Slashdot Mirror


UK Police Want Plug-In Computer Crime Detectors

An anonymous reader writes "UK police are talking to private companies about using plug-in USB devices that can scour the hard drive of any device they are attached to, searching for evidence of illegal activity. The UK's Association of Chief Police Officers is considering using commercial devices that can perform targeted searches of text, pictures and computer code on hard drives, allowing untrained cops to detect anything from correspondence on stolen goods to child pornography. Police in the UK are desperate for a way of slashing the backlog of machines seized by the police in raids, with many forces having a backlog that will take a year to process." Maybe they shouldn't seize so many computers.

382 comments

  1. First among other things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    this is probably something everybody should have, just to make sure they're in compliance.

    1. Re:First among other things... by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      To see if there's any correspondence on stolen goods or child pornography in there? Couldn't you just ask?

    2. Re:First among other things... by PaulMacGuysScott · · Score: 1

      This would not work. First the USB device would have to loaded with software for every operating system they would encounter. Even if you choose not to use Encryption which is an easy way around. Someone will design a root kit that allows someone to hide data in a way the device can't find and only by doing some secret sequence of events reveal the data. Or just keep all illegal activities on a thumb drive or other external storage device. This is a case of someone who doesn't understand technology having a bad idea and no one with enough technical knowledge around those people to tell them it is a bad idea and will never work. That is just from a technical perspective. Civil Liberties and law are another issue entirely. In the US you couldn't force people to turn over their computer for search without a warrant to do so. I bet this falls off the news in a few days and will be forgotten about for years to come.

    3. Re:First among other things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will soon be getting the perfect opportunity, since I am almost certain that you have a computer full of illegal under age terrorist encrypted copyrighted MPs.

      Enjoy the showers in the big house!

    4. Re:First among other things... by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Well if the tool doesn't work you're obviously guilty

    5. Re:First among other things... by Sillygates · · Score: 1
      --
      I fear the Y2038 bug
    6. Re:First among other things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be moded informative, not funny!

    7. Re:First among other things... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      They boot up the machine using a live CD image, which may not always work of course. So what they need is software for Macs, PCs and various types of computers with non-intel compatible CPUs, and support for all the different file systems out there.

      I guess if this thing can manage most of the computers they find, then anything obscure can still go to the forensics lab, which would now have a much faster turnaround time because of the smaller workload.

    8. Re:First among other things... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      I bet this falls off the news in a few days and will be forgotten about for years to come.

      I'm pretty sure a story like this was already slashdotted about two years ago, more or less.

    9. Re:First among other things... by csartanis · · Score: 0, Troll

      Except that they'd want it to automatically send a notification to the local enforcement agency if you're not in compliance.

  2. Should be easy in the UK. by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This should be easy to accomplish in the UK where citizens are required by law to turn over all their encryption keys or face jail time. It would be harder to make it work in the US, where people can use encryption. I suppose the Brits could employ TrueCrypt hidden volumes to keep their stuff private.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by siloko · · Score: 1

      Well the UK does indeed have this law which is one of many in the authoritys' arsenal to lock you up on suspicion rather than evidence. Whatever happened to "You have the right to remain silent . . .". We will wake up one day and find that keys to our doors only work from the outside.

    2. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Funny

      We will wake up one day and find that keys to our doors only work from the outside.

      I dunno about you, but my locks already only take keys on the outside. See, on the inside, I have this nice little knob I can use to lock the door without the key.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    3. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's easy in the U.S., too, just not as useful. If the TrueCrypt drive is mounted, just search it. If it's not, maybe you can say, "Hey, they have a TrueCrypt drive", but that's about it.

    4. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by siloko · · Score: 1

      I think I was in danger of taking myself too seriously. Thankyou!

    5. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Any citizen who believes in human rights & the sovereignty of the individual should be willing to spend a little time in jail, rather than give the encryption key. A few days in jail is a small inconvenience compared to the return of tyranny that existed in the UK prior to 1800. You have the right to not be tortured into giving false confessions - this isn't the Medieval Ages or the Catholic Inquisition.

      Remain strong; remain silent.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by wowbagger · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Whatever happened to "You have the right to remain silent . . ." "

      I wasn't aware the Miranda decision and the Bill of Rights applied to the UK.

    7. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How much time have you spent in jail?

    8. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      They have something similar, which I can't remember the name of. What I do remember is that the warning doesn't mention a right to remain silent, but something about statements made will be presented in court.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    9. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by lattyware · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    10. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by siloko · · Score: 2, Informative

      UK Police routinely say: "You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but what you say may be given in evidence." More details here

    11. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Allicorn · · Score: 5, Informative

      A little time eh? Failure to surrender your encryption keys to the UK authorities will net you two years.

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

      And that's assuming that the act of trying to defend your individual sovreignty doesn't just make them trump up a whole bunch more charges to keep you out of the way for much longer since you're obviously in league with the terrorists/pedos/catholics.

      --
      OMG!!! Ponies!!!
    12. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that the product in question involves booting the system from a 'forensically sound' operating system on CD (I guess someone hasn't thought too much about the prospects for a virtualization-based rootkit hidden in the BIOS...), it's a safe bet TrueCrypt volumes won't be mounted.

    13. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by phulegart · · Score: 0

      I had no problem understanding what he meant, in that someday our keys would let us in, but someone else would have to let us out.

      You really didn't see it?

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    14. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      As a serious reply to your post -- I have a conflict over what sort of lock to use on doors.
      If I use the sort of lock you're talking about, house-breakers just bash out a window, reach in, and turn the knob.
      If I use the sort that requires a key from both sides, there's a possibility that someone will be stuck inside that door if there's a fire, and that'd really suck.
      But as it is, the question has mostly been answered, because I had the lock-on-both-sides installed and someone bashed out the window, found that there wasn't a knob, and kicked the door out of the doorframe. So I'm more likely to use the lock/knob ones in the future.
      *sigh*

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    15. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

      We will wake up one day and find that keys to our doors only work from the outside.

      I dunno about you, but my locks already only take keys on the outside. See, on the inside, I have this nice little knob I can use to lock the door without the key.

      mine has the knob on the outside, and the keyhole on the inside. it's like a hardware version of DRM.

    16. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      It's a joke.

      You really didn't see it?

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    17. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by computational+super · · Score: 5, Funny
      Failure to surrender your encryption keys to the UK authorities will net you two years.

      Well, that's what they'll sentence you to. You won't do nearly that much time. Once they tell the other inmates you're a pedo, they'll kill you after a week, tops, with the guards looking on approvingly. You'll be out in no time!

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    18. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by shadowknot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is fine in theory but the policy of seizure is generally a yank the power, bag it up and send it to the sweaty geeks (us). So even if the TrueCrypt volume is mounted when seized it will be a big old pile of meaningless binary junk once the pro's get their hands on it! Most of the time I have seen TC installed on a suspect's machine (maybe twice to be honest) I have found the passphrase in a handy text file (normaly named passwords.txt or secrets.doc)!

    19. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Chabo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you shouldn't have windows within easy reach of the door? I know it looks better to have more glass on your house, but if you don't want break-ins, buy a home with a more secure design.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    20. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being realistic, most criminals aren't that sophisticated...

      --
      No sig today...
    21. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be easier to load millions of files that give false positives, embarrassingly? When you open up the compressed pic, it is an innocent, hilarious comic cop or something? That would really slow down the software, as it would have to look at every file, and then spend a significant amount of time reporting it as bad, logging it, saving it off to the relatively small USB drive (you need gigabytes of these bogus files). That would really piss off the judge. People should try to get their baited honeypot netbooks confiscated by the cops, flood their system with BS. Upset the judge.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    22. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      Neither are most cops. I wouldn't be too surprised if just changing your BIOS settings to never boot from CD were sufficient to thoroughly stump them.

    23. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      That doesn't sound so bad. My ancestors spent more time than that in British prison ships, until we eventually won our independence. And once I get-out, I can go on a killing spree against the politicians who passed this stupid Encryption Key law that forced me to lose two years of my life.

      Revenge is a dish best served cold. And silent. And the blood of tyrannical politicians is the tree of liberty's natural fertilizer. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government leaders fear the people, then there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to "You have the right to remain silent . .

      They took that away with the "but if you do not mention something when you are questioned that you later rely on in court this may harm your defence."

      Which should lead more people to say no when asked "do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?"

    25. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Funny

      No. Must be an inside joke, and I am outside trying to open the door with my damn key, but it isn't working.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    26. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      The situation was that people were remaining silent until they reached court and then producing alibis in court. This made it impossible for the CPS to prosecute defendants as the jury weren't allowed to be instructed that that was suspicious.

      Now the situation is that if you wind up in court and go "I was round at my mate Joe's place" they can come back and say "why didn't you tell us this before? Aren't you just making that up at the last minute to stop a proper investigation?" and the judge can instruct the jury that remaining silent and then producing evidence at trial is suspicious.

      --
      Nick
    27. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Any citizen who believes in human rights & the sovereignty of the individual should be willing to let every individual decide what is best for themselves. Just because it is a cause you believe in doesn't mean everyone else is automatically willing to go to jail for it.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    28. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Well, ya see, the key to the situation is simple. Just redefine where you are as inside!

      Alternatively, if a door is closed, there's probably an open window around.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    29. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should invest in a sturdier door.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    30. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty good security measure right there. I always lock down the bios to only boot from the hard drive and then put a supervisor password on the BIOS.

      Granted, that will only be a minor speed bump to anyone that takes the computer into their possession, but for somebody trying to do something to your system while you are away from it, it is quite effective at stopping them.

    31. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's a little more complicated than "tell us the password or we arrest you". They have to apply to a court. Once you're going to that level of difficulty, the USB device seems substantially less plug and play even if it's just a rubber stamp.

    32. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because giving yourself a worse criminal record and spending years in prison is DEFINITELY worth the benifit of the feds not reading your personal email or whatever.

      Surely the job opportunites for the rest of your life... provided you live through prison without severe physical or emotional problems... will be just as good. Companies ignore criminal records, right?

      And surely the infinitesimally tiny black mark on the government's record for prisoning someone for this (if such a black mark would even surface) is worth all of that.

    33. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That'd work great if it were the door that gave out, but it was solid and 5 cm thick. The doorframe, however, was only made of 2x6 material, which doesn't stand up to repeated kicks. (Most doorframes are merely 1x4 or 1x6 material, by the way.) Now that particular door has a 3mm thick strike plate the size of a textbook, with multiple lag bolts going through both door headers. Which means next time they'll just bash out a window and go through that instead.
      Which is why I moved out of that house.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    34. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by joss · · Score: 1

      There are very good reasons for remaining silent even if innocent, I strongly recommend you watch this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    35. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by pjabardo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Warning people that you will go on a killing spree is not exactly silent...

    36. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      They modified it a few years back. I forget the exact wording and I can't be arsed to look it up, but it amounts to "anything you don't say (right now, before consulting a lawyer) is inadmissible as a defence".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    37. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Well, in this scenario, they're already running it on a live machine (though perhaps a live machine that's just been booted up, TrueCrypt not mounted). Otherwise, asking for the software on a USB stick would be a little silly.

      But yes, even if the software magically appeared in their hands, it would require a lot of changes to get the people seizing computers to run the digital breathalyzer first.

    38. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It would stump them, in the sense that they would most likely seize your computer (or get a warrant to do so) rather than bother running the tool.

    39. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 5, Informative

      What happened was that out current Labour government jumped on board with the war on terror then got this bill through parliament without any real public debate about the contents under the guise of fighting terror. The vast majority of the British public have no idea this shite is on the books as the press all agreed not to cover the law in any depth before it was passed.

      Maybe the bill was D-noticed but we will never know since the press are not allowed to mention what is D-noticed and what is not.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Notice

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    40. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The solution to the glass problem is to get the security film applied (they make stuff thats like car window tint only it holds the glass together so they cant smash it out), you can get it in clear and tinted IIRC.

    41. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by rfuilrez · · Score: 1

      Or a backdoor :p

    42. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      My doorframe is steel. Should stand up to a boot heel pretty well.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    43. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      Then like any good DRM system, you can probably circumvent it by yelling out the window to get someone to open the door.

    44. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      More to the point, has anyone spent time in Jail for this law? There are lots of insane laws on the books, a sane society simply ignores them.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    45. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      it's called a duress key, your encryption scheme is flawed if it doesn't have one so change.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    46. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Er, no. The best a "duress key" can offer you is plausible deniability, like TrueCrypt. It can't offer provable deniability, it isn't really within the purview of encryption, and often forensic procedures can significant erode the plausible deniability.

    47. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Sounds like all they need to do is surrender AN encryption key. They dont need to surrender ALL encryption keys. Hence Hidden Volumes would be a great idea.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    48. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by mlts · · Score: 1

      Mul-T-Lock and Abloy have cylinders that can work with a thumbturn, but you can use a key to lock the thumbturn while you are gone, so someone breaking in in a window couldn't open the door, but when at home, there isn't a key required for getting out.

    49. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I don't say a lot of things when I'm arrested... Both before and after consulting a lawyer...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    50. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't expecting anyone to mention the Catholic Inquisition.

    51. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong caution.

      The actual PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and accompanying Codes of Practice, as amended) caution used in the UK (as far as I know, throughout the UK, though Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could vary) when a Police officer arrests you on suspicion of a criminal offence is:

      "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

      In the UK, not saying something fairly early on which you later raise as a defense in Court can be raised in cross-examination, in general terms of: "Why didn't you say this earlier when you were arrested or interviewed?"

      The Court is allowed to draw an inference from silence. Furthermore, generally speaking, if you admit to a criminal offence earlier in the process (arrest, questioning, etc) you receive what is known as "credit", which may very significantly reduce any ensuing sentence. This should not, however, ever deter you from seeking appropriate legal advice before answering any questions under caution, as that is something that any reasonable person should do.

      It should go without saying, but for clarity: always seek professional legal advice if arrested! This is not legal advice, merely a broad general statement of UK law.

      (Also, amusingly, the CAPTCHA for this message was "resisted"; not, perhaps, a terribly good idea in the context!)

    52. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by mpcooke3 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you understand how things work over here in the UK.

      If people start using TrueCrypt volumes they'll change the law to assume everyone has a Truecrypt volume and if you can't give them access to it they'll throw you in prison to join the murderers, paedophiles and the people who forgot their winzip decryption password.

    53. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should be easy to accomplish in the UK where citizens are required by law to turn over all their encryption keys or face jail time. It would be harder to make it work in the US, where people can use encryption. I suppose the Brits could employ TrueCrypt hidden volumes to keep their stuff private.

