Police Increasingly Looking To Smartphones For Evidence

Barence writes "Your smartphone could place you at the scene of a crime, destroy an alibi or maybe even provide one – which is why one of the first things police now do at the scene of a crime is take away a suspect's cellphone. This look into smartphone forensics reveals how even wiping incriminating data from iPhones isn't enough to get criminals off the hook. 'If you're looking at your email messages and you rotate the phone, there's a snapshot of that message,' said Phil Ridley, a mobile phone analyst with CCL-Forensics. And what people leave on their phones is horrific. 'We were contacted by police who couldn't get a video to work on a handset – it turned out to be a bloke beheading someone in his garage,' claimed another forensics expert."

Comments

Location proves nothing

[nurb432]

it shows your phone was at the scene, it doesn't prove YOU were.

Re:Location proves nothing

[KingBenny]

in communist belgium, guilty is what you are until proven otherwise ...

Re:Location proves nothing

[The MAZZTer]

Ah but if the phone is taken from the suspect, it would seem likely. Smartphones are fairly expensive in terms of both money and investment in a phone contract, so people tend to not leave them laying around I would think.

Re:Location proves nothing

[etymxris]

Just like having an unsecured wifi network doesn't prove that YOU sent that threat to the president. Except juries don't find that very convincing. And even where it is true that someone is committing crimes through your wifi network, such as in a recent case, you still get to have all your computers seized and combed through. If you actually had been doing something illegal, even if it wasn't what the search warrant was for, you'd still be prosecuted. Because the police had reasonable cause to search your possessions.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Luckyo]

Just because someone saw someone who looked a lot like you, doesn't mean it's you.

But it does show that you were likely there, which is often enough to convict when coupled with other evidence, none of which would have enough enough on its own.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Dan667]

you can just use the Alberto Gonzales defense. "It is my phone, but I don't know why it was there". and for any other questions "I don't remember"

Re:Location proves nothing

[nurb432]

Of cousre it could be a piece of evidence to be included with others, I'm just saying that your phone being somewhere alone it doesn't prove a thing. it might imply, but its not *proof*.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Trepidity]

I don't think that's a Belgium-specific thing, unfortunately; in the U.S. as well, if cell phone records place your cell-phone at the scene of the crime, then you face an uphill battle trying to argue that you weren't there.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Opportunist]

No, but I'd gladly attach it to my dog when I plan to commit a crime.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Luckyo]

If I got a euro for every time someone who really thought that got convicted by a jury OF THEIR PEERS, I'd be a very rich man.

Remember, it doesn't have to be absolute proof. It doesn't even have to be proof that will satisfy legal professionals. You're judged by a jury OF YOUR PEERS. People who can be very stupid, and very easily led by both prosecution and defense attorneys.

Re:Location proves nothing

[VortexCortex]

Neither does DNA. DNA proves that your DNA was at the scene, not you, but try convincing an ignorant judge and jury of this...
Think about this next time you toss a disposable coffee cup into the trash, or scratch your head in public... Is there someone in that room with you that matches your basic physical description?

Might I not be collecting your DNA, and/or your wireless signatures (via my laptop -- Hint: GSM & CDMA are cracked) so that I can place you at the scene of my next crime?

Sure: "What are the chances -- Tinfoil hat!"
That's EXACTLY how I want you to think, and how much of the public does think -- Surely no-one would exploit this fact...

Let's just hope all criminals are just dumb, and won't think to commit a crime when they know you won't have an alibi, and that when the cops "like you" as a prime suspect due to DNA and digital evidence that they take several other suspects to court as well-- Wait, what's that you say? They only try ONE person via trial? Oh, that's right, because if they prosecuted several at once, and the courts found TWO suspects guilty of the same crime... It would totally undermine the public's faith in the justice system!

Bwa-Ha-HAHAHA... Hahahaha... Oh, oh--damn, Haha-ha--- ha, heh, heh, HAHAHA!

Re:Location proves nothing

[cdrguru]

Just like having an unsecured wifi network doesn't prove that YOU sent that threat to the president. Except juries don't find that very convincing. And even where it is true that someone is committing crimes through your wifi network, such as in a recent case, you still get to have all your computers seized and combed through. If you actually had been doing something illegal, even if it wasn't what the search warrant was for, you'd still be prosecuted. Because the police had reasonable cause to search your possessions.

Uh, that isn't exactly true. It depends on what they were looking for, what they found and where they found it.

Let's say your computer gets examined because the little boy next door says you showed him some nasty videos of other little boys. So they dig around in your computer and find not videos of little boys but videos of little girls. Not in an Internet Explorer cache folder but in a folder named Suzy. Yup, I think you are going down for it.

However, in the course of a full examination of the computer they find a file with 10,000 credit card numbers and the folder is buried seven levels down through hidden folders and such that nobody without a forensic tool would ever find it is probably meaningless. Not only would this be evidence of a completely different crime but it wasn't something that was in "plain sight" and was certainly clearly outside of the search warrant. Now if the file with 10,000 credit card numbers was on the desktop with a name like StolenCreditCards.txt that would be a different story entirely.

This comes up all the time and for the most part it is addressed through on-site previewing of the computers today. If they don't find anything obvious they aren't even going to collect the computers because of the backlog in the computer forensic lab. The lab folks are just going to make a report to the prosecutor anyway and the prosecutor is the one that got the warrant in the first place. They know the limits of what they can do based on the original search warrant. That doesn't mean you are going to get away with it because whatever is found can then be used to justify further investigation, but not as evidence at trial.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are too stupid

Re:Location proves nothing

[DrgnDancer]

It is circumstantial evidence to be sure, but a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence can build a case or can provide a level of verification to stronger evidence. Generally the cops don't pick up one piece of incriminating evidence, say "Whew, glad that's over" and go home. Let's imagine a completely contrived scenario where a man is caught on tape robbing a bank. He claims it was his brother, who does look a lot like him. If his phone were at the bank at the time of the robbery, his brother's fingerprints weren't on the device, and an e-mail with personal information was sent very shortly after the robbery, it certainly helps the DA build a case.

Re:Location proves nothing

[westlake]

it shows your phone was at the scene, it doesn't prove YOU were.

It is one piece of the puzzle.

If you were on the phone at 10:00 and 11:00 and the crime was commited between 10:15 and 10:45, you have a problem.

Even if you cannot be fenced in quite that tightly your location can probably be fixed closely enough to interest a jury. Remeber that a jury only has to be persuaded of your guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Based on the weight of the evidence when seen and considered as a whole.

Re:Location proves nothing

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Occam's razor.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

You can ask about 15 teenagers arrested for criminal trespass at a local park about this where I live. A couple months ago, the city DA got location records from the cell providers, found location logs of people's cells who were at a park after dusk, then did a mass arrest sweep.

Just the fact their phones were in the park after dusk was good enough for a jury to convict and give them 3-6 months in jail each.

Re:Location proves nothing

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Don't know about you but my location and my cell phone's location are closely correlated. So unless you can offer an explanation that creates a reasonable doubt that that wasn't the case (e.g. I reported it stolen) it's a pretty good assumption.

Re:Location proves nothing

[CharlyFoxtrot]

This is why in Belgium some people are trying to get rid of jury trials. There was a judgement by the EU court of human rights that a particular case was unlawful because the jury did not provide motivation for the verdict. So now we have a compromise where jury trials still exist but the jury also has to provide a detailed reasoning as to why they pronounced the verdict given. In theory that should at least force the jury to be able to give a reasonable account of why according to the law they find the accused guilty/innocent.

Re:Location proves nothing

[pete6677]

Well it is in fact very unlikely the phones walked themselves into the park after hours and then walked out of the park all on their own. Unless the phones had all been reported stolen or something, I think its a pretty reasonable explanation that the phone records prove that trespassing took place.

Re:Location proves nothing

[TheGratefulNet]

isn't that 'fruit of the poisoned tree' when you go looking for one thing, don't find it but stumble on another? if your warrant is for X, you are allowed to look for X. if Y shows up, its an illegal search.

?

Re:Location proves nothing

[Gordonjcp]

Wait, what? You can be jailed for six months for going to the park in the US?

Makes me even more glad I live in the UK.

Re:Location proves nothing

[LibRT]

The other problem with DNA (and fingerprints too) is that they don't come with a time stamp. All they can say is that you were there at one point in time.

Re:Location proves nothing

[MaskedSlacker]

That's a very bad thing. It's a long standing principle in British and American jurisprudence, all the way back to the 1600s, that juries do not have to justify their verdicts and cannot be held accountable for them. This was to prevent tyrannical rulers from retaliating against juries for not convicting people the rulers didn't like for political reasons (specifically it comes from the trial of William Penn, and the persecution of the jury for refusing to convict him, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn#Persecutions ) Requiring juries to justify themselves just gives the tyrannical powers that be more control.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Entropius]

The problem here isn't that the police used electronic forensics in a criminal investigation; the problem is that the "crime" in question shouldn't have been illegal in the first place.

