British Police Accused of Stealing Software

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

British Police Accused of Stealing Software

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday October 20, 2011 @12:09AM from the was-that-wrong? dept.

judgecorp writes "The West Yorkshire police force is in the British High court today, accused of stealing intellectual property from a firm whose software decodes forensic data from mobile phones. Forensic Telecoms Services claims the force illegally used and sold copyright data from a commercial mobile phone forensics application it had been using in high profile cases."

48 of 76 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

But but.. by TechLA · 2011-10-20 00:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

They didn't steal anything, they only made a copy! Original owner still has his copy too!
1. Re:But but.. by tbannist · 2011-10-20 00:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Specifically, the article alleges that they used (part of) a list of results from the manual of a private system when they developed a competing application. The case seems flimsy, they're going to have to prove that the list should be considered "a work" as opposed to just data. Data isn't protected unless it has some merit of it's own. Lists are generally not protected.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
2. Re:But but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  that's not stealing 'cause owner still has the goods. That's illegal reproduction, corporate spying, or whatever else but is like copying a painting. That must be filed under copyright infringment, not under thievery.
  jerry mason
3. Re:But but.. by DarkOx · 2011-10-20 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  I would consider cribbing code like more a kin to plagiarism than theft.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
4. Re:But but.. by spire3661 · 2011-10-20 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  The exclusivity to distribute was INFRINGED. Stolen has specific legal meanings, and your usage is incorrect.
  
  --
  Good-bye
5. Re:But but.. by wzzzzrd · 2011-10-20 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  It would have been better if they pirated the software, at least then they wouldn't have been reselling it and stealing profit from FTS
  Also, never underestimate the joy of rightfully screaming "AARRRRRRHHH!" after pirating successfully. Also known as the "pirate's orgasm".
  
  --
  On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
6. Re:But but.. by rgbatduke · 2011-10-20 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Which, in some strange way, seems to prevent global warming, don't forget.
  
  Some days it's only the little things we do that make the world a better place...
  
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
7. Re:But but.. by nedlohs · 2011-10-20 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's copyright infringement, a completely different beast to something being stolen.
8. Re:But but.. by uglyduckling · 2011-10-20 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's not stealing, stealing is when you permanently deprive someone of their property. It's like - if I baked a perfect cake, and I was just about to eat it, then you came and copied the recipe and baked an identical cake, would that be stealing? No. If I had a cookbook, and you came and actually took my cookbook away, that would be stealing. Even if I had another copy of the cookbook, it would still be stealing because you deprived me of my property. I'm not saying copyright violation isn't wrong, I'm just saying it isn't stealing, for the same reason that it isn't rape, assault, slander or arson.
9. Re:But but.. by nedlohs · 2011-10-20 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  They still have the legal right to exclusive distribution.
  They still don't have a law physics that makes it impossible for others to distribute their stuff anyway.
  So nothing has changed in terms of what they have/don't have.
10. Re:But but.. by JosKarith · 2011-10-20 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  If the police are pirating, does that make them Privateers?
  
  --
  'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
11. Re:But but.. by uglyduckling · 2011-10-20 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's not semantics, because people use the theft/stealing misnomer as a way to scare people into obeying copyright law to the letter, whilst the law is extended and extended to the benefit of large corporations and the detriment of society. Copyright should be a limited exclusivity in order for an author/artist/programmer/etc. to benefit from their work for a limited time in order that they can earn a living and continue to practice their art.
  In follow-up to your previous post, infringement of the limited right to exclusivity does not cause that exclusivity to me permanently lost, anymore than when someone insults me I don't permanently lose my right to not be verbally abused. The whole point of copyright is that the work is widely available but limited in distribution. If someone infringes, the infringement can be made good, usually by making a payment. This is why the RIAA assault on ordinary people for minor copyright infringement is morally wrong: they ruin people's lives by manipulating the legal system and imposing fines many orders of magnitude greater than that needed to redress the infringement and deter future infringement.
12. Re:But but.. by pev · 2011-10-20 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Data isn't protected unless it has some merit of it's own
  Erm, doesn't all stored data inherently have merit? If it didn't, no-one would store it?!
13. Re:But but.. by wzzzzrd · 2011-10-20 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Everything I do prevents global warming, by definition. This is because, by definition, I am a VERY lazy person. I exhale maybe once an hour (must be an eventful day), even more global warming prevention. It's more like eating for me. But then again, I am a whale.
  
  A very lazy whale, even by whale standards. Would take me half a moth to type that if I had to do it by myself. Luckily I have subordinates, like every self-respecting whale. Still lazier than the most.
  