      I use truecrypt hidden volumes anyway, but the question is how will this run on Linux or BSD from the I cannot run the .exe dept.

      I am sure there is someway easy way to fry their USB drives when plugged in... maybe another slashdoter can enlighten us on this?

    54. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      A sane society eliminates laws that are stupid, as non-enforcement of a law weakens the whole legal system. It can also lead to ridiculous situations where I could be charged with "miscegenation" because I married a black girl - not because the cops are racist, but simply because they couldn't think of anything else to charge me with so they dug-up a 100 year old law to harass me.

      Eliminate bad laws.

      A saner society puts an expiration date on laws, such that they automatically erase themselves if not renewed by the lawmakers. That's how we got stuck with a phone tax to fund the 1890s Spanish-American War. One hundred years later we were still paying the tax for that damn war. If they had put an expiration date on the tax (say 1910) then it would have corrected itself instead of going on-and-on-and-on.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    55. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Use a mortice lock. Yale-type barrel locks suck monkey balls. They can be open with a filed down key and a rubber hammer (although typically a boot is just as effective). If you're that concerned about fire, leave a spare key hanging near the door.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    56. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Joking aside, if you really were a paedo surely you would take two years rather than risk a longer sentence and a lifetime on the Sex Offenders Register. Ditto for terrorists or anyone involved in serious crime.

      The kind of devices that TFA talks about do already exist to some degree. There was a program on the BBC a while back where they showed police using a device that connected to a Firewire port or a PCMCIA port and made an image of the HDD and everything in RAM at that time. Since Firewire (and by extension PCMCIA, since you can just plug in a Fireward card it will auto-configure) gives direct access to the computer's entire memory such a device can image a locked Windows workstation. The only defence is to make sure your encrypted volumes are not mounted when the police raid your house/office or disable your Firewire and PCMCIA ports.

      It wouldn't be too hard to extend such a device to automatically check a computer's internet history against a blacklist of sites, which, despite the obvious flaws in this method, appears to be what the police want.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    57. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Coward.

      In 1775 Patrick Henry asked the assembled Congress, "Is life so sweet and peace so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" He then raised to his feet and symbolically broke the chains with a wide sweep of his outstreched arms and with his best baritone voice cried out, "Forbid it Almighty God!" He raised an imaginary dagger above his head and eloquently intoned, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty...". He paused, plunging the imaginary dagger into his breast, "...or give me death!"

      If you would rather sell your right to remain silent & not self-incriminate yourself, simply because the cops threatened you with torture, then in my exercised right to speak freely, I consider you a coward. I would rather be in jail as a freeman with my chin held high and my mouth closed, than lose my inalienable rights and be a slave forced to answer "yessuh!" every time masser government demands an answer.

      My ancestors were slaves.

      I will not return to that state voluntarily.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    58. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When I see a cop, I suddenly become a deaf-mute. Anything you say, even something as simple as, "I don't own a gun and know nothing about a robbery," can be used against you.

      Attorney: "When you arrested Mr. Smith did you notice anything odd?"
      Cop: "Yes when I told him about the robbery he said he doesn't own a gun."
      Attorney: "What's odd about that?"
      Cop: "I never said the robber used a gun, and yet somehow Mr. Smith knew that intimate detail. That's why we decided to detain him and press charges as the most-likely suspect."
      Attorney: "Any other incriminating evidence?"
      Cop: "The store-owner identified Mr. Smith as visiting the store that evening, and acting in a suspicious manner. He was at the scene of the crime."
      Attorney: "So Mr. Smith was at the scene of the crime, was aware of how the robbery was committed...with a gun... and acted in a suspicious manner."
      Cop: "Yes."

      Ooops. You might be completely innocent, and yet because you stupidly opened your mouth, now you're headed towards a probable conviction. Yay.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    59. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

      If the doors are locked, surely you get out through (the M$) windows. The USB key would obviously contain a boot-able OS image. Scanning for pictures, etc would identify where such items are hidden. Hidden partitions would be scanned as well. (A raw look at the HDD might even be considered!) Sections with high entropy would be flagged for further investigation, as this would indicate probable encryption. (Or a ZIP file!) Given that it is an offense in the UK to withhold encryption keys from authorities, any "illegal" stuff detected should be evident.

      It is a bit rude that the authorities can just fish around on a PC looking for potentially incriminating stuff though. Especially since they might have a machine for over a year! If they wanted to, they could low level copy the HDD's (or any other mass storage device) and return the hardware. The media could then be investigated.

    60. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>the press all agreed not to cover the law in any depth before it was passed.

      Well of course not. The television "press" is basically the BBC, and they are owned/funded by the Parliament, so naturally they're not going to do anything to block this "you must reveal your computer key" law being passed by their political friends. The BBC anchors don't want to lost their jobs.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    61. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the press all agreed not to cover the law in any depth before it was passed.

      Maybe the bill was D-noticed but we will never know

      I don't know what version of the UK you live in, but in my one this bill was discussed extensively in (e.g.) the Guardian and the computer press at the time. I don't suppose it was mentioned much in the Sun or the Mail etc. but there was no question of discussion being supressed. And D notices are not used for this sort of thing. It was in no way secret and the entire proceedings of the Bill/Act through parliament were recorded in Hansard as normal.

      The problem is that most people didn't really understand it or didn't care or both. There was a lot of protest (to no avail) from those who did understand and care.

    62. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by siloko · · Score: 1

      BBC . . . are owned/funded by the Parliament

      The BBC are owned and funded by License Fee payers (i.e The General Public). The level of the License fee is set by Parliament under advice from the Commons culture, media and sport select committee. Of course this gives Parliament some influence but to say they are owned by Parliament is disingenuous at best.

    63. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done!

      The number of people who don't realise the extent these nasty so called terror laws go to, is frightening. The number of times I have mentioned Phorm or the Comms DB to IT people in the UK, let alone not-techies, only to recieve blank stares. The number of people who don't realise that the very act of being a member of something like Greenpeace, technically classes you as a terrorist.

      To paraphrase Mark Thomas:

      You are a terrorist in the UK, if you fall under this: "Intent to cause or causing actual criminal damage for religious or idealogical purposes.". Ergo Greenpeace, stopping a whaling ship, intent to damage for idealogical purposes!

    64. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by mspohr · · Score: 1
      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    65. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by jecblackpepper · · Score: 1

      The wording is: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

      What this means is that if you don't for example give a reason when questioned about breaking into someone's house and then try to defend yourself by saying "oh they gave me permission", then the jury is allowed to take the initial silence into account, for example considering that an innocent person would immediately say that they had permission etc.

      If you present a good reason why you were silent, for example, because you needed a translator, or because you were traumatised etc then the jury can decide that it was perfectly reasonable for you to have been silent at first and later give in defence in court.

      Personally, I don't really agree with this, but it at least isn't quite as bad as "if you are silent then you must be guilty".

    66. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      And if you're a Catholic and a Pedo, even better because you believe in heaven and will probably go there! badam *CH*

    67. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      If I am a coward, then you are a dictator. Forcing the masses to make a decision just because you believe it to be right is wrong. Sorry.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    68. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be completely fair, there hasn't been a test case of this law yet.

      I personally can't wait to see the first time they try this - the press should be ripping them apart for it.

      Though knowing our luck they'll try it out on an actual pedo or terrorist (if they can find one :s) first and no-one will mind :(

    69. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      I have been a locksmith for 15 years, the last 3 for a school district with everything from 100+ year old bit key mortise locks to to state of the art prox card systems, and I have never heard of a "Yale-type barrel lock". Do you mean a bored cylindrical lock, as invented by Walter Schlage in 1909? You have perhaps confused him with Linus Yale Jr, who invented the modern pin-tumbler cylinder.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    70. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Terminolgy attack, I think :p In the UK pin-tumbler locks are invariably known as Yale locks. By barrel I mean tumbler; apologies if I've offended your locksmithing sensibilities.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    71. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      However, you certainly should instruct your lawyer to inform the police of your alibi.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    72. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      That's absurd.

      I don't know what's wrong with the British legal system where doing that would make any sense, but you can't just assert things on the stand to be true without any evidence. If they're going to be calling some other witness, the prosecution really should be notified of it.

      Introducing a new fact like that in American court would just result in a recess while the prosecution checked it out and nailed you to a wall for lying.

      If the alibi checks out, of course, it makes no sense to introduce it on the stand. Now, hypothetical innocent people who are actually wasting the court's time by refusing to demonstrate their innocence to police, and instead waiting for court, might, indeed, need to be punished, but those people do not actually exist.

      The British court system is apparently pretty stupid, and has 'solved' this problem in entirely the wrong way. Saying 'It is suspicious to demonstrate innocence that late in the game' is idiotic. If they can demonstrate innocence, 'suspicion' is, itself, idiotic, as they are, duh, innocent.

      If that's a 'problem' where the courts cannot handle bogus demonstrations of innocence at trial, than the courts need changing to be able to handle that, by calling a recess, or a mistrial, or something, disproving the alibi, and then going again.

      Otherwise, defendants could just 'discover' such bogus demonstrations the same way, or have 'good reasons' for hiding them. 'The reason I didn't tell you my alibi is I'm having an affair with a married woman. I have finally be able to contact her and she has given me permission to tell you.' 'Well, as this court has no ability to handle supposed revelations in middle of trial, we have no option but to let you go free without confirming this alibi, cause we're morons.'

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    73. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Well of course not. The television "press" is basically the BBC.....

      So the contents of the bill was publicised extensively by Sky News and ITN News the other 2 major news networks? I think not. Also note that none of the British printed press covered this in any depth either. To blame it all on the BBC is clearly delusionary since the majority of TV news in Britain is actually produced by ITN.

      http://corporate.itn.co.uk/itn-news.aspx
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITN

      I know the BBC have been pretty pants since they were chastised over the WMD affair at the start of the Iraq war but there are plenty of other places people obtain information on current affairs from in this country.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    74. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by SalaSSin · · Score: 1

      You still need someone actively checking whether the law has expired. The boys & girls at the tax administration won't do it for you.

      So unless you're a lawyer, or someone with a proactive lawyer, you would just nicely pay the taxes you shouldn't pay, without ever noticing...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law
    75. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by SalaSSin · · Score: 1

      In Belgium there is a law that states you can't *oblige* a suspect to incriminate himself, so just invoke that law, and you're safe... I hope (IANAL)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law
    76. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooops. You might be completely innocent, and yet because you stupidly opened your mouth, now you're headed towards a probable conviction. Yay.

      Yes, and English law nowadays makes keeping your stupid mouth shut just as likely to get you into trouble. They (judge and jury) are allowed to assume that you kept quiet to conceal some kind of guilt.

      It's not fair, but it's the law around here. :-(

    77. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Oh believe me, I would notice because I count every penny and nothing annoys me more than paying taxes.

      If I had lived in the 1890s and heard that Congress was adding a new tax to my phone bill, the first thing out of my mouth would have been "When does it expire?" and make a note on my old-fashioned paper calendar. And when January 1, 1910 arrived I would refuse to pay the tax as the law had expired. I'm used to people trying to scam me out of my money (typically ebayers), and I'm also used to fighting back. I won't back down when I know the law is on my side.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    78. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Strawman argument.

      I'm not forcing you to fight back. Go ahead and cave-in to the police and surrender your right to remain silent - it's a free country if that's what you want to do. I won't stop you from acting like a coward.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    79. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      And who collects the license fee?
      Where does the money get stored?
      Who hands it over to the BBC?

      Follow the money, and you will see who is the real boss of the BBC, and why the BBC doesn't want to anger the boss.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    80. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Ok. And I won't stop thinking you feel like your opinion is far superior morally, and can't wait to shove it down everyone's throat. Just because YOU think something is right doesn't mean it automatically is. Besides, if you are uselessly locked up in jail, you can't be truly free to really make a difference in what you believe in. Thoreau had a point, you are just using drama to prove your point.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    81. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      If the BBC is no longer relevant (replaced by Sky and ITN), why does it continue to exist? Disband the BBC and eliminate the $300 a year tax to help the citizens survive in these hard times.

      Ooops.

      I just stepped on the third rail of British politics. Oh well. I still think having to pay a license tax for a television is ridiculous. Here in the States our television is completely free - I send $0 every year.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    82. Re:Should be easy in the UK. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It still pretty much amounts to "if you are silent we'll presume you're guilty", which isn't much better.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Great... by Chabo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now instead of having trained forensic experts, we'll have common beat cops searching your computer.

    Attorney: How do you know he had illegal material on his computer?
    Officer: I pushed the button, and the computer told me to arrest him.

    --
    Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    1. Re:Great... by Digestromath · · Score: 1

      It's like a breathalyzer for computers. And we all know how well those work.

    2. Re:Great... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

      Officer: I pushed the button, and the computer told me to arrest him.

      Pffft! You think too small, and will never take over the world.

      Corrected version follows.

      Attorney: How do you know he had illegal material on his computer?
      Officer: The computer called us and informed on its owner.
      Attorney: It called you?
      Officer: Yeah. And so did yours. You still want to question me, Mr. 500Gig Chubby Porn Collection?

    3. Re:Great... by DanTheStone · · Score: 5, Informative
    4. Re:Great... by ve3id · · Score: 5, Informative

      This reminds me of another idiot device they gave to the British bobby: back in the 70's and 80's, there was a glut of illegal CB sets in England. They never legalised the use of 27MHz AM/SSB CBs and all the units sold were marked 'for export only' When they legalised CB, units that were approved could only transmit FM. Instead of overworking the radio inspectors, they gave bobbies on the beat a box that detected if a close transmitter was AM or FM, with two LEDs. The only problem was amateur radio operators can legally use AM and SSB (after all, they invented it!). One beat p.c. stopped a ham and asked him to talk in the mike, and, you guessed it, the illegal CB light lit up! Only when the amateur radio operator started cursing and swearing at the p.c. and getting red in the face did he consult another p.c. over the police radio who was a ham. This being the appropriate behaviour for a ham accused of being a CB'er, he let him go with an apology.

    5. Re:Great... by linzeal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And for those of us with 10's of thousands of documents on our computers? How well are these going to be able to differentiate between a PDF file that involves fiction and one that is real? Hell, some of my source material for a horror screenplay I tinker with now and then has made-up schematics and lists of where and how people are going to be killed in the scenes.