I, and probably you, have no problems with the police using such techniques to investigate real crimes, like robbery, theft, arson, etc. There's nothing wrong with this investigation technique -- the problem is that we are persecuting people for being in a public space after dark, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Paracelcus]

The problem with juries is that people with jobs that don't offer paid jury leave (almost all of them) want you to lose money and participate in a charade, playing along with the corrupt, arbitrary, capricious and above all political game being used by an elected prosecutor to gain points so as to further his/her ambitions! The outcome is that most jurors are not workers, but rather are retired or otherwise unemployed. All this leads to a very disgruntled jury pool, unhappy people who consciously or subconsciously undermine the entire process.

The police don't really care who is or is not guilty, they only want to get a case off their plate, the prosecutor will, however use any case as a tool for self-aggrandizement, he/she will make a toy of the unlucky/guilty/suspect, including but not limited to "perp-walks", press conferences/releases, etc designed to cast a guilty shadow over the accused.

And in cases where the death penalty is carried out in some states they try to take/seize assets from the condemned's family to get him/her to sign a document making him/her to pay for his/her "execution".

I am getting off topic, to make a short statement like "Evidence? we don't need no stinking evidence!" would summarize the entire diatribe.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had stolen credit card info I'd store them in my Morrowind ini, that thing is messy.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Smartphones are fairly expensive in terms of both money and investment in a phone contract, so people tend to not leave them laying around I would think."

If I wanted to commit a crime, and I knew my phone was tracking its location, I'd place my phone someplace I want the cops to think I am during the crime. Or I'd leave it at home or place it in someone elses possession.

What's worse, the consequences for committing a crime, or the cost of a phone.

Then again, most criminals aren't very smart.

Re:Location proves nothing

[fhage]

That's a very bad thing. It's a long standing principle in British and American jurisprudence, all the way back to the 1600s, that juries do not have to justify their verdicts and cannot be held accountable for them.

Too bad this isn't true any more in the US. You can be charged with a crime if you vote to acquit a person and other jurors or the prosecutor doesn't like your politics. This happened to juror Laura Kriho in Colorado in 1997. She was the lone holdout to acquit on a drug possession charge.

"Unable to persuade the other jurors of her view of the evidence, she also used nullification and sentencing consequences arguments. The judge signed contempt of court charges against her two months later." http://www.ndsn.org/marapr97/kriho.html "She was issued the contempt citation for failure to inform the court, without being asked, that she had been arrested as a teenager thirteen years earlier for possession of an illegal substance. She was apparently supposed to have remembered each question asked to all of the preceding jury candidates and, then, at the end of the very long voir dire process, volunteer answers to possible questions she wasn't asked." http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/1998/09/jury_nullification.html

If ever called to to a trial as a juror I will inform the judge that I feel compelled to always vote to convict because I don't want to be held in contempt for not answering questions I was not asked, like Laura Kriho in 1997.

"Former juror Dan Cooper testified at Kriho's hearing that he overheard Judge Barnhill tell prosecutor Stanley to "look into this" after Kriho went to her car and returned with a pamphlet advocating jury nullification to give to another juror. The juror gave the pamphlet to Judge Barnhill. Grant says Stanley did "look into it" with the help of Gilpin County Judge Frederic Rodgers who wrote an article this summer for the Judge's Journal about what a judge can do when faced with a jury pool "tainted" with notions of jury nullification."

If you think you have power as a Juror, think again. Laura Kriho was convicted and fined $1200 for attempting jury nullification.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Styros]

It doesn't have to prove you were at the scene. It only has to persuade the JURY beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't even have to eliminate all doubt. Just eliminate the reasonable ones.

Basically, if you claim you were home alone, but your phone was at the crime scene, you're in a world of hurt. Why was your phone at the crime scene? Did you lend it to someone? Did you lose your phone? When/where did you lose your phone? If you have no alibi, you're sunk.

Re:Location proves nothing

[F.Ultra]

>You're judged by a jury OF YOUR PEERS
Beeing a Bittorrent user, I don't think that they have a large enough courthouse to fit all my peers :)

Re:Location proves nothing

[YrWrstNtmr]

Wait, what? You can be jailed for six months for going to the park in the US?
Makes me even more glad I live in the UK.

As always, there is probably far more to the backstory than what appears here, or in any news story. Maybe Mr AC will grace us with the details.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Fnord666]

isn't that 'fruit of the poisoned tree' when you go looking for one thing, don't find it but stumble on another? if your warrant is for X, you are allowed to look for X. if Y shows up, its an illegal search.

It would only be ruled as poisoned if the original search warrant for 'X' were found illegal or improper. As long as the original warrant was legal and justified, then anything else they find is fair game also. There are limits of course. Although not related to the "poisoned fruits" discussion, if the police have a warrant to search your garage looking for a stolen riding lawn mower, they have no right to open a closed cigar box that was in a cabinet and subsequently find your stash. A cigar box could not possibly hold the lawn mower so they have no right or reason to look for it in there.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think about what could be done. Criminals or corrupt cops could steal an innocent person's phone to implicate them in a crime. Just imagine someone who wants to do something. . . They just rob someone's house for their phone, analyze the data on it to know who the person is, keep the phone on them when they commit the crime and then call the police saying they saw the person they ripped off doing it. . .

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, pervert! Drop that tissue! *blush*

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

There is typically no "likely" or "unlikely." The Earth isn't "likely" round; it is either round or it isn't.

What you speak of is someone's willingness to believe something. They believe that the person was "likely" there. Either they were or they were not.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Reasonable" is subjective; so good luck trying to eliminate all "reasonable doubt."

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but the next time a cop returns my phone to me spattered in blood, I'd better have a better conversation topic planned than the Mets. Maybe I should buy a special case too? Should help with the cleanup.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Bing Tsher E]

No, all the can say is that you had some form of contact with whatever the DNA or fingerprint has been linked to. The location of said 'whatever' is also sometimes indeterminate. IOW unless the trace is attached to something unmovable almost nothing can really be deduced.

Re:Location proves nothing

[SpongeBob Hitler]

Maybe Mr AC will grace us with the details.

You must be new here.

Re:Location proves nothing

[demonlapin]

The first rule of jury nullification is that you don't talk about jury nullification - at least, don't talk about it if you actually intend to do it. "I'm not going to convict him, I think the cop was an unreliable witness and perhaps planted the drugs" is not subject to review by anyone.

Re:Location proves nothing

[sobriquet.net]

IANAL, but I do work in computer (and mobile phone) forensics.

While no one piece of evidence "proves" an entire case (even fingerprints on a murder weapon), it's typically the collective mass of evidence which makes the case.

The great thing about mobile phones is that they are, typically, personal devices. While people commonly share desktop (and to a slightly lesser degree, laptop) computers, it is much less common for people to share a mobile phone.

That said, it's certainly not impossible, and if a suspect raised the "shared phone" defence, I would certainly go looking for any indication that another person had used it - internet history, logged in accounts and many other forensic artifacts could be used to either support or refute such a claim.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Luckyo]

Fyi, earth isn't round. It's actually an elongated ellipsoid that is thicker along equator due to inertia. That is a fact.

In criminal investigations, NOTHING is an actual "established fact" in the same measure. Everything is according to someone testifying. Even post mortem is a testimony of a doctor. All evidence is "likely" to be correct and proper and not planted - it's not certain like certainty that earth is an ellipsoid.
As a result, if you attempted to convict someone based on "absolute certainty", you would have a flat zero conviction rate. Convictions are handed on "likely enough to be guilty"-basis.

Oh and welcome to the real world.

Re:Location proves nothing

[LibRT]

Yes, you're quite correct. I used "there" to mean "in contact with the object containing the DNA or fingerprint" but should have been more specific. In my defense, it's been an awfully long day of lounging...

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its a pretty reasonable explanation

So now "a reasonable explanation" = "proof" ?

Re:Location proves nothing

[Shadow of Eternity]

So the fact that a notoriously inaccurate system which says only where their phone was is enough to prove Beyond All Reasonable Doubt that they themselves were trespassing? Sorry but even if you ignore the enormous problem of them just getting hold of everyone's locations like that I don't buy it.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Xeranar]

Actually, yes. Only in math does proof exist. Otherwise it's all subjective evidence used in a deductive manner. Call it Schrodinger's Murder. We're not sure if Schrodinger murdered anybody since the actual murder took place in seclusion, it is forever locked in an array of varying options that prevent us from knowing with absolute certainty. Since we can't open the box proverbially we're forced to use deduction and a certain amount of natural assumption within basic linear logic. So to use the phones in the park as an example if the teenagers had the phone prior to and after the park event the logic points to them having a continued linear possession. In other words: no, we're never going to have absolute proof unless the phones had video of them in the park after dark but we can safely say they were there by proxy of their phone possession.

If you want to muddy the water with stranger arguments feel free, that's fundamentally how the western legal system works. You're innocent until proven guilty but if the circumstantial evidence is monumental you mind as well kiss your ass goodbye.

Re:Location proves nothing

[KingBenny]

i guess you're right, we havent come that much further since innocent meant the witch did drown :)

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? You can be jailed for six months for going to the park in the US?

Makes me even more glad I live in the UK.

Trespass in a park after hours is a misdemeanor offense, I've never heard of anybody getting jail time. I also have hardly ever heard of anyone actually getting a ticket unless they were doing something else. In my town, it's like $20 for trespass after park hours but if you're not drinking, making noise, robbing people, vandalizing stuff, or dealing drugs you will never get a ticket.

Hell, I used to walk home from work at 3am through a park, right about the same time an officer did his nightly patrol of the park. He'd say hi, I'd wave and say hello, and sometimes he'd ask me if I'd seen anybody on my way through.

