UK Cops Want "Breathalyzers" For PCs

An anonymous reader writes "One of the UK's top cyber cops, detective superintendent Charlie McMurdie, says the top brass want to develop the equivalent of a breathalyzer for computers, a simple tool that could be plugged into a machine during a raid and retrieve evidence of illegal activity. McMurdie said the device was needed because of a record number of PCs were being seized by police and because the majority of cops don't have the skills to forensically analyse a computer."

Comments

Right

[Endo13]

That's pretty much like building a mind-reader to figure out if a person has ever committed a crime. Good luck with that.

Re:Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's easy enough to build up a database of SHA1 hashes for kiddie porn and such. But what they describe is simply ludicrous:

McMurdie said such a tool could run on suspects' machines, identify illegal activity - such as credit card fraud or selling stolen goods online - and retrieve relevant evidence.

Hey asshole, aren't search warrants supposed to explicitly specify what you're looking for? You seized the computer, it should've been for a specific reason, not to conduct a fishing expedition.

Re:Right

[JLennox]

As an employer, I use to run background checks on people. One man in his early 50s had a "drug possession" charge from decades before. He got busted with a joint. As much as I agree with keeping a lot of drugs off the streets, it's hard to agree when the legal punishment for some drugs is far more damaging than the drug it self.

Re:Right

[causality]

Except we want cops to catch people with illegal drugs etc.. Why restrain the cops from doing what we all need them to do? Whether its illegal aliens or a bundle of dope I prefer that 100% be detected and punished.

They cannot even keep illegal drugs out of prison (don't take my word for it -- do the research yourself). How do you propose that we do this in a relatively free society? The way it has worked is that some amount of crime is tolerated in exchange for having a free society with things like legally recognized civil rights. With drugs and lately with terrorism the (dangerous) mentality has been that we need to stop $EVIL_THING no matter how high the cost is to the rest of society. This is tunnel vision at best, a step towards a totalitarian government at worst.

But I am curious. Once you see for yourself with your own research that they cannot even keep drugs out of prisons, I would like to know this: what environment even more restrictive than prison would you propose for the entire population in order to better meet your 100% detection/punishment rate? I'd also like to know whom you would entrust with the management of this environment.

Re:Right

[gnick]

Except we want cops to catch people with illegal drugs etc..

What do you mean "we", white man?

Why restrain the cops from doing what we all need them to do?

So that they don't trample all over innocent people in their race to jail stoners? So that we can maintain some sort of privacy instead of throwing our doors open to anyone with a badge so that they can rifle through our homes in case we may have been doing something wrong? So that we can keep some kind of checks on the cops so that they might work to protect us while respecting our rights instead of just busting people and feeling like tough-guys on a power trip?

Pick which ever one speaks to you best.

Don't quit your day job, detective superintendent

[konigstein]

Because it's painfully clear your don't understand computer forensics either.

Re:Outlaw encryption

[rlp]

Too late - in Britain, it is a crime to refuse to turn-over your encryption key to the police when requested (no 5th amendment rights).

Why do cops always want an easy job?

[causality]

I really think this is the same mentality that eventually comes to see individual rights and due process as pesky "inefficiencies" that only interfere with "real police work". They seriously need to tell new police recruits that their job is not easy and is not supposed to be easy. If any of them don't like that they should also be told where the exits are.

I think this is another example of relatively well-meaning people who fail to comprehend how dangerous their intentions are because they don't think them through. Let's say there is a device that can be plugged into a PC (maybe the USB port?) and almost instantly tell you whether it has illegal content with no need for expert analysis. Yeah I know that I should also posit the existence of the tooth fairy but bear with me. Who makes this device? How trustworthy are they? Do competitors or other rivals oddly happen to have a higher percentage of "illegal" PCs? Is the device a black box or can the average person examine and scrutinize it? If the cops already don't have the staff or the expertise to perform forensic analysis on PCs, what's our guarantee that they will correctly use this device or that they can offer any sort of assurance that the way it is used won't violate anyone's civil rights? What's to prevent criminals from obtaining one (by whatever means) and making sure that their illegal data isn't where this thing is looking? If I can think of this in a few minutes, WTF are these people smoking that they consider this a serious proposal? Or do they simply not care about these concerns?

You know what you'll probably never see? The police "top brass" asking for a device to help make sure that their officers don't violate anyone's civil rights and that they follow all the laws concerning due process.

Re:So they want GOV spyware?

[sexconker]

What?
It's an apt post.
Spyware snoops around and grabs whatever it finds and deems to be unbecoming of a law abiding computer user.

They then hand that off (and the pc itself, likely) to a group of people who will do the analysis.

The post above you implies that this tool will not be of much actual help, and I agree. A "clean" report from the tool means nothing, and for any actual raids the computers will still be combed over by a forensic team. Any "dirty" report from the tool will result in the same outcome.

What this is really about is passing the buck and keeping face - the cops don't want to look incompetent, so they create this tool and publicize it.
Any failure of the cops will be blamed on the tool still being a work in progress, hackers actively working against the tool, etc.
Any responsibility on the part of the cops will be passed off immediately to the forensics teams. When the tool gives out a "dirty" report, the cops will fill out the green "Suspicion of Illegal Digital Bits on Electrical Personal Computing Device" form and hand over the report and the pc to the forensics team.

Once the tool is accepted as good and trustworthy, departments will find any excuse at all to use them to harass and extort money from the public.

Noise complaint?

Let's bang on the doors, give them shit, and check their computers for illegal activity. You just KNOW that music isn't paid for.

No, sir, since we heard music from the street, and we clearly can see you have a computer, and sound system, and a lack of physical CDs/tapes/records, in plain sight. We have reason to believe a crime has been committed. We don't need a warrant to perform a cursory search. If the search turns up anything, your equipment will be confiscated as evidence.