    6. Re:Great... by ve3id · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One principle of computer forensics is that if a computer is manipulated in any way, the evidence may be corrupted by such operation, and this could be used by defence attornies. Real computer forensics involves getting the computer powered down, removing the disk, setting it up in a test jig with write protect enabled, and reading the complete image from the disk onto a sterile environment for analysis. I don't think Mr. Plod will meet the test of admissibility into evidence! How is he going to prove to the court that the suspected data were not on the USB key to start with? If he has interfered with the computer in any way by plugging in a USB key, then the evidence is contaminated.

    7. Re:Great... by TinBromide · · Score: 1

      Its not quite like that, but there have been USB forensic incident response sticks for a while, although the oldest ones I'm aware have primarily been used by parole officers to see if their parolees have been surfing porn. If the NTA scan turns up positive, they then sieze the computer and investigate further.

      There are also a few more sophisticated ones that I don't have bookmarked on this computer. I've used a few my self, like there's a rapid response stick that can be used for mass computer identification. I.E. walk into a corporate environment and ID all computers that were logged into by Joe S., Pull the IE/Firefox browsing history, documents accessed by him on that computer, and other assorted usage items.

      These stick's aren't going to provide final evidence, but they will help prevent having all the computers in a corporate environment from being seized and analyzed, which will prevent them from having to do a full forensic workup on your computer if a person of interest has never logged into your system.

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    8. Re:Great... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Just remind me not to move to the UK.

    9. Re:Great... by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Attorney: Yeah I have chubby porn. It's not illegal or a crime. Are you in the habit of arresting citizens for violating non-existent laws?
      Officer: ...uh...
      Attorney: Your case history indicates you make many false arrests. Like this one: Arresting an elderly woman because she refused to let you enter her house. What have you to say to that?
      Officer: She refused to comply with our request to enter.
      Attorney: Ahhh you REQUEST to enter... so you didn't actually have a warrant..
      Officer: ...uh...
      Attorney: But you decides to arrest her anyway. Wasn't she later freed?
      Officer: Yes but...
      Attorney: And here's another case where you broke into the wrong house and damaged the door.
      Officer: It was an accident.
      Attorney: Yes but you never replaced the door, forcing the innocent person to spend $500 in repairs. You have a long, long history of abuse against the residents...
      Officer: Now see here!
      Attorney: ...and have been reprimanded multiple times by your superiors. Could it be you searched my client's computer without provocation?
      Officer: I had a warrant.
      Attorney: An *invalid* warrant. It's not signed by a judge, you never swore an oath, you just photocopied it and filled-in the details yourself. Isn't that true?
      Officer: No!
      Attorney: Remember you're under oath Officer Chiklas. This is clearly your handwriting, is it not?
      Officer: .......
      Attorney: Well?
      Officer: Yes.
      Attorney: Your eminence, I submit that this was an illegal search and seizure without a warrant and all evidence should be dismissed.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:Great... by Chabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention that if you've published copyrighted material, they might get a false positive, indicating that you're infringing against yourself! ;)

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    11. Re:Great... by Zerth · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge, none of the USB based tools is forensically acceptable and all of them are trivial to screw up when attached to a running system.

      The only acceptable method is duplication of all storage with a read-only adapter.

    12. Re:Great... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Client: Gee, thanks
      Attorney: No problem. That will be £[insane amount of money].

      --
      $ make available
    13. Re:Great... by shadowknot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Officer: I pushed the button, and the computer told me to arrest him.

      So they'll be just like cell phone analysts then, ha! (Sorry, that's a digital forensics joke). But seriously that is an accurate assessment. The handful of times I have been to court to give evidence involving an analysis I have performed they have asked me simple but semi-well researched questions. Most officers I speak to can barely spell let alone describe how a device they have no idea about discovered illegal material on a computer they don't know how to use. I do, however, suspect that this device, if ever rolled-out, would be used to "preview" the devices on-site and if it beeped and flashed a green light at them they'd send it off for full analysis.

    14. Re:Great... by shadowknot · · Score: 1

      This is a fine point. I think that the USB device may contain some form of bootable OS however (most likey a Helix derivative) that will run an automated hash comparison thereby never writing to the local disk or booting the OS and leaving the computer in a forensically sound state. This does beg the question as to whether some dumb bobby will have the technical chops to set the device to boot from USB. I don't ever see this getting rolled out on a major scale as it leaves too much room for error and potentially provides a way for people who actually have committed serious offenses getting off.

    15. Re:Great... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      And for those of us with 10's of thousands of documents on our computers? How well are these going to be able to differentiate between a PDF file that involves fiction and one that is real? Hell, some of my source material for a horror screenplay I tinker with now and then has made-up schematics and lists of where and how people are going to be killed in the scenes.

      That's ok, you will have done *something* wrong. In this case, it's of course nice of you to provide all the paperwork in advance. But it really works with anyone. We've seen in all. We can make pretty much anything stick to anyone.

      Your friendly neighbourhood intelligence agency.

      Don't you think we're in any way interested in what's in your computer. It's just a way to add some fairy dust to a case.
      "Lookee Mr Judge, here's what we found on this annoying person's computer with our magical widget"
      (hands over printouts of cesium bomb with maps of central London with ominous arrows)
      "What ? I've never seen those in my life"
      "Well, that's what they all say of course"
      "I propose that we resurrect quartering"

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    16. Re:Great... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Are attorneys supposed to work for free? I don't and I suspect you don't either.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus was a "Mr. Tuttle" overcharged for information retrieval. Or was that "Mr. Buttle"?

    18. Re:Great... by Keichann · · Score: 1

      Real computer forensics involves getting the computer powered down, removing the disk, setting it up in a test jig with write protect enabled, and reading the complete image from the disk onto a sterile environment for analysis.

      That was true.. in 1998 (the fact that it's still such a pervasive misconception is a seperate problem). We now know there's a wide variety of critical information that isn't available when a computer's powered off - if a (trojan) malware object was present on the drive at capture, with a purely offline view can you prove whether it was loaded into the OS when the evidence was seized? How about open file handles/network connections? Encryption keys?

      If he has interfered with the computer in any way by plugging in a USB key, then the evidence is contaminated.

      The article probably oversimplifies, simple USB keys that just come pre-loaded with software to search drives aren't that interesting anymore, the idea is probably close to Tribble or something similar. Not that there aren't problems with those kinds of devices... Rutkowska, 2007 (pdf)

    19. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scan complete.
      Arrest the owner of the computer on the following charges:

      - Pornography on hard drive involves girls that look younger than 18
      - Torrent software is installed
      - Encryption software is installed
      - Resisting arrest

      Thank you for using USBjje (Judge/Jury/Executioner)

    20. Re:Great... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1
      Firstly, we don't have attorneys. Secondly, the officer in charge already has the authority to search your home and possibly confiscate items therein; if they suspected you of something they'd probably have arrested you shortly after stepping over the threshold.

      If things happen as you describe this thing will be stopped. We've just stopped a tiny bit of corruption over here, and most of us feel like we're on a roll.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    21. Re:Great... by TinBromide · · Score: 1

      The NTA stealth is forensically acceptable as it mounts the filesystem in a read-only fashion, as do most (if not all) of the bootable sticks. Live sticks are more iffy, but being forensic is both being justifiable and documented. It doesn't say anything about not leaving footprints. If making minor-windows based changes to the system is justified, it is acceptable.

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    22. Re:Great... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      This does beg the question as to whether some dumb bobby will have the technical chops to set the device to boot from USB.

      Does an average bobby have the technical skills to set the boot order? I seriously doubt it. This sounds more like a tool that a technician could use out in the field, and not a tool that somebody completely untrained could use.

      The other risk you have is that when untrained personnel are using these tools to collect evidence to possibly deprive somebody of their freedom, it makes it that much easier to call into question the validity of the evidence and the procedures in which it was obtained.

      I just can't possibly see how untrained personnel should be collecting forensic evidence and how that is in the best interest of any society. However, it seems like the U.K has passed the point of no return anyway and will inevitable become the totalitarian fascist regime it fought against in World War II. Common sense, decency, and just plain ol' sanity can't be used to defeat these new policies, so I am willing to bet that this will be deployed.

    23. Re:Great... by zMaile · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think of the receptionist in Idocracy . . .

    24. Re:Great... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      No, but it's a bit of an imposition if you're innocent that you have to pay a substantial amount of money to someone to prove it.

    25. Re:Great... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      if a computer is manipulated in any way, the evidence may be corrupted by such operation

      step 1) rip computer apart, and use another computer + software + introduced large drive that has had porn copied to it previously.

      was that seriously a proposed solution to reduce mis-conduct possibility?

      I understand your stated method is to preserve as much evidence with a copy, but I would be much much happier as a jury member at a trial if the cops simply stuck USB key with less than 512 Mb of capacity into side of laptop, in front of the defendant, pressed F10, to boot the drive, waited for report on screen. placed both devices into chain of custody if a issue was found.

      Instead of, broke computer apart, intermingled data with another (likely) larger capacity drive used in hundreds of investigations previously, and then jammed it back together, even if tested at a "independent" lab. Granted with the USB drive your giving the PC owner the possibility of having a bios trap set to clear themselves of wrong doing, etc. But really if you find gigs of child porn on a computer after a small usb drive that can be post inspected was inserted then removed, I would have less issue than your method of some un-inspectable machine with lots of space was used on parts of a that pc.

    26. Re:Great... by corychristison · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Something like this happened to a friend of mine.

      He owned a blog that he literally put up everything that happened in his life.

      He added pages of an essay he was writing for History to his blog as he finished and edited them.

      A few days after he turned in his paper he was asked to speak to the Dean where he was accused of plagiarism because Google turned up his blog (he uses a pseudo-name, and has google-analytics installed on his blog)

      Took him a few meetings with the education board to prove that it was his blog and his own writing.

      What a bitch, eh? The fact that the teacher merely typed it in Google and said "Good enough". He didn't bother to look for any pictures or any information that would hint that it was this particular persons blog.

    27. Re:Great... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Checksums for recovered files.
      Every file found in a raid or detected on a network will get a unique id number, hash ect.
      What the cops what is a small device. They see your ip linked to a file on p2p, ie your uploading a known file.
      They raid your home, plain clothes, with the paper work to hook up your desktop, laptop.
      Very nice, friendly, isp's get this wrong all the time, can we just cross you off the list.
      Eyes scanning for signs of toys in the open.
      Searching for the file.
      If they are smart they drop in a key logger too for any IM details, logs, just to make sure.
      If it comes back clear, the keylogger will be in.
      If it comes back 'hot' they may give you a false clear too, keylogger loaded.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    28. Re:Great... by shtrom · · Score: 1

      We recently had a talk from a forensic expert from Deloitte Forensic Data (an australian company) in a Uni Security Engineering lecture. He made it clear that nothing was better than experience when trying to collect forensic information or retrieve hidden data from seized computers.

      Thinking about it, that makes complete sense. There are so many ways to hide anything anywhere in a computer. If they want to be safe from this type of tools, people could just verify what the program checks, and do something else. Even with an ever updated database of âoethings to check,â people with things to hide will always be ahead of a non-thinking entity.

    29. Re:Great... by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      And how do you know you can actually trust the hardware? Perhaps the BIOS has been flashed to zero all connected drives if the settings are changed to boot from USB.

    30. Re:Great... by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if the attorney is every planning to run for public office, the threat of publicly revealing that he likes (legal) chubby-porn will trash his chances. The threat of revealing legal, but embarrassing information works on a lot of people. In the US it is legal to have an affair, but people have committed murder to keep affairs secret.

    31. Re:Great... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      There is work for *fair* pay and then theres lawyers fees.

      I wouldn't have a problem with the fees if I got paid half as well as a lawyer.

      In the end. Only the lawyers win.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    32. Re:Great... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I do, however, suspect that this device, if ever rolled-out, would be used to "preview" the devices on-site and if it beeped and flashed a green light at them they'd send it off for full analysis.

      How does that address the taint issue? The moment the device is put in, the machine is tainted.

    33. Re:Great... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      I suspect you will find a court does not have quite as high standards as you think. Provided a police officer testifies that he plugged the device in, it ran, and it flagged up something, I can't really see a court throwing that out - particularly if the device can be independantly audited.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    34. Re:Great... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      True. IMHO the losing side should always be required to pay the other side's fees. So the government would be required to pay the innocent person's defense once they lost.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    35. Re:Great... by _.-*'Se+La+CeY'*-._ · · Score: 1

      Not only will you have beat cops trying to get you with a stupid device they think is evidence, but you will also have yet another coporation defining what is right and wrong

      --
      ****Trying to understand and learn, all the time.****
    36. Re:Great... by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Related to this in the US, various state laws prohibit you from having a radio in the vehicle that can pick up police frequencies. Federal law overrides this for hams.

      Here in New York State, the authority to enforce is given both to all law enforcement agencies, so you could get nabbed by the State Police, a county Sheriff, or the police force of a town, city or village. Just like Federal Law providing an override for hams, the New York State law also has an exception for hams and for radio engineers acting in a professional capacity.

      The hams living in my area know: don't drive into the Village of Altamont unless you strip off and hide all of your radio gear and antennas.

      I have an acquaintance who is both a ham and a professional radio engineer. His employer had the contract to maintain the radios used by the Village of Altamont Police Department. One day, about a mile after leaving the Alatmont police station, in his work vehicle, which clearly stated his employer's name, he was pulled over on a suspicion of having a scanner in the vehicle (the large number of antennas on his work truck set off the officer's suspicion). No amount of talking could get this officer to accept (a) that he was a professional radio engineer (b) that he was their professional radio engineer, (c) that he was exempt from NY's law as a ham, (d) that he was exempt from all states' laws because he is a ham.

      Let me emphasize this: The truck he was driving very clearly stated "HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS" on the side of the truck and was very clearly a commercial vehicle.

      At any rate, his company did mount his legal defense, charges were dropped, and his company advised the Village of Altamont that they considered this a breach of contract and no longer wished to provide them service. Apparently, they were the third or fourth radio shop to do this, and from what I understand, the other radio shops in the area won't touch the Village of Altamont with a ten-foot pole.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    37. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the end. Only the lawyers win.

      But they'll be the first up against the wall, come the revolution.

    38. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should write for Law and Order!

    39. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which problem I avoided with my own blog by not posting any of my work until after it had been returned and graded.

    40. Re:Great... by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      IMHO the losing side should always be required to pay the other side's fees.

      But that would give the state a strong financial incentive not to arrest or harass innocent people. I can't imagine very many politicians supporting that.

    41. Re:Great... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      +1 Funny but sad (because it's true).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  4. Just one thing to say: by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Just one thing to say: by Afforess · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, with truecrypt create a hidden partition, and just have the machine boot into a clean XP install when someone (without the pass key) starts it up.