It's one of those laws that has good reasons for being there, but rarely has good reasons for being enforced rigorously. Kind of like jaywalking- there's plenty of places where it's really not a big deal, and the cops aren't going to bother you if you do it.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, it's certainly not impossible, and if a suspect raised the "shared phone" defence, I would certainly go looking for any indication that another person had used it - internet history, logged in accounts and many other forensic artifacts could be used to either support or refute such a claim.

If you can't prove that the suspect DID use it, it's still circumstantial unless you can show someone else WAS using it. Maybe there isn't any such proof, and maybe you either didn't find it or intentionally ignored it.

Re:Location proves nothing

[NiteShaed]

Laura Kriho was convicted and fined $1200 for attempting jury nullification.

You left out that she was ultimately aquitted. The judge and prosecutor who initially came after her were clearly very wrong, but in the end, the system corrected their actions, and reaffirmed the jurors right to be free from prosecution for decisions made during deliberations.

Re:Location proves nothing

[smash]

As i understand it, you merely need to be able to provide reasonable doubt to get acquitted. Unfortunately, if you were texting or making calls on your phone and this has been verified by party you were calling/texting then they have the phone in your possession. If the GPS says it was in the park, then guess what.

Try to provide /reasonable doubt/ in that case that you were NOT there and see how it goes with a jury...

Re:Location proves nothing

[smash]

If the user was using the phone, which should be easily verified by cell phone records / witness (other party to the call identifying you as making it) then too bad.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Gripp]

no. you are basically saying that people should be locked away and lives ruined on something of a statistical hunch.

chances are != guarantee. keep in mind that we are talking about real human lives here. possibly even yours! and while it is true that people in the west do frequently get convicted with nothing more than circumstantial evidence (mounting or not) this is simply an unfortunate side effect of poor legal representation and the general ignorance/fear/elitism of the public at large.

further, the mere fact that police tracked these teens using cell phone records is disgusting to me. THAT is proof positive that we need to push back against all of this anti-privacy BS IMO.

Re:Location proves nothing

[MacAndrew]

Yep. Evidence is pretty much all "circumstantial," some a lot less so, others more. Even a confession or video or whatever can have serious issues. ... and of course most criminals outside of TV shows and movies DON'T think things through meticulously. There are plenty of impulsive crimes and dumb criminals. It's one of the only silver linings on the correlation of bad education and bad acts. Plus most of us don't realize how much is being recorded all the time by cellphones, internal car computers, etc.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Fyi, earth isn't round.

I know. It was just an example.

In criminal investigations, NOTHING is an actual "established fact" in the same measure.

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about criminal investigations or anything of the sort. I was just saying that the proper way to say it would be, "I believe that this is likely." Stating it as a fact is, for the most part, incorrect.

Re:Location proves nothing

[mldi]

It's called circumstantial evidence. I doubt it could be used alone to incriminate anybody in a courtroom, but if it's provided in addition with other circumstantial evidence (say, nobody can prove they were somewhere else, phone was found in the suspect's possession later and so it wasn't stolen, nobody else admits to carrying it on them, etc), that kind of thing is often used to build corroborating evidence, which can be enough to put somebody away.

I'm no lawyer, not even an armchair lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Simple...

[bfmorgan]

Don't take your phone to a crime.

Re:Simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what some mule friends of mine say...

Re:Simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

We should not be worried about the police catching more criminals. The guilty should be caught and punished.

When it comes to police actions, the same cautions apply as with all police actions of force:
a- Personal integrity may be more important than catching criminals for minor offences (compare - jaywalking and file sharing doesn't justify lethal force)
b- Police may be corrupted and may misuse information (not as rare as it should be)
c- False accusations may be harder to disprove with information disadvantage
d- Police may misinterpret complex data
e- Police resources going into looking at smartphones could have been put to better use elsewhere

I'm sure there are other reasons too. However, that the bad guys gets caught isn't one of them.

Re:Simple...

[Bobakitoo]

In fact, leave your phone at home and use that as evidence that you where not on the crime scene. It surly work both way... i think.

Re:Simple...

[WindBourne]

Exactly.

Re:Simple...

[Dyinobal]

ah you'd think so but you'd be wrong. Evidence such as your phone being at home or some place else seems to be viewed with suspicion. That how ever doesn't apply to evidence that places your phone at the scene of a crime.

Re:Simple...

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Because it is reasonable to assume someone intelligent committing a crime would leave the phone at home while it is much less likely that someone would take your phone surrupticiously and commit a crime while carrying it all before you have a chance to report it missing. The two situation aren't exactly comparable.

Re:Simple...

[TheGratefulNet]

I have a smartphone but I leave mine at home MOST of the time. I think carefully about EVERY time I take it with me. it has usernames, passwords, history and stuff that LEO has zero right to see (imo). so, to be defensive against the thugs in blue, I leave mine home 99% of the time.

I don't carry a replacement but I might start carrying a dumbphone that is kept dumb (not even addr book). use it for emergencies and that's about it.

my smartphone uses wifi at home and I have no data plan. its mostly a toy for home use, I admit, but its being KEPT that way because of our broken legal system and our 'wayward' cops and lawyers and judges.

THE very definition of 'chilling effect'. I leave a several hundred dollar very-useful tool at home. thanks america. 'preciate it.

Re:Simple...

[TheGratefulNet]

UNLESS you have a habit of leaving it home. see my previous post; I leave mine home 99% of the time. even when its on, its in airplane mode and using only wifi and no data plan. there's nothing other than my own wifi that 'rats' on me, at least when its still at home.

I do think a dual approach is making more and more sense. you don't wear expensive jewelry to a 'dive bar nite out'. you pick what you bring with you, even if you don't realize it. so maybe a dumb phone for 'going out' and a smartphone for use at office or at home.

btw, this isn't just about phones but if you have a laptop in your car, with you and they arrest you, they can trawl thru THAT, at will, too. and probably compel you to decrypt or enter PF's or whatever.

if data is mobile and on the road with you, today, its at risk.

today, they search if you get arrested. perhaps tomorrow it will be mandatory data searches (we already have roadblocks that force you to submit to blood tests if they really want to know if you are DUI or not). you cannot refuse a roadblock test, either, btw, same as you cannot refuse to hand over your data system (phone, netbook, car gps, whatever)

Re:Simple...

[Sulphur]

Because it is reasonable to assume someone intelligent committing a crime would leave the phone at home while it is much less likely that someone would take your phone surrupticiously and commit a crime while carrying it all before you have a chance to report it missing. The two situation aren't exactly comparable.

How do you stay in contact with your *cough* associates *cough* during the insurance fraud (etc) if it is at home or turned off?

Re:Simple...

[slick7]

We should not be worried about the police catching more criminals. The guilty should be caught and punished.

When it comes to police actions, the same cautions apply as with all police actions of force: a- Personal integrity may be more important than catching criminals for minor offences (compare - jaywalking and file sharing doesn't justify lethal force) b- Police may be corrupted and may misuse information (not as rare as it should be) c- False accusations may be harder to disprove with information disadvantage d- Police may misinterpret complex data e- Police resources going into looking at smartphones could have been put to better use elsewhere

I'm sure there are other reasons too. However, that the bad guys gets caught isn't one of them.

This sure sounds like unlawful data mining on a physical level. It also means you have to be a tad smarter.
It also means that you need to password electronic devices, which for now, need a search warrant.

Re:Simple...

[Khyber]

Walkie Talkies, DUH. Almost nobody uses them any more, which makes it more obscure. With the ones with protected transmission, like most any Cobra, you're good to go.

Re:Simple...

[flappinbooger]

It also means that you need to password electronic devices, which for now, need a search warrant.

A previous article about police being very interested in smart phones (the one about them downloading the phones at traffic stops) mentioned that the tools of the trade, and the tools doing the trade, don't care if your smart phone is password protected or not.

Re:Simple...

[Bing Tsher E]

OMG, that means I must automatically be a strong suspect in countless crimes, since my only cellphone is a Tracphone that has been expired now for about six months, and thus sits at home all the time.
 

Re:Simple...

[demonlapin]

With a second, prepaid cell phone that you bought with cash and never take home.

Re:Simple...

[rtb61]

So I don't have a mobile phone, now the mind boggles as to how that would be viewed. That I don't exist or that I am guilty of all crimes where a mobile phone was not present.

Rest assured when I do eventually get a phone, I will never be so addicted to it that I am incapable of turning it off when I am not in the mood to receive calls, that I will tend to leave it in the car or at home rather than carry it around, it's primary function will be for me to make calls rather than receive calls and, that I will always pay more attention to the people I am with than to the phone.

Re:Simple...

[dryeo]

(we already have roadblocks that force you to submit to blood tests if they really want to know if you are DUI or not). you cannot refuse a roadblock test, either, btw ...

How do they force you to submit to a blood test at a roadblock? Have a judge there ready to sign a search warrant and a Doctor to remove the blood? Hold you down very firmly while removing the blood and hopefully you're not hemophiliac?
In Canada you can always refuse to give a breathalyzer sample and I'd presume a blood sample though I've never heard of taking a blood sample roadside. You just get charged with failure to blow with the same penalties as being DUI.
IIRC the one time they can legally get a search warrant for your blood and remove it is if you're in an accident and unconscious. Then the cop can phone a judge, swear that he thinks you're impaired and get a search warrant faxed. They have to give you the warrant when you wake up.
Then they need a doctor or medical technician to volunteer to remove the blood and they better remove 2 samples and put one aside for you to use to defend yourself with, eg getting it independently tested.