  But don't tell the penguins, they're like friendly and stuff, and in general they're supposed to be on the right side (you know, the "nuts-but-not-that-crazy-well-ok-that-crazy-and-yea-beyond-BUT-STILL" side, easily distinguishable: we have the cookies). But penguins, you know, always planning something weird, really weird. You know, when they mate and sit lonely at the very south pole...just to not be eaten by predators! That's why they mate and hatch there, knowing no sane predator would ever hunt there!
  
  Then again, there is no such thing as a sane predator. At least none that I know, and I AM an effing predator (don't let them fool you, we eat way more than krill).
  
  Pf, penguins. It would drive me nuts! If I weren't already. Which I am, because, remember, I am a whale. One thing I have in common with them crazy penguins. If I think about it, I have that in common with all intelligent beings.
  
  --
  On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
14. Re:But but.. by tbannist · 2011-10-20 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  That might not have been clear but it needs to have merit beyond the value of the data. For instance, you generally can't protect a list of publicly available information no matter how much work was involved in creating the list. They'd have to show that the information on the list is secret, but if it is actually secret then it shouldn't be published in the manual, or the police should have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement before receiving the manual.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
15. Re:But but.. by DRJlaw · 2011-10-20 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  Data isn't protected unless it has some merit of it's own. Lists are generally not protected.
  The European Union disagrees with you, since directive Directive 96/9/EC created a sui generis database protection in the mid 90s.
  FYI the United Kingdom is, in fact, a member of the EU which has enacted enabling legistlation effective as of 1998.
  Why do you feel qualified to evaluate the strength of the case, when you apparently have no actual knowledge of the law in the UK? The European database protection right is neither new nor particularly obscure. There's no excuse for being unaware of it yet presenting yourself as someone qualified to analyze the matter....
16. Re:But but.. by tbannist · 2011-10-20 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't present myself as someone qualified to analyze the situation. Did I use a phrase like "In my professional opinion"? Or "I'm an expert on British Copyright Law"? I gave my opinion of the case based on my understanding of the law. I'm not an English citizen and I'm not particular interested in EU copyright law.
  There's no reason to be so confrontational in your post, you could have merely pointed out the relevant law in a friendly manner instead of coming across as a pompous ass.
  Which looks even worse since you're correction has only a minor impact on my analysis, they still have to prove that the list should be protected, you've merely shown that the bar is a little lower than I first supposed. But thanks for being a miserable bastard about it.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
17. Re:But but.. by rgbatduke · 2011-10-20 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes, but doesn't krill give you, well, gas? I mean, one doesn't like to comment, but it is a well known biological fact that whale farts emit more methane on a daily basis than the entire gulf oil spill. And methane is an order of magnitude or two more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO_2, with their close cousins cows contributing another factor of two or so.
  
  Of course you could compensate by getting off your lazy tail and breaching straight down onto pods of penguins, sending their broken bodies drifting down to the subduction seams of the tectonic plates. That way they would get sucked down and turn back into oil, sequestering all of that high-energy carbon in their stumpy little bodies.
  
  You could also ram the occasional ship. Just make sure that they aren't pirate ships.
  