      --
      If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    2. Re:Just one thing to say: by Chabo · · Score: 1

      Except that if you never use the "visible" OS, then it will be fairly apparent that you have a hidden OS that you use all the time.

      Personally, the next time I do a reinstall, I plan on using TrueCrypt, but I won't bother with a hidden partition or hidden OS. It'll give better plausible deniability to those of you who do. :)

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    3. Re:Just one thing to say: by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Use a Linux partition for all your browsing and general use..
      Have a Windows partition that is used for nothing but games (bonus: windows will run the games faster because it gets used less), and let them find that... Just make sure you don't warez the games.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Just one thing to say: by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      then it will be fairly apparent that you have a hidden OS that you use all the time.

            Since when is lugging a computer around without using it at all considered to be a crime? IANAL but I think it will be tough to prove guilt by saying "he doesn't use his computer, therefore he MUST be guilty"...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Just one thing to say: by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you don't warez the games.

      Which is surprisingly easy to do: ~all games for Linux also run on (read:have been ported to) windoze; just grab games off the Ubuntu repos.

      --
      $ make available
    6. Re:Just one thing to say: by jacqdesign · · Score: 1

      A clean windows install? I've never seen such a thing? Sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory to me.

    7. Re:Just one thing to say: by Chabo · · Score: 1

      Correct, but if they suspect that there might be a hidden OS, then they'll investigate further, and try to discover your second password.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    8. Re:Just one thing to say: by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      No, have an unpatched and fully malwared Windows install that does nothing meaningful, which would have allowed others to use the computer without knowledge or permission...

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    9. Re:Just one thing to say: by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      *points to his ~40GB of random numbers*

      Wanna try to discover the password for that, Officer?

    10. Re:Just one thing to say: by Chabo · · Score: 1

      The point is, if an adversary knows that you have a TrueCrypt Hidden OS, then it's no more secure than a plain old TrueCrypt-encrypted partition.

      The point of a hidden OS is that you're supposed to use your computer in such a way that it's reasonable for your adversary to believe that your "normal" encrypted partition is the only partition, and that you didn't bother to set up a Hidden OS. If they don't know if you have a hidden partition, it may not be worth it to look for the existence of one. If they do know that a hidden partition exists, it may be worth their computational resources to decrypt it, even if it requires brute force.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    11. Re:Just one thing to say: by ion.simon.c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is, if an adversary knows that you have a TrueCrypt Hidden OS, then it's no more secure than a plain old TrueCrypt-encrypted partition.

      Aye. But if your adversary *really* *strongly* *believes* that you have a TrueCrypt Hidden OS where one does not actually exist, they're gonna wander off on a very expensive and time consuming snipe hunt.

    12. Re:Just one thing to say: by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If you hang out in chatrooms and forums, your real ip was detected many times.
      But when no files are found after your home has its walls smashed, you will be Saddamed
      Show us the files and tell us where you got them and it will be better ...
      Show us the files ...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    13. Re:Just one thing to say: by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      If they do know that a hidden partition exists, it may be worth their computational resources to decrypt it, even if it requires brute force.

      Brute force is absolutely pointless, since there is not enough computing power on the planet to break AES-256 in any reasonable amount of time as far as I know. (they could start it up and come back in a few million years to see how it's doing) It's far easier to waterboard the password out of you.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    14. Re:Just one thing to say: by jimicus · · Score: 1

      While I suspect they probably wouldn't use the wrench in the UK - yet - I still think this bears some serious consideration:

      http://xkcd.com/538/

    15. Re:Just one thing to say: by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      While I suspect they probably wouldn't use the wrench in the UK - yet

      True -- using a wrench would be far too cost-effective and reliable for government use. Now if it were a $25,000 wrench that only worked half the time, that might be an option.

    16. Re:Just one thing to say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boot from a liveCD and use said partition for copyright-questionable media.

      "All our ISP logs show a mozilla/linux browser combo but this boots XP and no VM in sight...hmmm...must be a terrist or some kind of computer magician, off to rendition you sorry sombitch enmy co'batant / wizard... Harry Potter my ass."

    17. Re:Just one thing to say: by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      What are they going to do with that wrench? Beat me until I lie?

    18. Re:Just one thing to say: by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Well, IANACIIAPS, but I'd just have someone in the next room trying every password you give. The time between you giving the password and it becoming evident that you are lying would be measured in seconds.

    19. Re:Just one thing to say: by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      Please re-read this, I think that you've gotten off track.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255875&cid=28203033

      They would be trying to decrypt 40GB of random data. No password that they could beat out of me would work, as there's nothing to decrypt!

      So, here's the scenario that you're imagining, I guess:
      a) Cops confiscate my machine
      b) Cops find 40GB of random data
      c) Cops think that that's encrytped data
      d) Cops ask me for a password
      e) I say "There is no password."
      f) They beat me until I die???

      That sort of thing is not supposed to happen in the Free World (TM).

    20. Re:Just one thing to say: by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Apologies, you're right, I had gone off track.

      However, regarding things that aren't supposed to happen in the Free World, I refer you to:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/26/mi5-new-torture-allegations

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/mi5-torture-allegations-pakistan

  5. A year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The police MUST pay compensation to owners of seized computers proportional to the amount of time they hold the computers, which must come from the police officers themselves rather than the public purse. Otherwise there will be no incentive to return equipment promptly.

    1. Re:A year? by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then the cops wouldn't pick up any computers at all, which would be silly. I'd rather see compensation come out of the police budget if computers aren't turned over in a reasonable amount of time, similar to how US citizens technically have the right to a "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."

    2. Re:A year? by Sporkinum · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interesting little side story to this.. A co-worker's daughter had her purse stolen at college. The perp used her bank card to buy gasoline and make online purchases. They were traced and the person was caught. The local sheriff seized the perp's computer as evidence.

      Where it gets interesting is that we had a MAJOR flood last year that flooded the sheriff's office. All of the evidence on hand was destroyed in the flood, and the cases the relied on the evidence had to be thrown out. To add insult to injury, they had to replace all the evidence that was destroyed. The perp ended up getting charged with nothing, and got a brand new computer out of the deal.

      Needless to say, my co-worker was not happy!

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    3. Re:A year? by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the fault of the police for not keeping the evidence secure. You can't expect the suspects to be punished because they could well be innocent, after all there is no proof to the contrary.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:A year? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      And just what sort of compensation would you consider just for the loss of your irreplaceable personal data, for any length of time? It's not like they can just hand you a shiny new computer and all is well with the world. Holding your computer and all its data is not fundamentally different from holding you. This is before one even considers the enormous potential for privacy violations while your data is kept outside your reach being examined by strangers.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    5. Re:A year? by newcastlejon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Compensation for loss of data? It isn't lost; you just can't have it. If you design shit and you lose business, then sue for that. But I would hope a judge would tell you where to stick it if you couldn't get by without your cat pictures and your link to 4chan

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:A year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      impartial jury?
      Such a thing does not exist.

      And if an entire trial cannot be finished within a month it's not even remotely speedy.

    7. Re:A year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make much sense. Sounds to me like they could've easily proved the case without any need to seize the computer at all. They still had the gasoline purchase. And they could've easily proved the thief made the online purchases since the address the goods were shipped to was presumably the theif's address.

      Sure if evidence is damaged then it gets thrown out but the entire case doesn't. And they never should've seized the computer in the first place because as I said, it would've been extremely easy to prove the case without it.

    8. Re:A year? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I was naturally referring to loss of use, not permanent loss--although that has been known to happen as well, from time to time. Non-commercial losses are likewise a perfectly legitimate complaint, and a frequent source of successful lawsuits. Or do you truly value your memories so little as to acquiesce quietly to their loss, however temporary, and regardless of any proffered compensation?

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    9. Re:A year? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      So if I steal or vandalise something that someone doesn't use for business, they aren't entitled to compensation from me? I don't think so.

      What someone uses it is neither here nor there. Leaving aside your straw man 4chan reference, Internet access is fast becoming an essential part of modern life for many people. The fact that some people may lose their livelihood as well over such police incompetence just adds insult to injury, but the underlying problem applies to any innocent person who has all his equipment confiscated, business or not.

    10. Re:A year? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Which is just yet more argument against the current practices.

      Had the police taken a copy of the data (which could then be backed up), rather than stealing the suspect's equipment and leaving it to rot in some guy's office, this wouldn't have happened.

    11. Re:A year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your co-worker is a fascist.

    12. Re:A year? by selven · · Score: 1

      We can make it exponential. One cent for one day, two cents for two days, four cents for three days, 10 dollars for 10 days, 10000 dollars for 20 days...

    13. Re:A year? by taucross · · Score: 1

      And just what sort of compensation would you consider just for the loss of your irreplaceable personal data, for any length of time?

      Umm... $US1000 per song?

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    14. Re:A year? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      Here is a small news bit about the place.. 11 months after the flood, they are finally getting around to repair.

      Flood damaged sheriff's office

      Posted: May 15, 2009 04:50 PM

      LINN COUNTY (KWWL) - We got our first look inside the Linn County Sheriff's Office since last June's floods.

      11 feet of water once filled the building. This week the Linn County Supervisors gave green light to fix the flood damage.

      Reconstruction is scheduled to start Monday and is expected to be completed in November. The estimated cost of the project is $2.8 million, most will be paid by FEMA.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    15. Re:A year? by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      And they never should've seized the computer in the first place

      Yeah... but they also seize things as a form of pre-trial punishment. Oh it's 'Evidence' we need to keep it for the 'trial' because you used this computer to buy your thing online.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    16. Re:A year? by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Yeah... but they also seize things as a form of pre-trial punishment. Oh it's 'Evidence' we need to keep it for the 'trial' because you used this computer to buy your thing online.

      But you see, police work is really much easier when the cops can just throw people in jail indefinitely for being suspicious, without having to bother with the expense and hassle of a kangaroo court. If you don't agree you're obviously a pedophilic, communist, anti-semitic, copyright-pirating Al Qaeda member.

    17. Re:A year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, since when are thumbdrives waterproof? Also, one time this guy I work with sent an email to his friend... and government agents didn't read it! Somehow, Armageddon was avoided.

  6. Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. Do they want a pony with that? I work as a form of a basic computer technician at my college, doing basic maintenance of students computers (mostly telling them to uninstall limewire, install AV, and fixing their machines ones they break them, software wise), and let me tell you that no automated tool has yet to make my job easier. The moment criminals figure out what the cops are looking for, they'll do something different. Maybe encrypt the data in tiny containers designed to look like corrupted files, or just simply wipe incriminating evidence. But, the UK government does seem to have a record of ignoring practicality and citizen rights (although not this time) in the name of "continuing peace and stability."

    1. Re:Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The aim of any modern Western legal system is to make sure that every last citizen is likely to be guilty of something non-trivial.

      Then you can keep freedom of speech/assembly/etc., and if someone gets too loud, first requisition all his property so he no longer has a voice/livelihood, then choose one of the myriad of laws to silence him long-term if he hasn't sweated himself into compliance while he waits.

    2. Re:Hahaha by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The aim of any modern Western legal system is to make sure that every last citizen is likely to be guilty of something non-trivial.

      This is, by the way, direct from the "Cynical, paranoid /.ers guide to government." Which is unquestionably true. If you question it, you're one of them, so you should know already.

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

      Good, you've already read our manifesto.

    4. Re:Hahaha by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      This is, by the way, direct from the "Cynical, paranoid /.ers guide to government."

      No, it's a paraphrased and originally from Ayn Rand. And even the original quote has more logic holes in it than Swiss cheese.

  7. Perfectly Legitimate by marco13185 · · Score: 1

    There's nothing wrong with the government using whatever technology they has at their disposal to search computers they have legally seized. That they haven't been using such technology up to now is baffling.

    1. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps there is nothing morally wrong with it. But it is stupid. No automatic tool will completely replace a trained professional (for now). And that's even ignoring the likelihood that the UK police are confiscating way too many computers. The fact that they have way too many computers to investigate is very likely a symptom of an overzealous police force/government declaring many things illegal, as seems to be the trend in the West as of late. So really all they're doing is attacking the symptom, not the problem; which is par for the course as far as governments are concerned.

    2. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Assuming they have been legally seized. OTOH, the potential for abuse is high. A cop stops you for speeding, sees your laptop and demands to see it. He plugs in his USB "felony probe device," which detects an unknown operating system (Linux? FreeBSD?), which alerts the cop with a flashing red LED on the device, and he subsequently arrests you. For what he has no idea, the device just told him to.

    3. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While this move is legitimate in a structural sense(i.e. if the search would otherwise be legitimate, doing it with this would be ok, and if it is otherwise illegitimate, doing it with this wouldn't become ok); but there are practical considerations that make me nervous.

      One is write blocking. To prevent corruption, tampering, and similar issues, it is good practice to use a hardware write blocker and, where possible, work from a disk image made from the original disk through a write blocker. A USB bootable system is not going to have that level of assurance. In a lot of cases, cops will have to monkey with the BIOS to get it to boot the USB drive and, with the vast number of BIOSes, chipsets, hardware RAID boards, softRAID crap, etc, etc. out there, trusting software to prevent tampering or corruption seems potentially troublesome.

      More generally, the demand for a "PC breathalyzer" is a demand that a difficult problem be made trivial so it can be done by unskilled or ignorant people. That sort of demand is rarely a harbinger of future quality, which is disquieting when people's freedoms are potentially at stake.

    4. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who ever said that this technology was going to replace the officers doing the work right now? I could definately imagine a system where low profile cases are automatically checked with this software and if anything is found it is flagged for review by an expert. High profile cases would, obviously, always be investigated by someone who knew what they were doing.

    5. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head.

      Too many laws, and even if you've done nothing technically wrong you can still get arrested for "resisting arrest" or "disturbing the peace" which are nonsense laws that have no real meaning. This just happened in a New Hampshire government building because he was carrying cameras and the police arrested him. The supreme law of the land protects the right to free speech & the right to record anywhere you wish, so long as you are outside of the actual courtroom. But the police don't care. They aren't enforcing the actual law, but just arbitrarily exerting force wherever they please.

      Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN92YFfSc5U

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

      Well, that would simply require "One OS to rule them all."

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    7. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>sees your laptop and demands to see it. He plugs in his USB "felony probe device,"

      That's an illegal search without warrant or probable cause. I would simply say "no" even if meant being drug-off to jail. I will NOT give-up my freedom voluntarily; I will stand by the supreme law of the land which protects my right to be secure in person, papers, and other effects.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The fact that they have way too many computers to investigate is very likely a symptom of an overzealous police force/government declaring many things illegal, as seems to be the trend in the West as of late.