Re:Simple...

[slick7]

It also means that you need to password electronic devices, which for now, need a search warrant.

A previous article about police being very interested in smart phones (the one about them downloading the phones at traffic stops) mentioned that the tools of the trade, and the tools doing the trade, don't care if your smart phone is password protected or not.

Then encrypt with PGP (the backdoor free, one), or develop an app that does.
As they say, necessity is the motherfucker of an inventor.

Re:Simple...

[flappinbooger]

Then encrypt with PGP (the backdoor free, one), or develop an app that does.
As they say, necessity is the motherfucker of an inventor.

Is there a droid and/or iOS app that is un-backdoored to encrypt a smartphone? I'm thinking of something like truecrypt whole disk encryption for smartphones. Turn it on - bam, password please. Can't even dial the thing without a password. It's a brick. Can't usb it, can't pull the flash card, the whole thing is encrypted.

What about an inbound and outbound firewall to prevent undesired communications?

Turn off the fucking phone.

[h4rr4r]

If you are planning on committing a crime remove the battery from your phone. This goes for non-smartphones as well. Use a prepay for crime planning and ditch it as frequently as possible.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Yetihehe]

Or just leave it at home. Record saying that your phone was turned off before crime and turned on after, is worse than a record saying that your phone was all evening near your tv....

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[h4rr4r]

The battery in your phone has never died?
No need to shut it down, just yank the battery.

Leaving at home seems good too. Maybe even get someone to use it.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[jhoegl]

Yeah, most career criminals do this I believe. At least the smarter ones do.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[DarthBart]

I have an iPhone, you insensitive clod! I can't just "remove the battery"!.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[camperdave]

Low power != no battery. You don't think a phone logs when batteries are inserted and removed?

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[ColdWetDog]

I have an iPhone, you insensitive clod! I can't just "remove the battery"!.

iPhone users aren't criminals. You'll want to get an Android phone to slum around with your wicked friends.

Steve

Sent from your iPhone

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[u38cg]

Or just watch The Wire.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Opportunist]

No. Better. Make sure your phone keeps running around somewhere far, far away from the scene of crime. "Forget" it in a friend's car for the time being, attach it to your dog or if there's no better option, leave it at home, turned on and running.

Evidence works both ways.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bit hard to write to a log when you've no power, no?

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Anonymous Coward]

no they are rape victims

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[WindBourne]

Actually, iPhone users are just plain dumb, so removing a battery is a difficult concept. My guess is that many a crock who has a smart phone owns an iPhone.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[anagama]

In addition to leaving it at home, write an app that will make a text or two to your most frequently texted contacts and also perform a few innocuous internet searches. Automated outgoing phone calls might be more difficult because of the need for natural conversation. This way, not only is the phone on, you are actively using it, or so it seems. Problem is keeping the app hidden well enough that it won't be found on the phone.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"You don't think a phone logs when batteries are inserted and removed?"

I know for a fact that phones do not log when batteries are inserted and removed, unless the phone was designed by Chris Angel, in which case all bets are off of course.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Problem is keeping the app hidden well enough that it won't be found on the phone."

Where is the problem? Just have the app delete itself at a specified time.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Opportunist]

What need for conversation? Just make sure that the other side won't be there. Call a shop or two that you know is closed, have the phone listen to their recording for a few seconds and hang up.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[CrazyDuke]

No, but when your phone suddenly drops from the view of 3 cell towers at the same time. Well, either you went into a bank vault and closed the door, or... Which phones are in the view of which towers is logged from what I have seen.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

what? why not? the phone can write a status when it gets to 5%. if that status is not set, guess what, you yanked the battery! This is no different or harder then journaling or noticing a filesystem is unmounted uncleanly! Do you know for a fact because you have tested every phone on the planet?

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Capacitor.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

no different then noticing a filesystem has been unmounted uncleanly. Think for a sec, AC.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[flimflammer]

I'd give my phone to a friend I planned on claiming an alibi with.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[westlake]

If you are planning on committing a crime remove the battery from your phone. This goes for non-smartphones as well. Use a prepay for crime planning and ditch it as frequently as possible.

This assumes you --- and those you call --- are not under suspicion or surveillance for any other reason.

It can be very difficult to keep things plausible.

Small mistakes stand out:

Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time." Holmes: "That was the curious incident." ...

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Kidbro]

Sent from your iPhone

Now there's a sigworthy phrase if ever I saw one.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Maybe even get someone to use it.

Thereby involving someone else in the chain of events. Someone who could be a possible failure when questioned.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[YrWrstNtmr]

attach it to your dog

Defendant...are you in the habit of attaching your phone to your dog and letting it run around the neighborhood? Why?

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[flappinbooger]

"You don't think a phone logs when batteries are inserted and removed?"

I know for a fact that phones do not log when batteries are inserted and removed, unless the phone was designed by Chris Angel, in which case all bets are off of course.

Just to confirm, since you appear knowledgeable, are the cop/spy/FBI shows accurate in that the only way the phone doesn't "track" you is when the battery is pulled? Simply being off is not all the way off?

What does it do when the batt is in but the power is off?

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Anonymous Coward]

attaching your phone to your dog

There ain't no law...

(As an aside, "attaching your cellphone to your dog" is the best phrase ever.)

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[zippthorne]

I don't know what "career criminals" do, but obviously, if they're making a career out of it, they must have figured out *some* way of not getting caught. Unless they're actually career jailbirds, that is...

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Opportunist]

Because I trained my dog to come running home when he hears the phone ring. That way I can let him wander around and if it's time to come home I just call my number.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Cosgrach]

A hammer works just as well as removing the battery.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[The Wild Norseman]

No need to shut it down, just yank the battery.

*scanning logs of battery removal...*
*scanning...*
*battery removed from device: 16 times today*

Hrm... Either this is the phone of a master criminal, or the dude just owns a Blackberry...

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[smash]

Maybe even.... don't do crime?

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[smash]

Fail. All that means is that somebody used the phone while you were out (which if by no means out of the question if you do not live alone). Unless there is a voice call, to someone who can identify that it was your voice, that won't work. However, unless you've reported your phone stolen or loaned it and have someone willing to lie under oath to confirm this for you in court, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that you were with the phone when it was at the crime scene.

The video was Flash

[Trillan]

The subject couldn't watch it either.

Re:The video was Flash

[Anonymous Coward]

"My beheading videos are none of your damn business -- unless you're in it, of course." - The Queen of Hearts

Constitution in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

How this ended up not under the 4th amendment is utter bullshit, you couldn't give me a smart phone.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[dave420]

Don't commit crimes and you'll be OK.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[etymxris]

It's a British website. I would assume it's talking about British police. Though I doubt here in the US we fare much better.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

If you think that smartphones (and their seizure by police) present the gravest danger to the Constitution, you haven't been paying attention since Reagan was elected.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[rubycodez]

haha, what a hoot, since we now allow the government to unilaterally declare someone a criminal, and then harm and/or incarcerate and/or kill them without trial and without warrant.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[Opportunist]

So I'm guilty until proven innocent? Who said I committed a crime? If they only took cells from people who have been verified as criminals then yes, no problem about that. But ... that would make the whole point kinda moot, don't you think?

Re:Constitution in trouble

[dave420]

Who the fuck cares? The police can look over every inch of my phone. I'm not so far up my ass to have a problem with that.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[houghi]

I so wish that would be true.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[cob666]

So you're OK with the police confiscating your phone for days or even weeks? How is this not covered under the 4th or 5th amendment?

Re:Constitution in trouble

[BrokenHalo]

So I'm guilty until proven innocent?

Yes. Hadn't you noticed?

Re:Constitution in trouble

[Opportunist]

Know what? The police could come into my home and squat here for as long as they like. They can have a key, if it wasn't asking too much I'd like to close the door when I'm taking a dump but if they really wanna watch me when I'm on the can, hey, to everyone what they really enjoy. But I wouldn't want them in my phone or computer, though.

People define privacy, and which parts thereof are important to them, differently. I don't consider the place I park my cadaver in this important and sacred, but I can understand why other people might see it that way, so I guess I should be supportive since I, too, have places and things I hold dear that belong to my most private space.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[Opportunist]

Guess I didn't get the memo. But I'm still catching up reading, so far I'm somewhere in the late 90s.

Damn spam...

Re:Constitution in trouble

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Who the fuck cares?"

Mostly people who passed elementary school civics.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[spire3661]

The only private space left is the one in your head. If I cant remember something important it just doesnt get stored. If you REALLY worry about privacy, keep it all in your head.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

and that's not going to last too long.. MRI's and pictures show what you remember and don't, yada yada /just being real //and scary

Re:Constitution in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm guilty until proven innocent?

If you are a man, and a woman would like to claim you raped her: YES.
Look at the IMF boss, or Julian Assange.
There is no need for smart phone evidence. The woman said the man was guilty. Kill the rapist. Burn the witch.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[unencode200x]

The "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is dangerous in a democracy.

