Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 208 posts

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#101

Post by hristov »

Threeve303 wrote: post #6

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.…

Why would it be a violation of his rights? The police have a right to investigate and they sure have a right to gather fingerprints from drugs.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#102

Post by ben_w »

SyzygistSix wrote: post #81
pjc50 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing that arranging to commit a crime is protected speech? I don't think that one will fly anywhere, even in the US, let alone in the UK with no constitutional protection only the much weaker ECHR one.

That's pretty much every protest ever. You would make organizing protests against marijuana laws or laws against homosexual behavior illegal? Moxie Marlinspike has argued that it is important to be able to break the law and that perfect surveillance means the end of making social progress in a civil manner. https://www.metafilter.com/161351/I-think-it-should-actually...

As the law recognises that the law can be changed, protesting to change the law is not generally itself a crime.

Laws get interpreted by humans, not by computers, so they should not to be taken literally and in isolation — they’re both harder and laxer in different ways.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#104

Post by toyg »

adolph wrote: post #69
LatteLazy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, defense lawyers aren't allowed to reveal details if it harms future police operations. So again you don't need parallel construction.

That sounds airtight—the defense lawyers surely wouldn’t say a word because it isn’t allowed.

It's sadly more common than one would think. There are some very undemocratic bits in the bowels of the UK justice system, and nobody that matters has any intention of fixing them. In fact, they are busy trying to import all the worst elements of the US system, removing legal aid so that poor people won't be able to bother the rich and powerful anymore.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#105

Post by Mauricebranagh »

pc86 wrote: post #45
PeterisP wrote: post #14

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…

I agree with you on the legal doctrine piece, but most in the US (myself included) would say that the US Constitution doesn't grant anybody any rights. It codified inalienable rights that exist for all people merely by virtue of their existence. Every person has the right to speak their mind, to defend themselves, to not incriminate themselves, etc. etc. with all the caveats and potential nullifications that accompan…

In the US (and associated territories) I think you mean.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#106

Post by WindyLakeReturn »

ben_w wrote: post #102
SyzygistSix wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty much every protest ever. You would make organizing protests against marijuana laws or laws against homosexual behavior illegal? Moxie Marlinspike has argued that it is important to be able to break the law and that perfect surveillance means the end of making social progress in a civil manner. https://www.metafilter.com/161351/I-think-it-should-actually...

As the law recognises that the law can be changed, protesting to change the law is not generally itself a crime. Laws get interpreted by humans, not by computers, so they should not to be taken literally and in isolation — they’re both harder and laxer in different ways.

In some cases changing the law is itself illegal, which brings us back to the original question.

There is also the matter of protecting a persons right to commit a crime when it involves behaviors that should not be criminalized. A same sex couple being in a relationship is something that we should protest for, even if it is illegal. Not just making it legal, but also protesting specific examples of it being criminalized.

Is free speech itself something worth protecting enough that we should give it some level of special protection? In a world where the only person who doesn't have to know the law is the cops enforcing it, who are given their own special protection from harm they cause, I don't think it is an unreasonable request.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#107

Post by Crosseye_Jack »

BuildTheRobots wrote: post #9
Threeve303 wrote: post #6

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.…

If the photo in the article is the actual photo posted, then I'm most impressed. It seems out of focus in all the areas you'd expect to need detail to match fingerprints.

976px x 549px is a standard size the BBC use for images to be displayed on desktop computers. 976px x 549px would be half a megapixel. The BBC most likely resized the image they obtained from the NCA down to that res and prob threw some jpeg compression on it just as a matter of course when publishing the image to the site.

While the focus would play a huge part, an iPhones camera (ok the phones were Android Based, but the res of an iphones main camera hasn't changed since the iphone 6s, which is what 5 years old by now? So its not unfair to say the phone model could easily of had just as a camera with just as high MP) is 12MP. So right off the bat the image you are looking could easily have 24 times less pixels in it then the image posted to the system, and thats before you throw in compression that could easily smooth out the fine detail of a finger print.

EDIT: The BQ Aquaris X2 (which seems like was one of the models used on the service) comes with a 12mp camera. Even if the phones camera was disabled so the person had to manually copy the picture to the phone inorder to share it just means the picture we see on the BBC site could easy be just a shitty compressed of the orig that was shared.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#108

Post by bobthepanda »

pjc50 wrote: post #59
pc86 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this result in a lot of sealed/private hearings where methods of gathering evidence are discussed? I'd imagine the majority of criminal prosecutions would involve at least some "trade secrets" (for lack of a better term) on the part of the police.

There have been various rather nasty trials in which vital defense info was ruled both secret and inadmissible; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity covers the most famous examples, particularly Matrix-Churchill which I'm just about old enough to remember. I believe ECHR 1998 has improved the situation a bit, although the existence of a court outwith the UK to which people can appeal their human rig…

Railing against the ECHR is arguably one of the things that sparked Brexit.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#109

Post by anomaloustho »

PeterisP wrote: post #14
Threeve303 wrote: post #6

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…

After looking at the Wikipedia page for Parallel Construction[1], there is a subsection about the UK, it mentioned that one could argue that parallel construction is now a concept that applies in the UK as of 2016. It then points to an article on The Register subtitled “Enshrining parallel construction in English law”[2].

It looks like Section 56(1) of the Investigatory Powers Act prohibits “any content of an intercepted communication” from being used in court.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

[2] https://www.theregister.com/2016/12/06/parallel_construction...

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#110

Post by M2Ys4U »

pjc50 wrote: post #44
tux1968 wrote: post #7

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…

Are you arguing that arranging to commit a crime is protected speech? I don't think that one will fly anywhere, even in the US, let alone in the UK with no constitutional protection only the much weaker ECHR one.

>let alone in the UK with no constitutional protection only the much weaker ECHR one.

I think that's overstating the situation a little.

The Human Rights Act (which enabled domestic courts to give effect to the ECHR) is considered to be as much of a constitutional document as one can be in the UK.

Laws can't accidentally go against Convention rights. Secondary legislation can be struck down if it breaches the HRA/ECHR, and even primary legislation (Acts of Parliament etc.) isn't completely immune.

Primary legislation must be interpreted by courts to be compatible with the ECHR, even going as far as to reverse the plain meaning of statutory language in some cases. It's only where there's an express contradiction or one that can't be "interpreted around" where the court has to apply the statute as-is.

Post reply on HN