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
18. Re:But but.. by TheRealMindChild · 2011-10-20 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  I believe you are trying to explain the difference between data and information. Information is the result of using data to create something useful.
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
19. Re:But but.. by poofmeisterp · 2011-10-20 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Specifically, the article alleges that they used (part of) a list of results from the manual of a private system when they developed a competing application. The case seems flimsy, they're going to have to prove that the list should be considered "a work" as opposed to just data. Data isn't protected unless it has some merit of it's own. Lists are generally not protected.
  No kidding.
  So if I decide to make an oven that has a ventilation system in it, and in my manual, I mention that it has three buttons that say "On", "Off", and "Restart". That's breaking someone's copyright because they, in the past, decided to make an oven at some point in the past, with a manual that mentioned the ventilation system had "On", "Off", and "Restart" buttons?
  Their response should be "Oh, sorry.. Let us change our error codes from '1-128' to '1000-2000' with random gaps in the numbering, and change the wording of the errors. Our bad."
20. Re:But but.. by mrbester · 2011-10-20 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Moths must be really expensive in the deep ocean if you can only afford half of one...
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
21. Re:But but.. by BasilBrush · 2011-10-20 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't present myself as someone qualified to analyze the situation.
  No, but you presented your uninformed opinion as if it were fact. The information I'm not an "English citizen and I'm not particular interested in EU copyright law." belonged in your first post, not now after you were caught out spouting nonsense about a law in a country you don't know about.
  Even "IANAL but" or "IMHO" would have made your original post reasonable, but presenting it as it was makes you look like a pretentious ass.
22. Re:But but.. by BasilBrush · 2011-10-20 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  So if I decide to make an oven that has a ventilation system in it, and in my manual, I mention that it has three buttons that say "On", "Off", and "Restart". That's breaking someone's copyright because they, in the past, decided to make an oven at some point in the past, with a manual that mentioned the ventilation system had "On", "Off", and "Restart" buttons?
  Nope. Neither would using the same 3 words of the text of a novel wouldn't break someone's copyright. So why would you expect it to?
  But lists certainly are copyrightable, just as much as novels are. For example tide tables are just lists of tides of when high and low tides are predicted to appear at a certain place. Nothing but lists of times. In the UK, they are published by the admiralty, a government department. But if you want to use them yourself in a newspaper or an app say, you have to pay for a license. They most certainly are copyright.
  http://www.ukho.gov.uk/PRODUCTSANDSERVICES/SERVICES/Pages/TidalPrediction.aspx
23. Re:But but.. by poofmeisterp · 2011-10-20 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Neither would using the same 3 words of the text of a novel wouldn't break someone's copyright. So why would you expect it to?
  But lists certainly are copyrightable, just as much as novels are. For example tide tables are just lists of tides of when high and low tides are predicted to appear at a certain place. Nothing but lists of times. In the UK, they are published by the admiralty, a government department. But if you want to use them yourself in a newspaper or an app say, you have to pay for a license. They most certainly are copyright.
  http://www.ukho.gov.uk/PRODUCTSANDSERVICES/SERVICES/Pages/TidalPrediction.aspx
  You're right. Mine was intentionally a disproportionate analogy to make a statement.
  Expand that list of three out to 100 or so. Give each line item a description, and order the list by number. Copyrightable? Yes. Stupid for someone, IMHO, to use copyright protection on a list that doesn't actually DEFINE the product; it's simply a list of data for reference. However, it is copyrightable, you're right.
  Effectively, depends on who was first, but two companies should theoretically be able to sue for copyright infringement if both programs use "return code 0 being success, 255 being forced exit, 127 being device access error, and 128 being incomplete data.... etc...." if this type of logic stands.
  I tried to factor in subtle humor to make the statement, "This is yet another case of copyright use to try and gain fame, IMHO." The data isn't tidal information or climatological data, it's a list of return codes.
24. Re:But but.. by AmiMoJo · 2011-10-20 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  The work is the manual, not the data itself. The way it explains and organises information was copied into design documents for the new system that the police developed, which is usually an infringement of copyright. That is why clean-room development is used when cloning a product (most famously the original IBM PC BIOS) - to avoid infringing on the copyright of not just the software but of the documentation too.
  Clearly the police found the information valuable as they made their software based on it, and are now trying to sell it to other parties. They are making commercial gains from their infringement, and copyright laws are designed to stop that sort of thing.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
25. Re:But but.. by tbannist · 2011-10-20 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  That didn't appear to be the claim made by the plaintiff, the article indicated that the system produced results that contained tell-tale errors that indicate some of the data was copied from the manual from the plaintiff's system, which is a substantially lesser claim. Whether that data represents a significant portion of the system's functionality will be likely be a key question.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
26. Re:But but.. by DRJlaw · 2011-10-20 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  There's no reason to be so confrontational in your post, you could have merely pointed out the relevant law in a friendly manner instead of coming across as a pompous ass.
  There certainly is. You quite declaratively stated something that any informed person would know to be false, and even worse were moderated highly for it (and still are). If you announce that the moon is made of cheese, you're going to be confronted.
  
  Which looks even worse since you're correction has only a minor impact on my analysis, they still have to prove that the list should be protected, you've merely shown that the bar is a little lower than I first supposed.
  The minor impact being "the case seems flimsy" since "they're going to have to prove that the list should be considered 'a work' as opposed to just data" and "lists are generally not protected," as actually opposed to the case not being flimsy since the data doesn't have to qualify as a copyrightable work and "lists are generally protected" so long as they "by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation." It's not a little lower bar, it's a very low bar.
  