      Couldn't it be so simple that for example a lot more people use computers for a lot more now than they did before? Twenty years ago, they took the cash from your wallet now they're probably selling your credit card info online. Twenty years ago your stolen stuff was sold on the flea market, now it's auctioned on eBay. If I write a letter it's on the computer, if I'm calculating something or making a simple table it's in a spreadsheet. I'm probably more all-digital than most but it'd be really wierd for me to start doing notes and stuff on paper - it's something I do in meetings because I must but it's usually always quickly typed up on the computer afterwards. If their forensic teams haven't scaled up to match, I can easily see this being a problem.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The issue of proper write blocking practices is likely where this idea will fail. In order for digital evidence to be considered admissible (and not be discredited by an opposing examiner during trial), it would need to be forensically sound. At least this is true in most courts.

      In most cases, this requires that the media be examined without having been altered in any way. This is why great lengths are taken by forensic examiners to properly image media bit by bit, then (using MD5 values) prove that their image is an exact copy. This is the reason hardware tools such as write blockers that are regularly tested must be used on every acquisition.

      Can you imagine if a beat cop was charged with the task of performing a forensic acquisition? Inevitably a tool simple enough to be deployed this way would need to be so automated that just about any opposing examiner could discredit its functionality with basic forensic knowledge.

    10. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people would hand over the laptop because they believe they must obey the police. Handing over the computer would be construed as giving permission for the search so no warrant would be required.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    11. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      That's why I always tell people: If the police have the power to do something, they don't have to ask you.

      Often they ask you anyway, or they're in a situation where they are not sure, so they ask.

      If so asked, tell them they do not have your permission to do that, but you will not hinder them in any way. And then stand off to the side so they can't possibly construe your actions as hindering.

      I know it sounds weird, but any other option is a trap: If you refuse and don't let them, and it turns out it was something they were legally allowed to do, they can arrest you merely for that. Likewise, if you consent and let them, and they find something, it counts, even if they couldn't have done the search without your consent.

      The only thing that makes sense is to repeatedly say you do not consent to what they are doing, but you are not going to stop them in any way.

      Note this stops at their actions. If they ask you to do anything except 'move out of the way', don't do it. (Barring things like turning over license and registration or telling your name, which are actual laws.) They cannot order you to open things or tell them passwords.(1)

      It gets really tricky if they want to look in something you're carrying. Do not hand them it. Do not attempt to stand there and let them take it from you, because they can construe any movement as you trying to keep it from them. Just immediately set it down where you are and step away.

      Sometimes they will threaten to break into things if you don't unlock them. If you can, unlock it but don't open it, so they don't have an excuse to break it but can't argue that you opening it in front of them means it wasn't 'a search'. If it's something like your car trunk, set your car keys on it. But make them take action to look inside, no matter what, otherwise they can argue it was in 'plain sight' and they didn't need a warrant, despite having badgered you into opening it.

      Obviously, if they do have a warrant, read that, and do whatever it says.

      1) Before someone argues that you can be ordered to turn over a password...maybe you can...by the court. Not by the police.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  8. Urm? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, are they saying that they want existing forensics software, with a drool-proof wizard attached, bootable from a flash drive(because hell, who needs forensic hardware write blocking when you can totally trust software to do the job under any circumstance?) or are they actually proposing that the program be able to detect evil?

    1. Re:Urm? by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      It's the UK police. It's probably the "evil" one.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    2. Re:Urm? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      It's the UK police. It's probably the "evil" one.

      Never ascribe to malice...

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:Urm? by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      That'd make sense, if I meant the UK police are evil. Check the last bit of the GP. I meant they wanted something to "detect evil." Lack of clarity on my part, mea culpa.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    4. Re:Urm? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Never ascribe to malice...

      Never understood that phrase. In real life, with real people, it IS malice a lot of the time, not stupidity.

  9. Hmm by Co0Ps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the UK Police got this idea while watching CSI.

    1. Re:Hmm by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      How dare you? CSI is a bastion of computer literacy.

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They probably wouldn't have a backlog of computers if they only confiscated computers where it might give be important evidence instead of using as away to punish people without the bother of a court case or even charging them. If they take your computer expect a long wait for your its return. If it does come back don't expect it to work.

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

      it's taking them a long time to work up a GUI interface in visual basic to track those IP addresses of the CP collectors

    4. Re:Hmm by renimar · · Score: 1

      Hey, borrowing something they've seen on American TV worked once:

      One of the stranger impacts of the show occurred on January 31, 2006, when The West Wing was said to have played a hand in defeating Tony Blair's government in the British House of Commons, during the so called "West Wing Plot". The plan was allegedly hatched after a Conservative Member of Parliament watched the episode, "A Good Day", in which Democrats block a bill aimed at limiting stem cell research, by hiding in an office until the Republican Speaker calls the vote. (Source)

      Maybe the cops thought, 'Hey, if it worked for the politicians, it must work for us, too!"

      --
      In other news, Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilties Act...
    5. Re:Hmm by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      The magical-ness of the device points more towards Torchwood...

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
  10. Note to self: by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Remember to wire USB pins to secret kill-switch designed to dump excessive current into said USB device.

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    1. Re:Note to self: by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many thumb drives you must go through.....

    2. Re:Note to self: by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0

      None, otherwise I would have posted:

      Note to self:
      Remember to flip the USB kill-switch before using MY thumb drives.

      :)

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  11. Sounds like crazy talk. by Garbad+Ropedink · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not much in the ways of encryption, but I assume if your computer's encrypted it'll be pretty difficult for this thing to work through the system, if not impossible.
    Sounds like the cops just want a usb key that has a light that comes on when the law's been broken.

    Mainstream computer illiteracy at work.

    --
    And that was the last Terry Fox run I ever participated in.
    1. Re:Sounds like crazy talk. by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      If your computer is encrypted, you will be told to give up your encryption keys, or be considered guilty, and immediatly imprisoned.

      'Hiding', in this case, is taken to be 'evidence of something to hide', and thus, guilt.

  12. and the companion product.... by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anybody want to sponsor a contest to see who can write a USB driver that defeats this within the fewest lines of code?

    Seth

    1. Re:and the companion product.... by daveatneowindotnet · · Score: 1

      ...and of course the companion software that will produce false positives on infect computers.

    2. Re:and the companion product.... by dranga · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just rewire your USB ports to run at 120v. And label it USB120 so you can point back at them for not reading when they try to charge you with damaging their equipment.

      --
      Oh no, not again.
    3. Re:and the companion product.... by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Bah. That's no fun. You need a USB driver that pushes a virus back onto the stick so there will be enough public outcry so that they stop using the devices...

    4. Re:and the companion product.... by Dysproxia · · Score: 1

      And equally trivial will be installing that driver to the custom OS they'll run from a booting CD.

    5. Re:and the companion product.... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Well, on my computer, none of the USB ports are actually connected. So, can anyone do it in less than zero?

    6. Re:and the companion product.... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      It would be far funnier to make the USB stick a torrent server on there that starts up torrents for any police files, mail and logs when they go back to hook it up. So we can examine them to see if they are complying with the law.

    7. Re:and the companion product.... by twidarkling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RTFS, says specifically "USB." And you know why? Simple. Netbooks. No CD drive. If they only used CDs, then any netbook would be immune, unless an external CD drive was hooked up, and since the point is to make it easy for untrained cops, that's not gonna work.

      Either way, it's a massively stupid project on their part, and anyone with 20 minutes and a drive to not go to prison can find a way around it.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    8. Re:and the companion product.... by fluch · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah! A tiny script which decrypts a zip file (with some random porn, terrorist and viral material) onto the USB stick of the officer (and afterwards deletes securely the same material on your computer including the script) ... and then file a complaint about the officer having such material on his USB stick ;-)

    9. Re:and the companion product.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also I assume that it would generate logs that could not be stored on a CD.

  13. Encryption=suspicious? by wjh31 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    that'll probably work fine for the lay-man, but will having an encrypted hard drive count as evidence of illegal activity

    1. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the UK, yes. You'll be required to hand over your encryption keys to the government. If you refuse, it's 2-5 years, depending whether or not you're a "terrorist suspect." I wouldn't surprised if refusing makes you a terrorist suspect mighty quickly.

    2. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is something that the Founding Fathers felt strongly about...having lived in England.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      It already does, there. If you don't turn over your encryption code, you get a nice trip to jail.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    4. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      that'll probably work fine for the lay-man, but will having an encrypted hard drive count as evidence of illegal activity

      If you don't supply the password when asked by the court, then sure.

    5. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You'll be required to hand over your encryption keys to the government.

      I've got to think that if there were locks on your property that the government or police couldn't break with brute force, it would be the same for search warrants of your house.

      ...not that that changes anything, just that it's typical.

    6. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by fluch · · Score: 1

      Actually I have a encrypted hard drive at home which I didn't use for ages. And honestly have forgotten the encryption key to it. How should they prove that I do not not know the key (double negation intended)?

    7. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Innocent until proven guilty... do you believe in leprechauns too?

    8. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      If you refuse, it's 2-5 years, depending whether or not you're a "terrorist suspect."

      Of course, 2-5 years for not giving up your encryption key may be a better deal than, say, 10+ years for posession of kiddie porn or $100,000+ fines for illegally downloaded music.

    9. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 1

      No research == fail. The colonies were not England.

      Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the Thirteen Colonies. Only 9 were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, two (Wilson and Witherspoon) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies.

      Sourced

    10. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 3, Informative

      they don't - you have to prove that you've forgotten it O.o.
      Yes, this is a bad law.

      --
      FGD 135
    11. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Huh? Last I checked both Windows Vista Ultimate Edition and OS X 10.5 "Leopard" on-every-new-machine-that-apple-ships edition include encryption right out of the box.

      And linux, of course, which doesn't shoehorn you into "full disk only" or "specified dirs only" depending on who's logo is on the machine.

      And every browser on those three OSes and most others has its own encryption or uses the OS's built-in encryption for storage of auto-fill data.

      Who, exactly, does having encryption incriminate, again?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:Encryption=suspicious? by hacker · · Score: 1

      That whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is something that the Founding Fathers felt strongly about...having lived in England.

      The bolded portion is precisely the problem! It should read "innocent unless proven guilty", but it doesn't. All it takes is enough time, and eventually (they contend) that EVERYONE is guilty... at some point.

  14. If voting machines are anything to go by.... by MasseKid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then there will be no problems with this technology!

  15. Keep dreaming you red coats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    something like this can easily be averted. VMs, incompatible OSs, dual boots, jailbroken iPod Touchs, root kits, etc.. It's like The Great Firewall of China, sure it looks good on paper, but anyone knowledgable enough can break it.

  16. Open Source? by CheddarHead · · Score: 1

    I would agree with you as long as the workings of these devices are totally transparent to the public. That would have to include open source for all of the S/W and algorithms used to determine what material is evidence of illegal activity. If it's not transparent, then they could claim that anyone's computer shows evidence of illegal activity and there would be no way to defend against it.

    1. Re:Open Source? by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The likelihood of that actually working in court is very low. Generally if they're presenting evidence of illegal activity, a forensic examiner has to give testimony in court. The explanation, "this tool told me there was evidence" is far too insufficient. At least among the investigators I've worked with, none of them would use such a tool to find court-ready evidence if it didn't lay out low-level details of the findings, because they need to have those low-level details available at trial. (Plus, the direct results of tools are notoriously hard to certify. Trusting uncertified tools is great ammunition for the defense lawyers.)

      Now, granted, if having your computer siezed, taking a trip to jail, and hiring a lawyer aren't your idea of fun, you may well still be concerned about such a tool saying "this guy has incriminating material", since the cop on the scene using the tool probably won't have the training and certainly won't have the time to look at anything other than what the tool tells him.

      Pro tip, though, in case you didn't already know: don't let police search your computer without a warrant. For some reason, quite a few people do.

    2. Re:Open Source? by fluch · · Score: 1

      The device is a black box. How will you be able to check if the particular device the police officer plugged in does indeed contain the software he claims to be on? Couldn't the device have some software on it which alters the system and places wrong evidence on the machine? And even if you want to check the device of the police officer later, how can you be sure it is the same device as he plugged in? Such a silly idea!

  17. Old and busted: Guns, New and busted: Thumbdrives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd feel real safe walking the streets of Manchester knowing the police had USB devices to stop the criminals.

    NOT.

  18. Look Out! It's a Trap^H^HDupe! by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

    OK. We can go over this topic again.
     

  19. Lazy by gubers33 · · Score: 1

    These cops seem extremely lazy we don't want to do our work we want someone to write a computer to do it for us. Even if someone does manage this for them I would be curious to see how an automated usb drive will deal with compressed zip files and encrypted files.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    1. Re:Lazy by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Getting a computer to do anyones work would be considered lazy then. Back to the abacus I say. As for Encrypted files, you have to hand over your encryption Keys, and its not exactly difficult to uncompress a file. These are the sort of things that even the average computer user can understand with minimal training, like how your mom checks her email.
      1. Plug USB in
      2. Finds all encrypted and compressed files
      3. Cop decrypts and uncompresses
      4. Scans
      5. ???
      6. Profit

    2. Re:Lazy by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

      I agree. It would be so much more efficient if all of us would slip on the manacles, ourselves, and march ourselves down to the local police station where we could find ourselves a nice, new jail cell. After all, we wouldn't want to make their jobs more difficult, now, would we?

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    3. Re:Lazy by gubers33 · · Score: 1

      If a user is doing it's one thing, if it's program it is another. And if this program were to find all compressed files and it would probably come up with a great deal of useless files.

      --
      Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    4. Re:Lazy by theapeman · · Score: 1

      What if the encryption technique is not one that the USB device understands? I dont mean the algorithm used (AES etc), but the way the password is converted to the encryption key. Even if you give him the password, the USB device wont be able to decrypt anything.

    5. Re:Lazy by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it'll be able to tell you whats encrypted.

      Then you personally decrypt it to access it, and remove the encryption all together.

      Same with compressed files and decompressing them.

      There will be some amount of user interactivity, we're not calling this the magic USB stick. All it'll have to do is scan each file looking for certain flags. The SAME technology & application used in your antivirus software. All it has to do is return the directory of any file that has a .zip, .rar, or unrecognized file extension. Any file it has trouble accessing due to encryption will also be flagged.