There is a great piece about it here: http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/05/14/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-everything-to-fear/

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." — James Madison

Re:Constitution in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey I started this thread. I wanted to follow up.

For those who say, "so what come look at it."
What if you are a developer, media, or just a traveler, now consider the phone they say is in your posession isn't your phone, obviously planted, but it has something bad on it, and they are holding you responsible.

For those that say they have nothing to hide are full of shit. You have passwords, and other monitary keys to hide.

This problem is in the fact that politicians, officials, cops have taken oaths to not let this happen, and yet it's still happening.

The problem is dishonor of the oath and nobody to face up and tell these fuckers no, no more.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[blackbeak]

So I'm guilty until proven innocent? ...

Yup, and even after proven innocent you're still guilty! Your best bet is to be sooo guilty that you become big enough to be considered innocent (and thus get a free pass, if not actual assistance, from the SEC or whatever regulating group is in charge of your particular area of operation). Welcome to the 21st century. Bwaa-ha-ha!

Re:Constitution in trouble

[Khyber]

Except civics is a middle school course.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[ravenshrike]

You missed the entire sequence with the drug war and drug sniffing dogs which are literally less reliable than flipping a coin?

"bloke beheading someone in his garage"

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure it wasn't a video of Highlander? Were there lightning and explosions when the guy was decapitated?

Re:"bloke beheading someone in his garage"

[muckracer]

> Are you sure it wasn't a video of Highlander? Were there
> lightning and explosions when the guy was decapitated?

I don't care. I just wanna get my phone back!

...Bloke?

[Chardansearavitriol]

what an oddly friendly term to be stuck right before decapitation.

Re:...Bloke?

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

they need to say things like that or they'll go crazy. Those professions can be a little twisted. I mean, sometimes it's all corruptions and removal of basic freedoms and conspiracies.. and sometimes you are dealing with plain sick fucks.

Well duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is about the USA, but how about just, you know, not commit a crime?

Re:Well duh...

[rubycodez]

How very quaint, you must be old and thinking about that obsolete trial, warrant, probable cause nonsense. That's all out the window now, citizen. This is the New America, where the government can declare you a criminal or enemy or terrorist.

Re:Well duh...

[Opportunist]

I didn't, and in a civilized, democratic and free country this is also the assumption of the law until proven otherwise. Which poses the question when this person was convicted of a crime so he had to hand the cellphone over without any other reason but an officer wanting it?

Re:Well duh...

[BrokenHalo]

...and in a civilized, democratic and free country this is also the assumption of the law until proven otherwise.

Assumptions are just that, and nothing more. There is no civilised society, and "freedom" is just a word that has no useful legal meaning. Justice is for those who can afford it, and if you happen to be pinged by any authorities as a dirtbag, you had better be prepared to mortgage your house and the life of your firstborn sprog if you want to stay out of jail or worse.

Re:Well duh...

[Khyber]

"I know this is about the USA,"

RTFA please. This is clearly in the UK.

Re:Well duh...

[ravenshrike]

Given just the number of federal laws on the books the idea that you will not commit a felony at some point in your lifetime is absurd improbable, to say the least

Re:Well duh...

[Bing Tsher E]

Grow up.

There is a civilized society. It's, uh, right out there.

Have fun, though, if that's what you're into.

This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[mysidia]

Your smartphone is your data.

So it is extremely odious that police take away a person's cell phone, if the person is not being arrested or at least charged with a crime.

This is a far more significant breach than mere 4th amendment stuff. Police are looking for information you have recorded, instead of evidence of a crime.

The routine taking away of life-critical devices from 'suspects' is a menace to society. This does more harm to innocent people than criminals.

For people who rely on their smart phones for all communications, this would be similar to police impounding the right arm or left foot of suspects, to attempt to 'analyze' if they held a weapon, and demanding DNA from random people at a scene who are 'suspects' (whether there is actual cause to suspect them or not beyond mere presence/appearance).

This should be solved legally and technologically dealt with. Cell-phones should regularly purge latent/hidden data when charging AND resist attempts to gather data from them.

If someone is a suspect, the police should have to get a special warrant to access cell phone data, and it should be served not by confiscating the physical device, but by the court granting the police 10 minutes to hold the suspect's phone, during which all "data capture" must be completed.

If the physical phone is confiscated under a warrant for confiscation of the phone, then only physical aspects of the phone should be subject to analysis, not private data the user had stored, unless previously discovered

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

Police departments are seldom equipped to handle combing a device for data, and we all know that most police officers are as tech illiterate as they can manage to be. My father was fatally shot a few years ago in his home, the police did an investigation and took 3 months past when the case was closed to return the hard drive from his computer to me. I'll be the first to say that that is excessive, but 10 minutes is rather brief.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Bios_Hakr]

I don't necessarily agree with your "life critical" reasoning.

However, I would like to think that the data on my phone would be encrypted. With Android, it shouldn't be too hard.

Things like date/time of calls and SMS don't need to be protected. Neither would location data. All these things can already be determined from 3rd party sources.

But the contents of my SD card (photos, text of SMS, calendar entries, etc) should be protected inside a TrueCrypt partition and secured with a long password.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Mass Overkiller]

I agree with your points but in the Real World this would never work out. Even though your data is YOUR DATA and thus should be private, no one is going to care - not the police, not their union or lawyers, not the judge. If you are not guilty and have enough money to sue the police, and take it to the supreme court, then good luck, you might get a law changed or reinterpreted. However for the rest of us, even if I was later released for XYZ fabricated crime, the police will still take my phone and pour through my private data looking for anything they want. And there wouldn't be a real world way to deal with that on my end.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

Password protect/lock your phone, dont use a 1 touch button to unlock. The cops wont be able to get into it right then and there, it would have to be sent to forensics, and if they ask you for your password you can plead the 5th.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[leonardluen]

10 minutes is by far not enough for several reasons. note: i have had computers and electronics seized by the DHS and kept for nearly 2 years (i was never charged and eventually everything was returned). my point is i have been on the receiving end of this, and even though having your stuff seized, especially if you have done nothing wrong, is really annoying, i will say that i understand why they keep it as long as they do.

the problem is entirely 100% the lawyers. if the police were only to take 10 minutes to copy the data and then return the device the defense lawyers would throw a fit and would argue how can it be proved that data came from a phone that is no longer in their possession. this is why they need to keep the physical devices until the case is either closed/dropped or all appeals are exhausted, even if on initial inspection they don't find anything useful on it. who knows on latter inspection maybe more information will be found that was missed the first time that can help either the defense or prosecution.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[jader3rd]

What's wrong with the police using evidence to reconstruct the scene of a crime?

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[fermion]

In the drug hysteria that hit the conservative and thoroughly corrupt administrations of Nixon(war on drugs 1971) and Reagan(1986 act to put minorities in jail for minor offenses and help cause the deficit to ballon) created a climate in which accused, not convicted, person would lose right to property and defense. Like the war on terror, an series of events were overblown to remove individual liberty.

The expansion of the states rights to take from citizens without due process really escalated when Nixon caved into the hysterical parents who decided not to raise their own children and Reagan realized he had a cool way to transferring tax money to his buddies. The idea that one could take property that was not evidence was novel at the time, but now accepted.

How does this relate? An office can search your car with no more probable cause than you are speeding. Now, in fact, the SCOTUS says that if you do not have access to the car a warrant must be gotten, but really why should a warrent every be provided because someone is speeding? It is the drug hysteria. Just like the terrorism hysteria.

Even with this the phone is never going to be a private apparatus. Police can search notebooks. The phone is often just an interface and the data sits on facebook which will roll over to the mildest pressure, or text which can be tapped. It astounds me that people are still being caught by their lovers because they are texting their other lovers. Do people check into foursquare at establishments they plan to rob? Do they text how they are going out a date with someone they plan to attack? Some of this is corrupt government, but some of it is simply incompetence. A certain amount of criminal activity I can tolerate, but incompentant criminals I never can. It is like bringing drugs to school or leaving notes about your plan to blow up a building in your house. Some people just want to get caught.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[ISoldat53]

Welcome to the Roberts' court.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Celarent Darii]

The text of the SMS is already in the Network operators computer.

I would be interested to know if the data stream (GPRS/3G) can actually be 'listened to" that is to say, that it could be unencrypted in the air. Certainly the receiving device has to be able to unencrypt it, but is it encrypted between the two points ? (could any other device intercept the data stream) ?

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[mysidia]

I'll be the first to say that that is excessive, but 10 minutes is rather brief.

A hard drive is larger and therefore takes longer to dump the data off of. The police should be required to dispatch a 'data dumper' to the site where an image is to be taken. The amount of time they are allowed to hold the hard drive should be based on the speed of the hard drive, and the total amount of time required for the drive to read and spit out all data to the dumper/logger device.

I believe law enforcement should be allowed to hold a hard drive for a maximum of 24 hours in any case, unless the evidence sought is solely a physical property of the device (for example, a bloodstain or fingerprint located on the hard drive case).

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[mysidia]

if the police were only to take 10 minutes to copy the data and then return the device the defense lawyers would throw a fit and would argue how can it be proved that data came from a phone that is no longer in their possession.

