score: 1

    Yes Nixon ran away from office. He should have been charged but Ford pardoned him.

  50. That's an old myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story about the Brit's using computers to crack Enigma is a myth. Certainly they used brute force machines to decode Enigma, but the cracking was largely done by hand/mind by some VERY clever people.

    The nearest thing to a computer used at Bletchley Park was the Colossus. Colossus was used to attach the non-morse intercepts - essentially a network of high speed encrypted teletype networks (developed by Siemens) that the Germans were using for their more strategic work. The network itself was brillliant - essentially the first automatic switched communications network.

    That was the secret that the Brit's kept - the story about the secret of cracking the Enigma was simply a clever cover - while many countries started using these encrypted teletype networks, the Brits were happily listening away.

  51. road to MP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [to the tune of appropriate number from HMS Pinafore]

    When I was a lad I served a term
    As office boy to an Attorney's firm.
    I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,
    And I polished up the handle of the big front door.
    [Chorus] He polished up the handle of the big front door.
    I polished up that handle so carefullee
    That now I'm proud to serve as a British MP!

    [Chorus] He polished up that handle so carefullee,
    That now he's proud to serve as a British MP!


    As office boy I made such a mark
    That they gave me the post of a junior clerk.
    I served the writs with a smile so bland,
    And I copied all the letters in a big round hand.
    [Chorus] He copied all the letters in a big round hand.

    I copied all the letters in a hand so free,
    That now I'm proud to serve as a British MP!

    [Chorus] He copied all the letters in a hand so free,
    That now he's proud to be a British MP!


    In serving writs I made such a name
    That an articled clerk I soon became;
    I wore clean collars and a brand-new suit
    For the pass examination at the Institute.
    [Chorus] For the pass examination at the Institute.

    But that pass examination didn't do so well for me,
    So I had to pay my way to be a British MP!
    [Chorus] But that pass examination didn't do so well for he,
    So he had to pay his way to be a British MP!


    Of legal knowledge I bought such a slip
    That they took me into the partnership.
    And that junior partnership, I ween,
    Was the only kind of stateship I ever had seen.
    [Chorus] Was the only kind of stateship he ever had seen.

    But that kind of stateship so suited me,
    That now I'm proud to be a British MP!
    [Chorus] But that kind of stateship so suited he,
    That now he's proud to be a British MP!


    I grew so rich that I was sent
    By a pocket borough into Parliament.
    I always voted at my party's call,
    And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
    [Chorus] He never thought of thinking for himself at all.

    I thought so little, they rewarded me
    By making me a proud new British MP!

    [Chorus] He thought so little, they rewarded he
    By making him a proud new British MP!


    Now office men, whoever you may be,
    If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
    If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
    Be careful to be guided by this golden rule.
    [Chorus] Be careful to be guided by this golden rule.

    Stick close to your cash but pay off the police,
    And you all may be proud new British MP's

    [Chorus] Stick close to your cash but pay off the police,
    And you all may be proud new British MP's

  52. Try these ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From a different event. They have more detail.

    http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=117706

  53. Re:That's no diff from American separation of powe by InadequateCamel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Resigned before anything could be done? If he committed a crime, it shouldn't matter that he quit the job first.

    I'm not proposing that the British system is the paragon of integrity relative to the American system, but that's probably the best example you can give of the police correcting corrupt government behaviour, and it didn't work. Bush sends thousands of Americans to their deaths overseas, but the entire American political system sits on their hands.

    But lie about a blowjob, and...

  54. Price list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what are peerages going for these days?

  55. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a peerage?

  56. My memory is hazy. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    What was is punishment?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  57. With 250000 Polish now in the UK.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... since Poland joined the EU, I think you will concur that we win anyway.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  58. Jarvis says: C***s are still running the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, Britain isn't going to the dogs. If it appears to be going to the dogs, that is because it has always appeared to be going to the dogs. The ranks of politicians are heavy with the venal, corrupt and self-serving because they always have been (more so for a party which has the possibility of having some power).

  59. No integrity by clusterbuster · · Score: 1

    Oh yes. British police are the models of integrity ...... NOT!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/628669 5.stm

    But it will be interesting to see where this trail will lead. Just because you are PM should not make you immune from prosecution.

    1. Re:No integrity by ibbo · · Score: 1

      How shallow,

      1st off this was a war police force not a civil. 2nd the men they had killed by other loyalists were no doubt key IRA men whom could not be touched by the law. (Speculation of course, but no doubt right).

      So how do you remeove a murderer using the law without prosecuting? You play em at their own game.

      --
      Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuKC WenpmXoA7LNydllVQOwCfdjyzXscd
  60. Re:That's no diff from American separation of powe by jtull89 · · Score: 1

    Ummm... yeah. I acknowledged that thing about him quitting was a problem, didn't I? If I didn't but sorry. Btw, that thing you mentioned about Bush... Sending people to war isn't a crime. If you're going to bring up evidence about WMDs, fine. But don't mention the fact that it's a war. That's pointless.