  20. the headline ten years from now... by astra05 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I can just imagine the headline /. or whatever news website ten years from now: UK Govt bans Human Reproduction. Now all future UK citizens will produced in laboratories by private companies with Government oversight. This is due to the fact that UK Government can remove all Genes that will allow the human nature to want to see child pornography. Also in future citizen models they eliminate all crime and the ability to make free choice decisions. A UK Govt official was quoted saying "Now everyone in UK is safe because it is impossible to commit a crime." *cough brave new world* I say all of this because it seems like the UK is leading Western Society in destroying its citizens privacy and civil rights. Oh well, at least here in the states we have the constitution to provide to certain "inalienable" rights. Oh wait, The US Govt ignores the Constitution? /end_rant

    --
    Live Free
    1. Re:the headline ten years from now... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      And Canada becomes the harbinger of freedom for the Western World! Quick! Everyone move up here now! Free poutine for the first 1,000 US-ians to move!

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    2. Re:the headline ten years from now... by Chabo · · Score: 1

      certain "inalienable" rights

      Don't you know anything? It's unalienable. ;)

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  21. Oh geez! This is too easy! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I understand the British government, they wouldn't have any problems with this approach either:

    Let's build a live USB Linux load that knows how to read and write all known file systems including encrypted systems. Then we will write a few handy scripts that will scan for a fairly long list of known files using MD5sum or some such. Then, if it doesn't turn anything up, copy some child porn from the USB drive over to the target system and print out the arrest warrant.

  22. Microsoft already provides this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's called COFEE

    Q.What is COFEE?

    A.COFEE (Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor) is a tool that helps simplify the very complex problem of gathering "live" computer evidence of cybercrime. It utilizes common forensics tools to aid officers at the scene in gathering important live evidence with a single USB device. It also provides reports in a simple format for later interpretation by computer experts, or as supportive evidence for computer investigations. This means that first-responder officers on the scene of a crime don't have to be computer forensic experts to capture live data for later analysis and that this critical information does not have to be lost once a computer is shut down to be taken for a traditional offline forensic analysis.

    Cops got even got their own web portal courtesy of Microsoft.

    1. Re:Microsoft already provides this by rm999 · · Score: 1

      I think COFFEE is different. COFFEE basically just creates log of a bunch of stuff that will be erased if the computer is turned off, like processes running, temporary files, etc. The idea is you run COFFEE before turning off a computer to take it into the police station.

      What the UK wants is something you plug into a computer, perhaps one that has already been seized, and it tells you quickly and easily if something illegal is on there.

      COFFEE and what the UK wants could potentially compliment each other; if the tool tells the police something illegal exists on the computer, they can use COFFEE before seizing the computer to get a full snapshot of what was going on.

  23. roflcopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm sure this will work wonders with a laptop running full volume crypto.

    lawl!

    1. Re:roflcopter by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      or better yet a desktop/ server system with a fake drive rigged to go POP if it gets powered up

      drive gets powered up and boom no more drive (bonus gitmo points if you manage to take out the work station)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  24. policeficker by blue_goddess · · Score: 1

    That was not a long ago: pandemic of malware that spreaded on usb dongles...

    --
    As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.
    1. Re:policeficker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, go with copficker. It's catchier.

  25. Inspired! by shadowknot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe they shouldn't seize so many computers.

    As someone working in Digital Forensics in the UK I can honestly say that this is the most inspired piece of wisdom I have seen in a long time. Our company has literally had computers that haven't been switched on in a decade that have been sitting in a garage or attic until the cops decide to seize them. This is good for business but bad for taxpayer expenditure and the expedient discovery of data of evidential worth. The process for seizure of computer equipment in police investigations is essentially "if it has an on-off switch then seize it". There needs to be some training given to officers seizing although I doubt they will as they are scared of the first case of non-seized items containing illicit material.

    1. Re:Inspired! by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its an unfortunate situation when cops are more afraid of not seizing a machine carrying illicit material, than they are afraid of seizing hundreds or thousands of machines containing nothing illegal, and taking forever to return them.

    2. Re:Inspired! by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and taking forever to return them.

            Who said anything about returning them?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Inspired! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Then this begs a different question.. The UK police are seeking out a USB device.. but it sounds like they may have many pre-USB systems to search! Furthermore, why not just automate imaging the drive and storing in some data vault somewhere with some tamper-proof security measures in place. Instead of a hardware device, you could just have software on a sizable server that scans the image and detects any 'bad stuff'. Seems much more efficient to do it this way.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Inspired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're missing the point of seizures... or at least one possible point. In a significant number of cases, they're actually not carried out because of a strict need but rather to harass.

      This can be on many levels, too. Maybe it's just the low-level plod on a power trip that thinks he's gonna stick it to you for being a toffee-nosed git; maybe it's some higher-up that wants to get you into trouble (for your political views or actions, perhaps).

    5. Re:Inspired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as normal on slashdot little to no experience in the matter not having lived in the UK and unaware of all the statistics maybe they shouldn't seize so many computers seems along the lines of in California a solution for dealing with prison over crowding being to not arrest so many people. but most importantly remember jack of all trades master of none just make sure you have the right people to determine what to seize as well as complimenting that with the proper number of people to examine the evidence and let the regular old cop do his job while you do yours.

    6. Re:Inspired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be tempted to build my own case for my hard drives. Basically a big, metal box that's 90% filled with concrete, and use that as an external drive. Have fun confiscating THAT 2000 pound evidence :P

  26. O RLY? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    UK police are talking to private companies about using plug-in USB devices that can scour the hard drive of any device they are attached to

    I've got a rackmount OpenBSD box that claims otherwise.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:O RLY? by computersareevil · · Score: 1

      I've got a rackmount OpenBSD box that claims otherwise.

      Does it have a USB port and a BIOS new enough to boot from said USB port? You're screwed.

    2. Re:O RLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not screwed if he uses a fully crypto'ed filesystem on OpenBSD...

      http://www.backwatcher.org/writing/howtos/obsd-encrypted-filesystem.html

      Silly rabbit, unencrypted volumes are for Feds!

    3. Re:O RLY? by fluch · · Score: 1

      Even under danger of being redundant:

      My Linux laptop runs under full disc encryption (except the /boot partition). And under Mac OS X I use a file vault. External drives and USB sticks are encrypted using Truecrypt. So, yes, also here a big "O RLY?" ;-)

    4. Re:O RLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, I've got a toaster that claims otherwise.

      What exactly constitutes a "device", anyway?

    5. Re:O RLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UK police are talking to private companies about using plug-in USB devices that can scour the hard drive of any device they are attached to

      I've got a rackmount OpenBSD box that claims otherwise.

      I don't get it. Why is this "Interesting?" Are you implying that your box has no USB ports? Then their device can't be attached to it and your point is moot. Are you trying to say something else that I'm too uninformed to understand?

    6. Re:O RLY? by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      And under Mac OS X I use a file vault.

      It's safe to assume that all commercial encryption software has a back door for police access.

  27. Umm, these devices are security risks people... by KreAture · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why has noone pointed out that these devices are using security holes to gain access and that these holes are being or should be blocked on most OS'es. It's probably just a matter of time before they will need a different ploy anyways.

    A simple web-search turns up a tonn of comercial solutions already.
    Many companys already require usb security suits to be installed on all company computers.

    In the meantime disabeling drivers and locking down the policys required to re-enable (in windows that is) might be one way.

    1. Re:Umm, these devices are security risks people... by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd imagine these would live thumb drives, specifically to sidestep any security measures like you described. A trained digital forensics expert will usually remove the hard drive, put it in a device that prevents any writes, make an image of the hard drive, and work from that. All of this is specifically to avoid running any code on the machine designed to hide any illegal information, and to prevent any corruption of evidence which would cause issues in court.

    2. Re:Umm, these devices are security risks people... by KreAture · · Score: 1

      Good point.
      However, by shutting down the machine you can often lose any chance you had of ever gaining access to the data on an encrypted partition this side of the milennia. (Or atleast within budget and political spans.)
      Unless you utilize methods like "coldbooting" or such attacks.

      There would also be systems that use thumbdrives to store massive keys for the actual encryption. If the accused was not home when the machines were seized he might have the key somewhere else.

    3. Re:Umm, these devices are security risks people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obvious solution is something like a knoppix live CD, without a persistent data storage device.

      You can liven things up a little more with a simple relay switch, and a zener diode, which "just so happens" to toggle the system's reset switch the moment you blunderingly insert a USB device. (By measuring the slight drop in voltage that the insertion causes, and using that to toggle the relay switch which momentarily closes the reset switch circuit.)

      Officer Joe Brady puts his little USB dildo in the machine, and POOF-- all the data is gone.

  28. Why not.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not have an EU-wide mandate of a computer bill of rights? In this include the right to encryption and the right to keep your key to yourself.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Why not.... by Helix666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because that would allow us to behave and speak freely... er, I mean... that would allow the evil, bad terrorist pædophiles to win. or something. .

      --
      Oh, the irony... "Anonymous Coward: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"
    2. Re:Why not.... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Because that would explicitly be in contradiction of their policy of ISPs keeping information available for a minimum amount of time, aka: Your information isn't yours to delete.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    3. Re:Why not.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that'll make it easier for terrorists and paedos

    4. Re:Why not.... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that EU countries tend to ignore or bend them meaning of directives when they inconvenience them. So best of luck with that.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  29. How desperate are they? by fluch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...allowing untrained cops to detect anything from correspondence on stolen goods to child pornography. Police in the UK are desperate for a way of slashing the backlog of machines seized by the police in raids..."

    How about investing more into proper trained cops? How about better education? That might help a bit... together with "Maybe they shouldn't seize so many computers".

    1. Re:How desperate are they? by cellurl · · Score: 1

      I agree.
      There are only two things they are looking for I image: childporn, copyrightViolation.

      So we need to invent porncrypt

      It turns images into text and vice versa.
      It turns movies into text and vice versa.

    2. Re:How desperate are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Training? Education? Not seizing so many computers??? That's just crazy talk.
      They've been told they need to do something. Creating an automagically usb wand to (allegedly) do what some might argue is their job is "something". Therefore they must do it.
      QED. None of that pesky "thinking" required.

    3. Re:How desperate are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visions of A Clockwork Orange are flashing through my head. Specifically, the bit where the main characters goon friends become police...

  30. maybe more people should own PCs by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    maybe more people should own PCs in the UK...it will be better in the long run for civil liberties.

    Especially those people who are more likely to get things seized in a police raid.
    The purpose, to increase the backlog so much that the police will rethink their policy of seizing computers.

    That, and it'll help local computer shop owners with a flood of business as by the time the people get their computers back, it will be obsolete that they would have to buy a new one...essentially paid for by the police department.
    Talk about a stimulus plan.

    1. Re:maybe more people should own PCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, we have >70% of the population with at least one PC. The backlog has already been created as almost everyone busted owns a PC.

    2. Re:maybe more people should own PCs by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      then double it, duh!

  31. I can provide what they need! by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 1

    For the small fee of, say, £10000 I can get the UK what they need. I will provide them with an empty USB memory, and a letter explaining that what they are looking for can't be done. At least not if the suspected computer criminal is any good: the files can be encrypted, stored inside an encrypted ZIP-file, hidden inside a hidden encrypted partition on the hard drive. If that level of secrecy is not enough, the child porn pictures can be steganographically hidden inside other (completely innocent) pictures (or inside MP3 files for a bit of variation), and unless you know they are there you are utterly unlikely to ever find them...

    I wonder how long it will take the authorities to realise that "theft" or "possesion of illegal goods" in the computer world are very different to "theft" and "possesion of illegal goods" in the physical world. If you have a stolen item in your house, hiding it in such a way that a thorough search does not find it is hard. Hiding a "stolen" file on a modern computer is not trivial, but it can be done if you have the knowledge. And this knowledge is not hard to find.

    1. Re:I can provide what they need! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a letter explaining that what they are looking for can't be done. At least not if the suspected computer criminal is any good

      If you merely have a system that can detect the crime when the criminal isn't any good, that's good enough-- it will catch 95% of the criminals.

      For the most part, real-world criminals (as opposed to the ones on television and in books) aren't characterized by having a lot of smarts.

    2. Re:I can provide what they need! by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      They're probably not interested in the difficult (or impossible) problem of a comptuer criminal that's actually competent. If their computer forensic teams are anything like ours are in the U.S., they're spending a week or two per computer doing legally-sound forensic analysis of the computers of people who are morons and store their 10,000-image collection of child pornography in a directory on their desktop called "Kiddie Porn". It would be quite useful for them if there was something that would quickly produce a reasonably reliable "definitely bad stuff here", "possibly no bad stuff here", and "this one requires further investigation". (As many of the convenient encryption and some convenient steganography systems are reasonably detectable, having a "strange things were detected" choice is helpful.)

  32. Typical user behaviour, asking for "impossible" by ccr · · Score: 1

    So, as usual, they are asking for an solution that is impossible to implement, at least in any meaningfully reliable way. I mean, how does one sanely "detect" child pornography or any other illegal content to begin with?

    Despite these insurmountable odds, I am fairly certain that there will be a long line of companies willing to try and do some half-assed gadgets, because there will be lots of money involved.

    1. Re:Typical user behaviour, asking for "impossible" by shadowknot · · Score: 1

      The police in the UK along with other governmental and non-governmental organizations involved in digital forensics in the UK have built up a mammoth hash database (containing MD5 hashes of known pedophillic/illicit images) I suspect that the device would contain a copy of this database and all images on the device would be hashed and compared to it. This doesn't get around encryption, deleted data, compound files etc and I don't see it being successful but merely a sink hole of public money that will be abandoned when they realize their conviction rate is going down.

  33. Example of this Device in use! by MJM128 · · Score: 1

    [Warning] Bittorent Client detected! Possible Crime level - High

    Book 'em Danno!

  34. This is a good idea by delta98 · · Score: 1

    and it will work as long as there is something of interest on sais\d target. By interest I mean corporate secrets from a competing company that happens to fund the election bankroll of a politician. Smoke and mirrors nothing more nothing less.

  35. My laptop doesn't have a built-in CD-ROM drive. by mmell · · Score: 1
    The BIOS (including the boot-selection page) is password protected. Even when a CD-ROM is physically attached, booting from CD-ROM/USB requires the system password. Oh, and the hard disk incorporates password protection, which is configured.

    Easy enough for qualified personnel to defeat (along with the BIOS-level HDD password protection? Probably). That is, the nerd back at the police lab - not the PD's street soldiers.

    Go ahead - give 'em a hacker tool on a stick. Let 'em feel like they're technically competent to conduct field investigations into an area which I'll wager most of them don't even remotely understand. Oh, and let me raise questions at trial into the safeguards in place to prevent officers from inadvertantly/intentionally corrupting the contents of the filesystems they intend to investigate in the field.