Police officers that intend to analyze a phone should bring a hardware data dumper with them, with logic for the appropriate type of phone to gather all information, and the hardware dumper should utilize trusted hardware cryptography to certify and digitally sign the combination of the serial number/IMEI of the device being data dumped along with a physical profile/picture of the device captured.

If they wish to hold on to the device longer, law enforcement should be required to meet a much higher standard of suspicion than "just investigating a possible suspect".

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[mysidia]

I don't necessarily agree with your "life critical" reasoning.

Well, it's not quite as bad as police seizing a senior citizen's prescription drugs (including heart medication), and claiming innocence when they die of a heart attack the next day due to their drugs being seized, but

A telephone is life critical as soon as you need to call 911 and cannot, because the police have taken your phone. Or you have your child calling you for help, but cannot answer, because your phone is gone.

Many people have a cell phone as their sole communications device, pay all their bills using their phone, and through smartphone based payment, the phone is essentially the payment method for many transactions.

It can also pose other problems beyond minor inconvenience -- for example, exposure of confidential work e-mails (assuming the officer didn't do something with the phone that caused a remote-wipe to be initiated).

Loss of ability to make contact for various services and receive potentially critical phone calls of various natures.

It is an inconvenience that noone should be allowed to impose for a light, transitory reason or mere "suspicion".

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Bing Tsher E]

Jeez. It's already been responded to in GP, where I was going to retort but didn't need to. But you persist.

Life-critical? Get a fucking life. If having the phone there at your side is so life-critical how did the human species survive for eons before cellphones without them?

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[sjames]

For many, the encryption is irrelevant.

I would not be very happy if the police took my phone. it's how people who need to talk to me get in touch. They wouldn't find anything incriminating on it (because I haven't done anything wrong), but I would suffer for them taking it.

Even moreso if they took my workstation where I earn my living. They need to be under much tighter limitations before they are allowed to just walk out the door with someone's means of earning a living.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Rich0]

Well, the issue is how hard it is to get it out. Suppose you securely encrypt the contents of the device. That might make it much harder to rapidly extract the data by imaging the memory and analyzing it. However, somebody could still browse the data on the screen and copy it down. That is, unless you combine it with a secure passcode. However, how useful is your phone going to be if it needs a STRONG passcode every 30 seconds, or whatever?

Also, you're not going to be able to trust that it is secure unless you have the source. Unless you want a boot-time passkey that means interfacing with TPM/etc however your phone provides it, and that is going to be very tricky and device-dependent.

That said, you'd get reasonable security if you implement the following:
1. Modify firmware so that you can't remotely mount or debug the device without entering a PIN on the phone. You of course need the source to as much of the phone as you can get to ensure you remove all backdoors.
2. Modify the firmware to encrypt just about everything but the bootloader with a strong boot-time password (with lots of rounds/etc).
3. Build into the firmware a panic key of some sort that does a quick shutdown (long-press of some button, etc).
4. Build into the hardware tamper switches that power off the phone if the case is breached (otherwise you're vulnerable to JTAG/etc).

Doing just this is going to be minimally intrusive to normal use. Maybe throw in a weak unlock PIN. However, you are vulnerable to being stopped with your phone unlocked and denied the opportunity to hit the panic key.

This doesn't protect you from being jailed until you reveal the code. A plausible-deniability system is the only thing that would work, but that would be really tricky. You'd need the fake OS updated as if it were in use with logs corresponding to anything that could be verified from the network. If your call log shows your last call six months ago and the phone company has a call a day ago then you'll lose plausible deniability.

And all of this begs the question of why they don't just get all this data from the cell towers. They wouldn't have screen-shots or camera data most likely, but they would be able to log location and call history, and most data is sent in the clear which gives a pretty good picture of what you're up to. All they need to do is just require companies to log all this stuff for 30 days or whatever.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[mysidia]

Jeez. It's already been responded to in GP, where I was going to retort but didn't need to. But you persist.

I made a solid case with examples for cell phones being life critical.

Get a fucking life. If having the phone there at your side is so life-critical how did the human species survive for eons before cellphones without them?

Oh, go fuck off, or make an honest, rational proposition. "Get a fucking life" is not persuading me that you have taken a legitimate position. If you don't want to discuss a matter you raised, you go get a life.

Your need to bring in dishonest propositions like "go get a life" that do not address the matter is candid evidence, to suggest you are at a dead end logically and have no rational reasoning left to support your position that cell phones are not life critical.

Just because human species survived in such poor conditions does not mean individuals fared well.

You can use the same argument to "prove" anti-biotics such as penicillin are not life critical, even if you are afflicted and will die within 24 hours if you don't take the medication. The human race survived without them for eons.

The human race survived without vaccinations too, and all sorts of medical inventions. That does not mean these things are not life critical; statistically, if you don't get vaccinated against certain things, you die young.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Xeranar]

Wow, in what crazy fun world do you live in? Anything on your being at the time of arrest is libel to be searched up to and including cell phones. The court treats them largely as a journal or anything else considered "personal" but without actual protection. The police cannot compel you to unlock your phone though without a warrant. As for long-term confiscation, I have heard little of that unless somebody is being charged with an actual crime and the phone is considered evidence. Your computer isn't issued a warrant for it's physical space, it's confiscated for data. You're argument is largely one of semantics and frankly the law can just as easily expand to cover a few words in a warrant to gather your data.

As younger officers join the force the 10 minute prospect is going to become silly. It's silly even now as I'm sure there are cloning devices out there that can duplicate your phone's files including encrypted to be deciphered at their leisure. The police aren't out to get you. They're out to keep the peace.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Try being the victim of a crime. My daughter was the victim of an internet predator five years ago. The cretin's lawyer used delaying tactics and it took over four years for the case to be finished. My daughter's computer, phone and digital camera were held as evidence for the entire time. Four years are a lifetime for those tech devices. Of course the laws to compensate victims take no consideration of loss of use of a device.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[gl4ss]

this is why you don't make your phone your keys and why you don't make your phone your wallet, the holy trinity ftw. lose all them at once and you're as good for getting home as the homeless guy asking you for change.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Bing Tsher E]

Utterly ridiculous.

I hope you work in marketing for the cellphone industry, because I'd hate to think you aren't being reimbursed for the shilling you do for them. They can afford it, with the loot they get from all the chumps who are convinced that life would be incomplete without a proper tethering.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[david_thornley]

When I was a kid, when the tyrannosaurs ate all the cell phones we had backup arrangements. We had land lines for when somebody called (and there were plenty of pay phones in little booths scattered around). When doctors or other on-call people were out, people were familiar with making arrangements to contact them. Most actual business was transacted by mail. That, fundamentally, is how the human species survived without cell phones. Things have changed.

Nowadays, lots of people simply don't have land lines. Should it be necessary to make an emergency call, even from home, they're out of luck. If they're out without a cell phone, and need to make a call, there aren't any pay phones out there. Lots of routine business is transacted electronically; I may be something of a Luddite, by some peoples' standards, but I write checks for two bills monthly, and most of my giving to charity is electronic.

There are lots of things the human species survived without that will cause hardship and potential danger if removed nowadays.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[mysidia]

They can afford it, with the loot they get from all the chumps who are convinced that life would be incomplete without a proper tethering.

I'm not "shilling" for cell phone companies, and your ad hominem attacks do not support your position at all rationally.

"Life incomplete without a proper tethering." Is called a straw man argument; we are not talking about tethering or internet service, and I am not saying everyone has to have a cell phone.

I am saying if you have and rely on a cell phone, it could be life critical. I'm talking about a cell phone you carry around to make phone calls with, and the possibility someone could die because police seized a cell phone out of mere suspicion.

If you have an emergency (life threatening or not), you need to use a phone, or have other provisions in place to get help. By the way, poor Cell phone networks can also be life threatening... need to dial 911... oops "No Service"

Other provisions might be a pay phone; but those are exceedingly rare nowadays. You might get lucky in event of emergency and find someone else to let you use their phone, or you might not.

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

The timeline for parents deciding not to raise their own children correlates strongly to women entering the workplace. What is a good solution to a world that requires 2 incomes but still wants parents to raise their own children? My proposal is that non-breeders should only receive half the income that breeders receive. What say you?

Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

Password protect/lock your phone, dont use a 1 touch button to unlock. The cops wont be able to get into it right then and there, it would have to be sent to forensics, and if they ask you for your password you can plead the 5th.

This has been mentioned in previous posts (I think) but they have handheld "forensics" devices that can do whole data dumps, thus getting around the password protection. You would need to encrypt the device to stop that (and that might not really stop them for too long). I have heard (yes, this info is 2nd hand) from some mobile forensic guys from a 3 letter agency the following. If they get an encrypted IOS or Andriod phone they are happy because it means they will crack it in about 5 minutes. Blackberry's are not even attempted but rather sent to the NSA is deemed they really need the info.

'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'likely' in 236 yrs

[decora]

congratulations America, television has finally turned your collective brains into 300 million bowls of porridge.

When they don't want the evidence presented

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you there's anything that they don't want the public to see, they'll take the phone destroy it, and then charge the person with interfering with the police and/or wiretapping.

Re:When they don't want the evidence presented

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you there's anything that they don't want the public to see, they'll take the phone destroy it, and then charge the person with interfering with the police and/or wiretapping.

That.

Re:'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'likely' in 236

[ColdWetDog]

congratulations America, television has finally turned your collective brains into 300 million bowls of porridge.

