21–30 of 208 posts
The implication is that police are routinely scanning all Encrochat photographs to extract fingerprints and other biometric details to match with existing databases.
This is a very good example of showing that decentralized anonymous communication channels of any type are not enough to ensure free speech. I'm not saying that this particular example has anything to do with free speech, but it does show that you can not speak freely even over encrypted anonymous channels. You can still easily be doxed. We can not rely on any technology to ensure freedom of speech. We need to engend…
Anyways, you think we should change the laws so that just because somebody is using an encrypted or "anonymous" chat app the police can't use any of that to build evidence against them? That seems too OP for the criminals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope this is all from the compromise of Encrochat. There have been dozens of stories about the pseudonymous users of that service being linked back to real identities since the initial first large wave of arrests Sometimes you don’t need crazy parallel construction theories - just a simple criminal network cracked because the participants believed it to be secure
Right, it seems like he was discussing criminal activity on Encrochat, posted his fingerprints in the picture, and the Police must have had his prints on file from previous incidents. No rights violations required, not that such rights would apply in the UK anyway but that's a different issue.
I think that's fine though.
In reality, the police were likely violating his rights and doing some good old fashioned parallel construction. They had his prints from his products, knew who he was already, waited until they watched him post a picture of cheese, then claimed it was only the picture that caused him to be caught. This is a clear change in police methods, enabled by tech, and an abuse of your constitutional rights if this was a U.S.…
IMHO the concept of "parallel construction" is mostly an USA specific thing because USA legal doctrine is heavy on fourth amendment application and "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine that can make evidence inadmissible depending on how it was obtained. But all those things and rights are specific to USA, not in general, and not even for other common law countries. As far as I understand, such "fruit of the poison…
There is some heavy editorializig by the BBC here. As a cheese lover, the cheese was fine. That person just posted a photo that also included their fingertips.
In reality, the police were likely violating his rights and doing some good old fashioned parallel construction. They had his prints from his products, knew who he was already, waited until they watched him post a picture of cheese, then claimed it was only the picture that caused him to be caught. This is a clear change in police methods, enabled by tech, and an abuse of your constitutional rights if this was a U.S.…
A major dealer in Liverpool is almost certainly someone who has his prints on file for previous crimes. They'll have suspected that account was him for a while but didn't have reasonable grounds, this photo clearly convinced someone it gave them that. But sure, let's take talking points from another country and apply it here too to get angry because question mark
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO the concept of "parallel construction" is mostly an USA specific thing because USA legal doctrine is heavy on fourth amendment application and "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine that can make evidence inadmissible depending on how it was obtained. But all those things and rights are specific to USA, not in general, and not even for other common law countries. As far as I understand, such "fruit of the poison…
Parallel construction is also used to protect sources and methods.
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/operation-veneti...
In reality, the police were likely violating his rights and doing some good old fashioned parallel construction. They had his prints from his products, knew who he was already, waited until they watched him post a picture of cheese, then claimed it was only the picture that caused him to be caught. This is a clear change in police methods, enabled by tech, and an abuse of your constitutional rights if this was a U.S.…
You’re probably right that they already knew who he was, and probably had some evidence that he was drug dealing, certainly enough to arrest him. But unequivocally proving he’s a dealer is still tricky, especially establishing intent. The image made it possible to tie the individuals real world identity to their “anonymous” identity, and thus associate it with clear intent to distribute drugs (presumably they also had his chat history).
If the chat system he was using was compromised by police with a lawful warrant to compromise the service, then what right was violated? How is it different to police infiltrating online forums, or even just physical locations that dealers are know to spend time in?
This is a very good example of showing that decentralized anonymous communication channels of any type are not enough to ensure free speech. I'm not saying that this particular example has anything to do with free speech, but it does show that you can not speak freely even over encrypted anonymous channels. You can still easily be doxed. We can not rely on any technology to ensure freedom of speech. We need to engend…