    (I'm assuming their hacker's tool can automagically recognize and search ext3, ext4, jfs, ufs, xfs, reiserfs, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, etc. . . . and let us not forget software-based filesystem encryption for many of the aforementioned filesystems).

    1. Re:My laptop doesn't have a built-in CD-ROM drive. by mikael · · Score: 1

      The BIOS (including the boot-selection page) is password protected.

      Usually there is a DIP switch on the motherboard to bypass the BIOS password. For laptops it is accessible by removing one of the underside panels. For desktops it will require removing a side-panel or two. Slightly less effort than replacing the batteries on a remote control.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:My laptop doesn't have a built-in CD-ROM drive. by mmell · · Score: 1

      The point is, it's not something the average bobby is going to be doing in the field. After all, what manufacturer? Which DIP switch (in my experience, it's usually a jumper, not a DIP switch). Are you SURE any given laptop even HAS that jumper/switch? I only ask because I've encountered at least three models of laptop in my career where that's not true - you lock yourself out, you get to buy new CMOS chips - or more likely, a new MOBO.

    3. Re:My laptop doesn't have a built-in CD-ROM drive. by mikael · · Score: 1

      There are websites dedicated to bypassing the default BIOS passwords and Motherboard Clear CMOS Jumper.

      UK Technical Support

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:My laptop doesn't have a built-in CD-ROM drive. by mmell · · Score: 1
      Yes, but we're now well beyond what the average cop/bobby on the beat can be reasonably expected to do as a field activity. I don't care how easy it is for technically-savvy people such as you and I do get over these obstacles; the point is, it should prove insurmountable to the front-line beat cop (bobby).

      BTW, how long you been here? A uid of 484? Am I in the presence of one of the Creators? *awed gaze fixed on UID*

  36. USB? by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How would a USB device get access to the host system's drives?
    Surely that would require drivers to be loaded on the host...
    Not only would this be very OS specific, but it could easily be defeated, you could configure the host to detect the insertion of this particular type of usb device and perform a secure overwrite of all your incriminating files when such a device is inserted.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:USB? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Or a metal box full of thermite with a recessed ignition switch in the shape of a USB plug. Stick that on the top of your rack:)

    2. Re:USB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume the USB stick has its own OS and they will boot the computer off the USB stick.

      It's either that, or they make it mandatory that all UK citizens must purchase and use Windows Vista/7 on NTFS so that terroristy linux/mac stuff doesn't get in the way.

      I have old computers that are incapable of booting off USB though. Maybe that makes me a terrorist.

    3. Re:USB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly thats the problem... this is an impossible task thought up by an idiot who has absolutly no knowledge about how all this works!

    4. Re:USB? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      If you can run software on the device, then you don't need drivers, no. Mounting flash drives and the like with noexec would make this a lot more difficult. If they copy data off the flash drive to your system, then the evidence has been tampered with and should no longer be admissible in court. If they know enough to run mount (which may require your password) then they really don't need this "detector" anyhow.

      If the computer is locked and doesn't *automatically* execute code on a USB, then they need your password anyhow. There are lots of simple ways to make this a LOT more difficult. On the flip side, FireWire (with its DMA) might work better here, assuming the DMA hasn't been disabled.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    5. Re:USB? by 4pins · · Score: 1

      You boot off the "special" USB device.
      Then the OS on the USB device mounts the various disks/partitions/volumes on the system.
      Then it searches what it has mounted.

      A crude one of these, which would work in most cases, could be made fairly simply using Linux.

      --
      I will not mourn that which I never had to lose. - Unknown
    6. Re:USB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you have access to every file that the logged in user has access to. remember usb keyboards? there is nothing that prevents a properly modified usb stick to act as a keyboard, sending the keystrokes a properly educated cyber copper would have to make (executing a trojan). might seem like a real challenge from a software engineers POV to craft it properly for all those different OSs (or desktop environments if youre the linux kind of person), but theoretically it could be done. has been done, i guess. watch out for usb stick giveaways on conferences =).

    7. Re:USB? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      pfft, on 24 they always seem to have a proprietary algorithm for this sort of stuff. Why can't the UK police get one of them?

      --
      FGD 135
    8. Re:USB? by nasor · · Score: 1

      Or more usefully, have it just shunt the device to some generic little partition that it can look at and decide everything's legal.

    9. Re:USB? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Keystrokes would be even more OS (and configuration) specific than drivers...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  37. Alicia Silverstone running UK? by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

    I'm having a hard time understanding how they intend to automate these things. Okay, documents presumably you can scan for keywords. Of course, if the list of keywords ever gets out (government never leaks anything, right?), that becomes pointless. But pictures? How do you automate scanning pictures for illegal material? File name is not useful (rename?). MD5 Hash? All we need to do is toggle one random bit of the file and the hash value is completely different (that is an attribute of a good hash). And where would they get the hash values in the first place? This sounds like yet another request by the technically clueless. Wish I lived in the UK. There's probably a nice big pot of Sterling waiting to be doled out by those clueless folks.

    --
    linquendum tondere
    1. Re:Alicia Silverstone running UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most law enforcement agencies (UK, US, France, Japan all come to mind, there has been lots of data sharing in this realm) have very large hash databases (Algo unknown, I think SHA256, most likely MD5/MD4 though) that they use to check against. This database composes all known pedophile/illegal images-movies (Snuff films for example) They run all images on a given drive past this database. (The database was originally added by hand, though how you can tell someone whos 18 and a day or 17 and 355 days old, I dont know, but they do, did, and still continue to)
      They then, depending on the crime charged, go by hand and look at all images and add to the database if they find any. (there is also a physical paper database of all known images, they compare people in the photos to to determine if theyre of age) If your arressted for say, not paying your ticket, they typically wont do this.

      However, a USB drive that a beat cop can use is useless. Turn off auto-run for USB. Done.

    2. Re:Alicia Silverstone running UK? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Although it appears that any algorithm that automatically randomly alters the metadata of all files would clobber this, unless the software is smart enough to extract just the raw image data. Presumably people simply don't do this.

      though how you can tell someone whos 18 and a day or 17 and 355 days old, I dont know,

      The language is typically along the lines of "Is or appears to be under 18". Personally I see hundreds of problems with this but there's way too much public hysteria over the issue for these concerns to be addressed.

    3. Re:Alicia Silverstone running UK? by Trick414 · · Score: 1

      The pictures are of "known" victims. A police investigation at one point actually found the victim and through the investigation proved that the victim was under 18 at the time of the picture.

      In many cases, the police get the case from NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) and the victim is already identified, such as "Pictures number 14 and 17 from the Chelsea series".

      In other words, the information has already been vetted as actual child pornography.

      As far as hashes go, many ISP's already automatically scan for child porn. Some have sophisticated programs that can recognize the picture based on certain features and items in the picture itself such as a pink blanket, blue walls, and a Cookie Monster. Naturally, it's going to spit out a possible hit, and the picture will have to be compared against the database.

  38. Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In the old days, everything ran on separate ports. Remote control had a port, file transfer had a port, Chat had a port.

    Cause: Firewalls began blocking those ports to block the applications so users couldn't use them.

    Effect: Today, this all runs on port 443. GotoMyPC, file sharing sites, most chat programs work on port 443.

    The effect of this would be for users to move their data encrypted and online, into some other country that they can trust will not divulge the information when asked. Launch my client, provide my key, and map a drive over 443 to my data.

    You take my PC, the data is not there. You break into my home and plug into my PC when I'm gone, the data's not going to be available. You somehow get the data from the host you have to spend a long time brute forcing the password.

    Of course, they will then load up a fake root key onto my PC and man in the middle attack me, but one step at a time..

  39. Any device? O RLY? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    What about devices that can't boot from USB or whose password-protected BIOSes have boot from hard drive prioritized higher than boot from USB?

    Far more realistic is a set of tools:

    * For computers that need to be left on, a method to transport the computer without disrupting the electrical or network connections.

    * For other computers, a means to quickly copy the data from the drives.

    * For computers that can be booted with another media like a floppy, cdrom, or USB, you win.

    For computers that can't be booted and whose BIOS cannot be altered to boot from one of those devices, you need to be able to unscrew the case, unplug the hard drive, then either boot from another device if you can then plug the hard disk into an external USB adapter so you can hot-plug it for read access. If that doesn't work, plug the hard disk into your portable computer's USB port for reading.

    All in all the safest thing to do if you don't need the machine to stay powered on is to turn it off and take it into a forensic lab and pull the data using established, court-recognized procedures.
    For forensic purposes make damn sure you never write to the drive and that you can prove that you did not write to the drive.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  40. Hello, United Kingdom? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are all now living in The Village.

    You have a choice.

    You can be numbers, or you can be free men and women.

    The choice is yours.

    Choose wisely.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  41. Oi! it's even worse than I'd initially thought! by mmell · · Score: 1

    Might be technically possible if Windows is running. Not a chance it'll work on a linux box.

  42. Cracking the 256-bit encryption is the easy part by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real problem is writing the OOXML parser.

    --
    No sig today...
  43. Re:Oh geez! This is too easy! by robably · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That raises an interesting point, though - as soon as a police officer plugs a USB stick in to a suspect's computer, the computer surely stops being an untouched "forensic scene", and so anything on it becomes inadmissable in court? We've had speed detectors being chalenged in court, how long after these are used in the wild before they are challenged, too? The "USB stick" would have to be a read-only, use once item so that it could be used for one crime scene only to find probable cause, then bagged and stored to be presented as evidence later - if it was a standard USB stick then ANYTHING could have been on it when the police officer stuck it in to your computer.

  44. USB spy devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was once the sysadmin for a public high school. The Web design teacher was an idiot who thought she was an independent entity from the school district. She once called me screaming, so the assistant sysadmin went up there to check on it. She held up the wireless presenter's Bluetooth dongle and screamed "The district is spying on me!"; he had to calmly point out to her that it was actually a Bluetooth dongle for the wireless presenter that she had bought not too long ago.

    I considered telling her "We don't need that to spy on you. We can watch your screen with Altiris, examine your home directory at \\server\users\username, and even your local hard drive at \\computername\c$". Maybe I should have said that--I'd love to see her wrap her workstation with tinfoil.

  45. Could get painful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I hope the PC's know which PC's to plug the detector into, or it could get painful ;-) Or are the PC's helmet's getting a USB upgrade?

  46. No just evil - illegal! by denzacar · · Score: 1

    It is evil to disown your kids and leave family fortune to cats. But it is not illegal.
    It is evil to kick a man out into the street with no compensation after 30 years of service to the company - but it is not illegal.
    On the other hand - in most countries it is illegal to make a backup copy of the CD/DVD you bought legally. Or download one from the internet without buying it again.

    So not only must this magical tool be able to recognize any and all illegal media (from downloaded music to drawings depicting sex with minors) - it must also have instant access to, and understanding of every single law in the land.
    Now, unless they manage somehow to create an actual AI (even a limited one that would only comprehend matters of law) - I don't see this happening.

    On a positive(?) side, if they ever do create something like that, most crimes would not need an actual trial.
    Just have the police officer plug in the connector to the computer, have it read out the sentence, and escort the "criminal" to the jail.
    If that ever happens I strongly suggest investing into cement factories, lower and medium quality steel and rough textiles cause there will be a serious lack of prison space and uniforms.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  47. Plug a hardware random number generator to SATA0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Create a small pseudo random number generator that connects to sata0. They start scanning. They learn about the "halting problem"

  48. Justice delayed by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Basically I feel that if the police confiscate some item as potential evidence, then they need to examine it in an expedited way. They should never just be allowed to shove something in a warehouse to get to at some undetermined future date! Justice delayed is justice denied (William Gladstone, British politician).

  49. Zapp! by dpf44 · · Score: 1

    What a shame that my computer is "broken" and sends a 240V blast through its USB ports...

    1. Re:Zapp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only 230v now. I blame the French.

    2. Re:Zapp! by Carrot007 · · Score: 1

      No it's still 240, go test it (i assume you have the equipment having frequented this site).

      Well technically 230v +- 10 % (might be 8% or something else).

      Well whatever it is it's 230v -+ N% where 240v is fine.

      As such we call it 230v but it's still 240v.

      Why do you not know this? Call yourself a geek?

      Pah.

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
  50. Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just create a non-zero-length empty file, format it to some obscure file system, add everything suspicious to it then .tar.bz2 it and place it in an obscure location on my Ext4 / partition.

  51. Oh Right... by changa · · Score: 1

    If they can get that then I want a pony.

  52. Re:Oh geez! This is too easy! by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

    How do you think computer forensics happen currently? They copy your drives. Sure, the computers they use could contaminate your drive but that's a risk for all forensics, be it DNA / fingerprint / whatever.

    The point is that the forensic science service would be using a standard bit of kit so, if you knew your computer didn't have whatever they found on it, examining the kit they used and claiming contamination would be a defence option open to you.

    --
    Nick
  53. Well, US TSA has been using this since last year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US TSA has been using these since last year to copy my hidden TrueCrypt file containers every time I go through airport security. So far so good.

  54. Very easy to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...all it takes is to load up some FM onto the USB device.

    *FM = "Fucking Magic"

  55. A new motherboard feature seems called for by stevelinton · · Score: 1

    and I never previously new there was a need for the circuit that dumps 10000 volts into the USB port unless disabled by the right software action.

  56. Problem... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about investing more into proper trained cops? How about better education?

    Cops receiving official training as computer forensics are no longer simple beat cops - they are computer forensics experts and they should be treated and paid as such.
    So, besides their police training they would probably require something equivalent to a BA/BS.

    And even if there was enough time and money to educate and pay them later - system needs its beat cops too. Not just highly trained computer forensics.

    What they would like to have is a "breathalyser-style tool for computers that could instantly flag up illegal activity on any PC it's attached to".
    Which is delusional, even when you limit it to "a simple tool to preview on site and identify there's that one email [they] are looking for [so they] can then use that and interview the person now, rather then waiting six to 12 months for the evidence to come back" in cases such as "credit card fraud or selling stolen goods online".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  57. Police want a magic stick that can tell the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, daemons were driven from a pig in Gloucester. Apparently a local farmer mistook it for a dead badger...

  58. USB "port" connected to second power cord by RancidPickle · · Score: 1

    Gets rid of all those nasty attempts to break in. Sometimes will get rid of nasty Bobbies. Make sure you put a little lightning sticker near the port so you can say, "Well, it was marked as power, but the gent plugged it in there anyway and started a cool light show. I assumed he knew what he was doing."