You're a little late ...

This could be a good thing

[fotbr]

Once a phone's location is generally accepted as showing where you were at a given time, it's an instant alibi.

Leave the damned thing turned on somewhere else, then go commit your crime.
Or turn off the ringer and vibration, box it up and take it to a somewhat nearby kinko's, and then fedex it back to yourself. Now it's on, and will travel around the city, while you do whatever it is you want to do.

If you get nicked, use that phone location and piles of court cases where phone records were admitted as proof of location.

Re:This could be a good thing

[folderol]

No. The best possible alibi is no alibi - can't be disproved see. Go to location with no reception - switch off phone (and put in metal box) - do nastiness - go to new location with no reception - take phone out of box and switch on - go home. Prosecutor: Can you explain how your phone disappeared at X and reappeared at Y? You: Err, no. Sorry, I've no idea.

Re:This could be a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Much simpler: Leave the phone at home.

Re:This could be a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The phone will be used to help show you are guilty, as indirect evidence that you were at the scene of a crime. Sadly, it won't be used to help prove you are innocent because there are so many ways to spoof it. The innocent are found guilty because they don't prepare an alibi. They get longer sentences because they don't plea bargain or go to jail because they were so afraid not to plea bargain. They stay in jail longer because they aren't contrite and they maintain their innocence.

'Take Away Your Cellphone" Not 'Illegally Seize'

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice bit of spin there. 2 points.

Pendulums swing. History Rhymes.

How long do the LEO's think the current regime of oppression will last?

What are the DOJ's and the LEO's thinking that the end game of society looks like? A boot on the face forever?

Do they think it will be their foot will be in the boot, forever? Are they immortal?

Do they really want to create a society of fear? Is that how they want to live?

If the LEO's and the DOJ's are not stopping the USA becoming a banana republic, nobody will.

If pensions are crumbling and jurisdictions are going bankrupt daily, the LEO's and the DOJ's should be fostering respect and cooperation with the community.

Not fear, oppression, abuse of power, and seeking of more unlimited, unchecked power.

Under manned in a society that loathes your colors is not a happy work place.

LEO's and DOJ's are there to serve the community. They are not the elite's tools of of oppression.

The LEO's and DOJ's must decide whose side they are on. The peoples or the elites.

That time is now.

Except ....

[petes_PoV]

That the phone records also show you taking it to the courier's office. Explain that one to the police.
Better to tape it to your neighbour's car just before he/she/it goes out - providing they aren't similarly criminally minded!

Re:Except ....

[WiiVault]

Or as I think the GP was suggesting, just leave it at home or a friends house. No officer, I never left home that night.

Re:Except ....

[fotbr]

Fine. It shows it went to kinko's. I had to make some copies.

Re:Except ....

[mab]

Till that catch you on CCTV somewhere and now know that you are lying.

Re:Except ....

[The Wild Norseman]

Or as I think the GP was suggesting, just leave it at home or a friends house. No officer, I never left home that night.

Till that catch you on CCTV somewhere and now know that you are lying.

Right, which is why, when asked by the police where you were at, you say, "none of your business."

Cop: Where were you last night?
You: None of your business.
Cop finally gets subpoena, views your cell-tower records, shows phone was home all night.
Cop: Damn. Guess we can't use phone records to help fry this guy.

That's what the 5th Amendment is all about.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE TO A COP BUT YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SAY ANYTHING AT ALL.

Any questioning by police should be approached in this light. Or how about the phrase, "you can never talk yourself out of trouble, but you can sure talk yourself into it."

Re:Except ....

[deets52]

Fine. It shows it went to kinko's. I had to make some copies.

And then to the FedEx processing center, then to the FedEx distribution center, then maybe to another FedEx location, then back to your house a day or two later along with the recipt of the transaction with FedEx. What do you think, someone from Kinko's is going to run it over to your house because it's right down the street? What you did was just raise suspicion on yourself. Making everyone remember you a lot more - "Yeah, I remember him, I wondered why the heck that guy was mailing something to his house that is 2 miles away. No one in the office could figure that out."

They are computers, not phones

[Zero__Kelvin]

The problem stems from the perception that it is a phone, when in fact it is a hand-held computer that happens to be able to place and receive phone calls. This is fundamentally no different than them seizing a laptop and rifling through it. It should obviously require a warrant unless the device was used in the commission of the crime and they can already prove that.

Re:They are computers, not phones

[anarkhos]

They are property. Leave it at that

At least TFS is half right

[inviolet]

"Your smartphone could place you at the scene of a crime, destroy an alibi or maybe even provide one – which is why one of the first things police now do at the scene of a crime is take away a suspect's cellphone.

Well. It will be used to prove you guilty to whatever extent is possible. It will NOT be used to disprove your guilt.

Humans respond to incentives, and police are humans. In our era the police are incented by the fact they are judged by their 'numbers' or 'stats'. So they do what is necessary to maximize those numbers. Other concerns are secondary.

In a future era we will look back on this "management by the numbers" as an expensive way to reduce management headcount. You can easily have 20 direct reports if you are permitted to use an Excel spreadsheet to judge their quality.

Re:'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'likely' in 236

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to say something that only I myself thinks is witty. But, "Ouch! My balls!" is coming on!

Re:'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'likely' in 236

[Anonymous Coward]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Likely" say the same thing but from different perspectives. "Likely" means that there are no "REASONABLE doubts" that you weren't there. If there are "REASONABLE doubts" that you were there it is "unLIKELY" you were there.

Time for some new apps

[Shivetya]

One button access to a phones Erase All facility. Perhaps tied to the passcode to access the phone. That way you can hand it over and the passcode that wipes it. Or simply keep the icon for this process on the main screen so you can quickly reset it. Of course its always better to reset it after you hand it over which requires being able to signal it over the air.

Some Apple devices use a hardware encryption which means once you tell it to erase all there is no easy way to access it, if its even possible. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2110

So with a newer iPhones you can do it this way, I am not sure about Android devices.

Re:Time for some new apps

[mlts]

Giving someone a self destruct key will give a destruction of evidence charge which can put someone away for a long time.

Think before you type, maybe?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I hope you don't get paid to do engineering, because your design has more holes in it than swiss cheese. (Hint: A battery can be at any power level when yanked and/or inserted, and paying attention to battery level can in no way help solve this engineering dilemma)

If I am an application, and I am running along, and then all of a sudden I don't exist anymore, why? Maybe the battery was unplugged. Maybe the phone I was running on just took an EMI blast. Maybe the OS hung. I don't know, especially since I no longer exist.

You would need special hardware at the very least, that was still powered for a period of time after the battery was removed to log the removal. That costs money. Even an entry level engineer knows that they aren't throwing in special hardware they don't need to solve a problem that doesn't actually present a problem.

Re:Think before you type, maybe?

[flappinbooger]

Agreed. A server OS will log the purpose of an intentional shutdown. The only way a server can know it was shut down improperly is if it gets turned on and there is no entry for why it was off. Then, it can say that the system was brought up after an unexpected shutdown.

Sorta doubt cell phones get to that level of logging.

I mean, that would be like logging a person's location continuously, and all open wifi access points the phone is near and then hiding that in a file on the phone that no-one knows about and they don't tell you about. If they are at that point, then it might be time to break out the tinfoil hat on principle.

oh wait...

Re:Think before you type, maybe?

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

I highly doubt you have engineering cred because that is thats clap trap, if the log doesn't report 5,4,3,2,1 you know what happened, it was yanked. I hope you do don't forensics, or have need to care, because you will be very surprised about what is possible. Of course you can tell what caused a shutdown, duh. What do you think the shutdown codes displayed on unix is for? Note the other responder agrees with me; this stuff IS being logged and you know "for a fact", Android IS linux, and does just this sort of logging. Geez.

Re:Think before you type, maybe?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I told you to think before you type. Being able to determine that everything was going along great for a period of time until "something happened" is not the same as being able to say that the removal of a battery is the event. Furthermore, I might have a brain and power the phone off before I remove the battery. How do you propose Linux logs that event?

Re:Think before you type, maybe?

[david_thornley]

And once again we see the potentially lethal Slashdot knack for forensics.

If the phone was apparently powered down during a crime, the obvious reason is that the battery was removed. There may not be any proof that the battery was yanked, but there will be a strong presumption that the prosecutor will use effectively. Do not try logic-chopping your way through a case like Hans Reiser did.

If you're going to commit a crime, and don't want to be caught, leave the stupid thing at home. That way, all cell phone records will indicate that you were at home at the time. It sure isn't proof, but it means your phone doesn't indicate suspicious activity at the time of the crime. The prosecutor has to come up with some sort of case, and you don't want to contribute evidence to your prosecutor.

(The preceding is intended only for people who violate the law for good reasons. If you're committing a crime with victims or for personal pleasure or gain, please disregard what I said. You're really better off with your cell phone handy, just in case.)

Re:Think before you type, maybe?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"And once again we see the potentially lethal Slashdot knack for forensics. .... Do not try logic-chopping your way through a case like Hans Reiser did. "

You are somehow unable to follow context. This entire subthread is a discussion of the claim that cell phones log battery removals and insertions and the infeasibility of same, and your attempts to change topic in mid stream are not amusing. .