  But thanks for being a miserable bastard about it.
  I'm not the one resorting to personal attacks and profanity while glossing over the magnitude of how wrong I was. Res ipsa loquitur.
27. Re:But but.. by DRJlaw · 2011-10-20 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Except, of course, that everything I said is both true and accurate.
  Citation needed. Desperately.
28. Re:But but.. by belmolis · 2011-10-20 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Another consideration is whether the charge is actually copyright infringement. I've noticed that the press, like much of the general public, doesn't understand the different kinds of intellectual property. The information in question might, for example, be considered a trade secret.
29. Re:But but.. by Courageous · 2011-10-20 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  OP made the common mistake of projecting things as he knows it into contexts he shouldn't.
  Happens all the time even in the US. State laws are similar here, not the same. Many folks can barely distinguish between States and the Fed, for that matter. So it only requires a smidgeon of unworldliness to make a mistake. And granted that we are of course the natural masters of the world (grin), please don't expect too much of us when it comes to worldliness:
  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html
  Anyway; while his subsequent behavior itself has no excuse, one thing is true: it wasn't necessary to personalize the matter.
  Were we cranky today?
30. Re:But but.. by Grumbleduke · 2011-10-21 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  FYI the United Kingdom is, in fact, a member of the EU which has enacted enabling legistlation effective as of 1998.
  As an aside, I note that you linked to opsi.gov.uk, which has simply redirected to the new legislation.gov.uk for some time now, which makes me wonder where you found that link... I know it's a bit petty of me, but there's really "no excuse for being unaware" of the change and still "presenting yourself as someone qualified to analyze the matter...".
  Also, legislation only has the one t in it.
copy... by Dark+Lord+of+Ohio · 2011-10-20 00:16 · Score: 1

they made it for personal use only, I bet they were not distributing this software...
1. Re:copy... by Allicorn · 2011-10-20 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  Hehe, yeah. TBH I doubt they'll even be able to try that particular blag since TFA says that West Yorkshire Police are now actually selling their own forensic tool based on the allegedly stolen information.
  
  --
  OMG!!! Ponies!!!
2. Re:copy... by benito27uk · 2011-10-20 00:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  yes they were... From TFA..."but the force went on to repeat alleged infringement in 2007 when it updated the software, now named OLIVE, and made it commercially available."
3. Re:copy... by jd · 2011-10-20 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Which demonstrates that no matter how bad things get in the UK, some countries that should know better actually manage to do things worse.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Misusing legal terms fro emotional appeal by Chrisq · 2011-10-20 00:45 · Score: 1

The good being stolen here are not the lines of code, you are correct.
However, what copyright grants is the exclusivity to distribute. This is effectively stolen since whenever someone copies the stuff without your consent, you do not have the exclusivity anymore.
So, no, the lines of code were not stolen. But the excusivity to distribute was.
Misusing legal terms fro emotional appeal is the sort of thing Iran does, where it describes people who convert to Christianity as rapists, etc. just to feel good about punishing them. In free western countries we don't want "it is effectively theft", or "converting from slam is effectively rape", we want set crimes and laws that are defined in law books.
Looks like clean room design which is legal by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:12 · Score: 1

According to TFA the police didn't copy the software, they only used its documentation:
“... accuses West Yorkshire Police of taking copyright data from Hex’s manuals to develop its own mobile phone forensics application.”
That looks like clean room design and should be perfectly legal.
1. Re:Looks like clean room design which is legal by Sloppy · 2011-10-20 02:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  According to TFA the police didn't copy the software, they only used its documentation
  Regardless of whatever facts (or lack thereof) resolve the original accusation, that accusation still exists. Strike One, British Police. Two more of these, and no more Net for you.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
2. Re:Looks like clean room design which is legal by Isaac+Remuant · 2011-10-20 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Brilliant.
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
3. Re:Looks like clean room design which is legal by gknoy · 2011-10-20 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  They'd just get around it by contracting their IT and net connection out to a shell company with zero strikes, I bet.
Unsafe convictions by Custard+Horse · 2011-10-20 02:11 · Score: 1

Of course, it won't take long before a defence lawyer lodges an appeal of conviction based on the police using forensic software that they were not licensed to use.
Re:Lets file a report by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:14 · Score: 1

Well the **AA agencies usually deal with this, but I don't know which branch of government strong-arm thugs they're going to take along as back up since the accusation is against their default first choice...
Re:copying is not theft by Jamu · 2011-10-20 04:26 · Score: 1

You wouldn't steal a handbag...

--
Who ordered that?
Strike 1 by rawler · 2011-10-20 04:42 · Score: 1

Didn't the UK adopt the infamous three-strikes policy?
1. Re:Strike 1 by BasilBrush · 2011-10-20 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Rings a bell. Perhaps they did. But given that they started selling the software, they'd have hit that at their 3rd customer if not before.
Unbelievable by arisvega · 2011-10-20 04:54 · Score: 1

The Police? Accused of stealing?
What's next? Accusing them of abusing suspects?

--
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
1. Re:Unbelievable by jd · 2011-10-20 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  Torture?
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Lets file a report by jd · 2011-10-20 14:28 · Score: 1

If the database of interest contained any personally-identifying information, then the Data Protection Registrar would be an obvious choice. In all other cases, The Guardian newspaper seems to be the agency of choice for dealing with abuse of power.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)