    --
    "First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
    - Doctor Who
  59. Do us a favor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a USB key set up to detect and remove zombies / open-relay / spam junk / malware, FTP install system updates and security patches, and do general system hardening on my friends & co-workers PCs in a hands-free fashion? Just plug in, let it zap the badness away while I have a coffee, then charge them $50 for the housecall.

  60. virus danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your computer was virusfree before it may not longer be afterwards....

  61. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I arrest that thug?
    Computer says no!

  62. What about "extreeeeme" pr0n? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    It's not just child porn that's illegal to possess in the UK now. I'd be curious to know if their device would handle so-called "extreme" adult images - given that the law is so vaguely worded that neither the police (also here) nor the Crown Prosecution Service have a clue what should be illegal to possess under the law, I'd be curious to see how a USB device can do the job...

    1. Re:What about "extreeeeme" pr0n? by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now if you are going to get down to the nitty gritty, how about reading the warranty 'er' end used licence agreement on the windows operating system. You know the bit, where it says that they do not warrant the operating system is free of viruses (illegal content) when they sell it to you. Now the law wants to make every person 100% legally responsible for all the content on a computer when the operating system supplier will emphatically not take any responsibility for the security, stability or reliability for that software when thy initially supply it to the consumer.

      As it stands now, just the contents of a hard disk drive should never ever be considered the sole defining evidence of a persons innocence or guilt for any crime because only the most competent computer security experts are capable of keeping a computer secure and safe when connected to the internet and they must make continued efforts to keep it that way. So the law and the courts are turning a blind eye to the reality of the situation.

      How many computer geeks out there actually believe that the typical computer using noob should be held legally liable for the activity of their computer, so when it is used in a botnet to commit credit card fraud should that family spend the next five years in jail for the crime they have committed for which they must now prove innocence. You can't even claim that there was no evidence of a virus, as the operating system warranty itself states that they may exist (benefit of the doubt) and of course a smart criminal will clean up any evidence that leads to them after using someone else's device in a major crime.

      So the police hook up a device based upon using a operating system that does not warrant that it is free of viruses, to a suspects PC, and claim that the device is now free of viruses when the manufacturer directly refutes that claim, so the police will try to claim they did not infect the suspects machine and put the illegal content on that computer. A a very minimum I would hope they use publicly audited software, open source and not closed source proprietary software that the manufacturer believes already contains viruses as per their warranty and that includes the whole and complete evidence chain.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:What about "extreeeeme" pr0n? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      Even if they tried to apply this in the UK, you could probably easily short-circuit the whole process when the cops take you to court over your folder full of jpegs labelled "hot dog on dog", only to open it up in front of the judge to show your pictures of last summer's canine frisbee catching contest...

    3. Re:What about "extreeeeme" pr0n? by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      So the law and the courts are turning a blind eye to the reality of the situation.

      And this is surprising?

  63. Yet another reason to move to Linux by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    ...as if there weren't enough already.

    You can bet this thing will entirely operate on the presumption that every PC runs windows.

    1. Re:Yet another reason to move to Linux by Vault_of_Thrones · · Score: 1

      "Device cannot be read, would you like to initialize it?"

    2. Re:Yet another reason to move to Linux by jimicus · · Score: 1

      ...as if there weren't enough already.

      You can bet this thing will entirely operate on the presumption that every PC runs windows.

      You are assuming that Linux is some sooper sekrit thing that only you and a few others know about - and that nobody in the IT forensics business is even remotely aware that it exists, much less that it uses different filesystems.

      Hint: The IT forensics trade is mostly comprised of significantly more tech-savvy people than your average police station.

  64. What? by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    They still have crime in the UK?

    I thought they eliminated all crime with all their surveillance cameras, and speed cameras etc.

    Surely they must do more to fight crime.

    Perhaps mandatory random strip searches, home inspections, unfettered police access to citizens residences and possessions for examination for criminal activity.

    Or increase the penalties for all crimes to bankrupt jaywalkers, and incarcerate speeders for life.

    This UK government is too lax. They need to begin to take charge and control and monitor the population better.

    They should arrest/execute citizens before a crime occurs. That should be the goal.

    1. Re:What? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      They should arrest/execute citizens before a crime occurs. That should be the goal.

      Don't joke.

      Our Beloved Leaders have already considered profiling people for possible criminal tendencies and locking them up in advance of them committing any crime.

    2. Re:What? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Jaywalking is legal in the UK.

    3. Re:What? by The+Slashdot+8Ball · · Score: 1

      Yes,

      we call it "crossing the road"

    4. Re:What? by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      Well hang on to that freedom dearly. I'm surprised they haven't outlawed it, or taxed it, or otherwise regulated it, other than having surveillance cameras on you while you cross.

  65. Search != Seizure by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    I'd also like to see a return to search warrants being just that - search warrants. The police can look all they like, but if the Government wants to steal all the electronic equipment that a person owns without compensation or guarantee it will be returned anytime soon, or in working order, it can pass a new law, and then require that police obtain specific seizure warrants. I suspect that the only reason the public tolerate this is because most people still have this idea that a search warrant means just what it says - a search.

    Giving compensation should go without saying, I agree - I don't even care if it comes from public money, at least then the cost is spread (and the Government have to justify the increased taxes), rather than the risk of being the unlucky one who loses all access to the Internet, my personal documents, photographs, emails, and perhaps my livelihood, for an unknown amount of time, with not a penny of compensation.

    I would also add that if they have a backlog, WTF are they stealing yet more computers? Finish with the ones they have.

  66. I'm glad by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Mostly, I'm glad that I keep all my bestiality and S&M in the cloud. The snuff films, too. No point in having that stuff on my hard drive, where the cops can find it. It's all filed in my Gmail account, in the folder below my "Homeland Surveillance spy stuff". No one will EVER think of looking online!!

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  67. UK Deconstructed by omb · · Score: 1

    The Expenses scandal has already claimed Jacki Smith (Home Secretary aka Minister of Justice), and Brown and the Labour Party will be massacred by the electorate at the polls.

    1. Re:UK Deconstructed by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Jack Straw is the Minister of Justice. That's a separate job from Home Secretary.

      Home Secretary is in charge of the police etc, Minister of Justice is in charge of the courts.

    2. Re:UK Deconstructed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Expenses scandal has already claimed Jacki Smith (Home Secretary aka Minister of Justice), and Brown and the Labour Party will be massacred by the electorate at the polls.

      Is it just me, or is Jacqui Smith the most creepy, more-or-less openly fascist public office holder in the English-speaking world?

  68. Don't keep anything on your drive by selven · · Score: 1

    Keep it all on various web hosting services with encryption and steganography, and use a ubuntu livecd to access it, so no permanent evidence that you have any online data ever exists. For bonus points, keep a folder on your actual hard drive called "Child Porn" and fill it with screenshots of naked children in Disney movies.

  69. That's a different thing by I)_MaLaClYpSe_(I · · Score: 1
    The COFEE stick is used for "merely" acquiring digital evidence. See this part of your quote:

    for later interpretation by computer experts

    The summary describes a tool that will also interpret the evidence found.

    What COFEE will do for you is to gather volatile information on life windows systems like running processes, open network connections, system date and time, RAM contents etc. The disk contents are not acquired as they will supposedly remain as they are.

    In contrast to this the tool the summary mentions should not acquire any evidence but instead search through existing evidence and interpret it, like searching through your harddrive for keywords on a bad word list or searching for hashes of known kiddypr0n etc.

    There is a big difference there:

    If Microsoft's tool is the equivalent of a toolkit designed to help a cop take a sample of your blood for later testing of anything illegal in your blood that will not be there anymore several hours later when a doctor will do the same, the tool described in the summary is the equivalent of a tool designed to tell the cop if there is anything illegal in your blood without acquiring the blood for later analysis by an expert.

    Although this is quite a bad analogy as the device in my analogy might well be technically feasibly. Let's instead consider the following analogy:

    Instead of using a camera in order to take pictures of a suspected crime scene they want to use a device similar to a camera that instead of acquiring evidence from suspected crime scenes will allow a cop to look through it at any scene in order to see if a crime has happened at all.

    Imagine a cop on the open street looking through a camera at you and then getting arrested because the camera told him that you somehow supposedly committed a crime.

  70. The UK police want a magic wand. by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

    Who doesn't want a magic wand?

    1. Re:The UK police want a magic wand. by dugeen · · Score: 1

      'I would like to see more fairy stories about the police'. 'And so you shall' If the police are really after a conviction, they always bring the evidence with them anyway. And they'll continue to do so as long as they are allowed to control the forensic process from start to end. It needs to be handed over to an impartial public service with all due speed.

  71. Better Yet by LSDelirious · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just surgically implant USB ports into the brainstems of every man woman and child in the UK, you know just in case they were THINKING about child porn or terrorism.... second thought, maybe it should be esata instead

    --
    Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; A Corporation is the legal fiction that property is a person.
  72. All time best geek sig! by condition-label-red · · Score: 1

    Someone's going to be (Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2

    All time best geek sig!

    --
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
  73. Firewire. by drolli · · Score: 1

    They need firewire.

  74. A better solution. by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

    ... would be to put a portrait of the Prime Minister in every home which has a small spy-cam installed.

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
  75. How about this? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    Grep "porn"

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  76. Holy S#tt by Burz · · Score: 1

    MS is advertising that Windows has a backdoor now??!

    I really don't see how else 'plug in USB device and collect live data' can be interpreted.

    Here is my urgent advice for Linux users:
    sudo apt-get remove w32codecs w64codecs silverlight msttcorefonts

    1. Re:Holy S#tt by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      MS is advertising that Windows has a backdoor now??!

      I thought this was pretty widely known? IIRC, they are mandated by US law to provide a backdoor for 'intelligence' and 'law enforcement' agencies.

  77. I like to see them stick that in my Amiga. by ancient_kings · · Score: 1

    Dumb Officer: "Captain, this computa doesn't appear to have a USB port?" Even Dumber Officer (Captain) : "Sure it does, I see two in the front. Just use a hammer and tap it in" Dumb Officer: "Derrrr, okay"

  78. Re:Oh geez! This is too easy! by Meski · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the 'owner' (SID) of the file be incorrect for someone writing files onto, say an NTFS volume from a Linux USB key?

  79. Zap 'em by mbstone · · Score: 1

    What I want is a gizmo inside my PC that will detect rogue spy-USB devices and give 'em the ol' Tesla....

  80. good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With EU human rights laws and my rights not to incriminate myself and the fact my HD is sector encrypted. :)

  81. Nice! by kyriacos · · Score: 1

    And after they are done collecting personal information from your laptop, they will forget the USB stick on a bus and, next thing you know, your identity will be sold on eBay.

  82. That's easy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't remember it therefore it PROVES I've forgotten it.

    If I'd not forgotten it, I would be able to remember it.

    Duh.

  83. Who's that at the door, Darling? by SST-206 · · Score: 1

    OMG NO! It's The Bottom Inspectors! Quick! Hide the children!!!1

    --
    Co-operation beats competition
  84. Unless by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    How about we get around to changing that to "Innocent UNLESS proven guilty"...

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  85. Huh, that reminds me.. by keshet · · Score: 1

    ..where did I put that? *rummage* *rummage*.. Ah, here it is..
    http://www.kashat.net/unregistered.html

  86. UK cybercops demand magical digital snake-oil by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Informative

    UK police are asking for a "breathalyser"-style tool for computers that could instantly flag up illegal activity on any PC it is attached to.

    Detective Superintendent Charlie McMurdie, who is what passes for a computer expert in the police force, said such a tool could run on suspects' machines, instantly read and analyse their email, web browsing and chat logs, identify credit card fraud or selling stolen goods online, reliably detect and assess images containing children on the five-level child porn scale and create a handy log of relevant evidence. And a pony.

    "It's surely just a simple matter of programming," said McMurdie. "We're seizing so many computers from people with a copy of Virgin Killer that frontline police need a digital forensic tool as easy to use as the breathalyser, to magically flash up 'HONEST UPSTANDING CITIZEN' or ''E'S A NONCE, GUV'. Do we need to seize five computers, all their mobile phones, their CD and DVD collection and basically everything that runs on electricity, or could we use a magical police gadget with impressive flashy lights and stuff? I thought computers were supposed to make life easier!"

    The eventual development of such a tool could help ease a backlog of digital forensic work that has officers waiting up to a year for evidence to be recovered from seized machines, though threatening to destroy people's livelihoods has proven very efficient in extracting confessions.

    EDS Capita Goatse have promised they can "absolutely, definitely, certainly, probably" produce such a tool with only an ironclad GBP100m five year contract, and also reliably determine whether a computer program halts or not. The Internet Watch Foundation also demanded to be involved, and were told their details would be kept on file.

    "It was so much simpler in the old days," sighed McMurdie. "People asking you what time it was, burglars with domino masks and striped jumpers and bags marked 'SWAG,' chirpy Cockney sparrow second-hand car dealers wiv a heart of gold ... you just can't get the wood, you know."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  87. USB Tools by SehbaJoe · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the shameless promotion, but some forensic specialist may want to know that Guardware sells a USB tool that scans drives looking for pornographic images and verbiage on any drive. http://www.guardware.com/ts_overview.php

  88. You're missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have reached a point in time where beat cops are becoming cumbersome and obsolete.

  89. I'll sell them a system right now for 10% off by gearloos · · Score: 1

    I have this "top secret" system I developed that is production ready and I'm willing to let it go for 10% cheaper. It will also boot from a cd and then run a file from usb (or wherever you want to run it from)and they can enter any crime terms they want to find "hidden" things in text files etc....Whats this awesome system you ask? It's a Linux Live CD and a copy of grep or egrep and ls...What a revelation. Why don't they just have an actual CS guy on the payroll that knows what he is doing. Might save millions.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  90. Nah, you don't need all that by marcus · · Score: 1

    Just make this a required feature: OP

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
  91. use a Fake USB slot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which gives a very bad shock when someone plugs in something.

  92. Corrupted partition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly why I have a partition created by trucrpt randomly written over.

    Yes, it looks like a 'hidden' partition. It's on the large size - 120GB. It's obvious. No, I can't unlock it. There's nothing to 'unlock'.

    Just waiting for the day that WILL come where they will say 'you have other stuff, this must be a hidden partition, tell us the key' 'no' 'okay, jail for you while we break this stash'.

    I wonder how long it is going to take them to find 1. my blog or 2. the source code to the c program I wrote to randomly overwrite the partition (taking care to really mess up the header).

    CAPTCHA: forgets