Security fail

[syncrotic]

Obviously there's no legal protection for the data on your phone - not that there shouldn't be, but your privacy rights only go one way in modern society, so don't hold your breath - but where are the technical measures? We've seen that police use forensics devices that attach the data port on the phone to give them immediate and complete access to the entire file system.

There's always a tradeoff between convenience and security, and it's time cell phones at least gave you the option to choose a bit more of the latter. How about not allowing read access via the USB port when the phone is locked? That's just basic common sense, but phone manufacturers and OS vendors don't take physical security seriously yet. How about cutting power to the phone when the back cover is removed? How about having a power-on password in addition to a lock-screen password, so the phone can't simply be put into recovery mode?

On a PC I can set a BIOS password, a hard drive password, and use full disk encryption of a sort that nobody will ever be able to break. If the machine is running but locked, suspended, or hibernating, even windows will ensure that there's no way to get at my data without actually having the proper credentials. There's no way to recover my passwords or encryption keys from memory, except for the rather technical, obscure, and time-sensitive technique of physically freezing the RAM and trying to read back its contents after a reboot. Compare this to joke that passes for file system encryption on the iphone.

In a lot of ways, smartphones store more valuable data than PCs do, and yet the options for protecting that data are virtually nonexistent.

Re:Security fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell phone companies have been resisting such security measures, probably because oppressive world governments have threatened to ban their products from import if they include such protections.

Re:Security fail

[aztracker1]

First off, I would object to a search/confiscation of my phone without a warrant, and without consulting a lawyer. Second, don't store incriminating evidence on your phone, or take it with you to commit a crime...

Re:Security fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything except full data encryption is vulnerable in one way or another. Your BIOS and OS passwords are worth nothing, once I image your HDD.

Re:Security fail

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience in working for the Police we generally don't care about your personal information on your phone unless you've done something wrong.

So this whole hysteria about us going through your phones just because you got pulled over for speeding is unfounded.
If you're pulled over for texting and driving well that's different.
Generally phones are seized from suspects in major crimes, and most of the time there needs to be other corroborating evidence

Re:Security fail

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, there are other ways to extract data from running systems.

Re:'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'likely' in 236

[LibRT]

That's flat out incorrect. The difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "likely" is the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial: In a criminal trial, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"; in a civil trial, the winning party is based on a "preponderance of the evidence" (ie "likely"). One can have a reasonable doubt about one side's evidence in a civil trial and still conclude that particular side's argument is more "likely" than the other side - the "likelihood scale" simply needs to shift to 51% vs 49%. In a criminal trial, the jury cannot have any doubt whatsoever, except for "unreasonable" doubt (ie "the laws of physics do not apply and a person can, in fact, be two places at once" would by most definitions be considered "unreasonable" doubt). Would you be willing to risk a death sentence on the basis you "likely" committed the crime for which you are on trial?

Simple tricks for shielding your phone

[ciurana]

Let's say, for sake of argument, that for some reason you want to shield your phone for a period of time. Make it completely opaque. Just put it inside a mid-range to good quality microwave oven. Good shielding prevents the signals from going in or out. This way the phone disappears in a certain location. It reappears at the same location some time later; while it was in the microwave oven, if the shielding is good enough, nothing will come in or out.

Other fun tricks: are you on GSM? Remove the SIM card, and pop a different one from a different provider. Preferably one from out of the country. Don't do it at the same location, though. Remove and leave at home, go a few km away, pop the other SIM card in. Don't pay for the second one with the same credit card as the first one. And so on.

Any other fun tricks out there?

Cheers!

Re:Simple tricks for shielding your phone

[vikisonline]

Or you could get those Chinese phones with two sim slots. But it wont help you. They also log your phones IMEI number, so even though you change the sim card to one out of the country, they still know its your phone. These scenarios go to too much trouble. Really its easy as, go to a store and buy a $60 pay as you go phone, and wait a year. (store camera footage may be gone by then or at least harder to find) Now you have a safe anonymous phone. And make sure you buy fill ups with cash too. Oh yea, don't let them find this phone on you ;) Cheaper solution? Use pay-phones.

Re:Simple tricks for shielding your phone

[gl4ss]

the sim card trick just ties your sim to that phone. I don't think the police do that kind of datamining often though anywhere, but you'd want to keep your black hat sim and phones seperate from the normal personal things. you shouldn't even keep them powered on in the same cell(of the network).

Re:Simple tricks for shielding your phone

[multipartmixed]

Your SIM trick is useless, AFAIK -- IIUC the HLR knows your IMEI

Re:'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'likely' in 236

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd buy that for a dollar!

Yet another reason for encryption

[guruevi]

Besides the fact that not cooperating in the US might land you in jail regardless of the constitution, if you really do bad things and make a business out of it, maybe you should use enterprise tools such as using an alphanumeric password for your iPhone or use an Android that can actually do encryption, remote wipe whenever you call your lawyer etc. etc.

Thanks to advances in computer security, cops are simply not equipped to deal with somebody actively protecting their rights. However most criminals are just stupid, good criminals are the smart ones.

apps to wipe data

[Anonymous Coward]

while we're on the subject, anyone know of some good android apps that securely wipe private data from the phone?

So where's the Android OS version modification

[Anonymous Coward]

That runs from an encrypted filesystem?

And if one doesn't do the right unlock the phone powers off and needs an actual long key to restart from powerup?

But what if...

[Anonymous Coward]

I turn all the location services off on my phone. Only E-911 is allowed.

As to what they could find, I'm not stupid enough to ever record a criminal act on my phone. Plus it's an Android phone, yeah Linux. Granted my experience with law enforcement was working with them about a decade ago, but I hear Unix and Linux are some of their weak spots.

Carry a "burner" phone

[Anonymous Coward]

One phone to use and one to give to the sticky fingered cops.

"There's this one thing still bothering me, sir."

[westlake]

Or turn off the ringer and vibration, box it up and take it to a somewhat nearby kinko's, and then fedex it back to yourself. Now it's on, and will travel around the city, while you do whatever it is you want to do.
If you get nicked, use that phone location and piles of court cases where phone records were admitted as proof of location.

Congratulations.

The FedEx truck will now take your phone on a Cook's Tour of the local gas works, sewage treatment plant and the city morgue. Places you no intelligible reason to visit.

Re:"There's this one thing still bothering me, sir

[Khyber]

Local Gas works is simple - ask for an inspector to come out to your place to check and see if an installed gas appliance is within code.

Sewage treatment? You can often times obtain a water analysis from there since that feeds right back into municipal water supply after treatment.

City morgue is one you got me on - maybe you can say you have a thing for one of the workers there. You'd need a name though.

Encrypt it

[bill_mcgonigle]

The CPU in the Droid 3 has hardware AES assist. I'd love to see a CyanogenMod build with LUKS support.

Oh, and a battery that lasts at least double the 9 hours that the Droid 3 gets before even considering such a purchase.

Re:"There's this one thing still bothering me, sir

[Bing Tsher E]

Layering on more lies to cover something up is seldom the best approach. Even if the authorities soon afterward get a full confession from somebody for the crime you were investigated regarding, they can get you for the lies.

FUD, or not FUD?

[theNAM666]

The summary proclaimeth:

>'We were contacted by police who couldn't get a video to work on a handset â"
>it turned out to be a bloke beheading someone in his garage,'
>claimed another forensics expert."

The key word is "claimed," which may also apply to the speakers assertion of being a "forensic expert."

How many times does someone get beheaded in a garage in the UK? Doesn't it usually make the news?

Without some fact-checking and confirmation, sounds like self-promotional FUD to me.

Welcome to Slashdot-2011-July!

Re:"There's this one thing still bothering me, sir

[Miaomiao]

There's an easier alibi, which is being completely honest:

I was really curious where the fedex truck would end up, so just for kicks, I fedexed my phone to myself.

I wanted to see why they were taking so damned long to get my packages to me.

to collect or to cover up

[Anonymous Coward]

the only incidents of police seizing phones i've heard about have been when the police beat or kill someone and bystanders film it, and the police want the evidence of their crimes destroyed

Re:FUD, or not FUD?

[gl4ss]

or it was some news clipping, or used as evidence that the guy is crazy and his apartment must be searched because he'd been to internet shock sites.

There Can Be Only One.

[InsertCleverUsername]

it turned out to be a bloke beheading someone in his garage

They should be careful with this guy, if he gets only one life sentence or execution by anything but beheading it won't do any good.

XKCD on security, and geeks in the real world

[MacAndrew]

Has anyone cited?: http://xkcd.com/538/ ("Security") It appleis to crime invesigations, too.

The geeky view is to ascribe much too much sophistication to criminals and decry logical failings. The brilliant "but I coudn't have been there" stories suggested just don't work in interrogation. In the real world 95% of crimes are really pretty simply and the perps don't plan things out very well. When I worked for an appeals court, very very few of the cases would have provided good material for a crime drama. Most of the time, it was a pretty simple matter of catching the guy and not that much investigative work went into it. The sawed-off shotgun was lying out in plain view on the bed and so on. It was depressing, really.

Re:FUD, or not FUD?

[theNAM666]

Well, it is *possible* that "his" in "his basement" refers to someone in the film and not the owner of the smartphone, but it certainly seems like the speaker means to imply that the owner of the phone is doing the beheading or whatever :). It's poor journalism, which I suppose we have plenty of.