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

Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

#21

Post by Maxburn »

tehwebguy wrote: post #11
capableweb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they're name dropping Google in the title for clickbait No, Hutchinson found the documents by searching on Google for the meeting minutes. The website might have protected the place where you found the link to the meeting minutes, but the meeting minutes themselves were hosted in a directory that not only was publicly accessible if you had the URL, but also allowed Google's crawler to access it and store it. The…

Google is super relevant to the case if they identified someone who downloaded a non-protected file in response to a police request. Not sure there is any slope left to slip on, this is basically the worst case scenario already I think. Edit: Whoops, all of my assumptions were wrong!

I did not get that impression. The defendant said he used google to find these things, google did not snitch on him. He was in turn discovered by sharing them on social media.

Re: Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

#22

Post by throwthere »

zoomablemind wrote: post #20
sxp wrote: post #2

https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/10/police_raid_man_for_d... is a better article with pictures. The key bit is > The raid by four Metropolitan Police constables took place after Southwark campaigner Robert Hutchinson was reportedly accused of illegally entering a password-protected area of a website. > "I was searching in Google and found links to board meeting minutes," he told The Register. "Board reports, none…

> ... the core issue is that the website didn't properly protect its data. It seems that the bigger issue is that the activist was arrested by the police on supposedly only IP address evidence presented by the company/society. Somehow the IP had to be linked to the person, probably a warrant should be needed for that too.

That's not a bigger issue because the police simply had a warrant for the person who shared the documents. The first sentence of the article is:

> A man who viewed documents online for a controversial London property development and *shared them on social media* was raided by police after developers claimed there had been a break-in to their systems.

Re: Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

#23

Post by jsnell »

tehwebguy wrote: post #11
capableweb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they're name dropping Google in the title for clickbait No, Hutchinson found the documents by searching on Google for the meeting minutes. The website might have protected the place where you found the link to the meeting minutes, but the meeting minutes themselves were hosted in a directory that not only was publicly accessible if you had the URL, but also allowed Google's crawler to access it and store it. The…

Google is super relevant to the case if they identified someone who downloaded a non-protected file in response to a police request. Not sure there is any slope left to slip on, this is basically the worst case scenario already I think. Edit: Whoops, all of my assumptions were wrong!

But we know from the article that's not how he was identified. Instead it was from the access logs of the company that he downloaded the file from.

> Hutchinson said his identification by Leathermarket and subsequent arrest raised questions in his mind, saying police confirmed to him that the company had handed over an access log containing IP addresses:

Re: Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

#24

Post by Maxburn »

zoomablemind wrote: post #20
sxp wrote: post #2

https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/10/police_raid_man_for_d... is a better article with pictures. The key bit is > The raid by four Metropolitan Police constables took place after Southwark campaigner Robert Hutchinson was reportedly accused of illegally entering a password-protected area of a website. > "I was searching in Google and found links to board meeting minutes," he told The Register. "Board reports, none…

> ... the core issue is that the website didn't properly protect its data. It seems that the bigger issue is that the activist was arrested by the police on supposedly only IP address evidence presented by the company/society. Somehow the IP had to be linked to the person, probably a warrant should be needed for that too.

They didn't even have that much evidence, google didn't participate in finding the defendant. He shared these docs on social media and was found that way.

Re: Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

#25

Post by denton-scratch »

jdjdu wrote: post #16
gowld wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just incompetent, but callous and cruel toward the citizenry, making themselves agents of capitalist oppression.

How? By investigating a report of a crime, determining it was false, and releasing the guy?

They charged him without any evidence. They were harrassing an activist. It wasn't incompetence.

[Edit: the article didn't say they charged him; I was wrong]

Well, that's how it looks to me, on the basis of a single report in a tech journal with a sort-of tabloid outlook. Maybe there will be more information in coming days.

Re: Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

#27

Post by nonfamous »

roflc0ptic wrote: post #14

This article leaves some really crucial parts of this timeline ambiguous. These things happened in some order: 1. Guy downloads stuff from website 2. Guy publishes stuff from website 3. Stuff becomes unavailable on the website 4. Website owners go to police, report “illegal access” 5. Police arrest guy Either the police arrested him, and the company declined to inform the police that these illegally accessed files ha…

6. No charges were filed

>> "He was taken into custody and later released under investigation. Following a review of all available evidence, it was determined no offences had been committed and no further action was taken."

Re: Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

#28

Post by brundolf »

roflc0ptic wrote: post #14

This article leaves some really crucial parts of this timeline ambiguous. These things happened in some order: 1. Guy downloads stuff from website 2. Guy publishes stuff from website 3. Stuff becomes unavailable on the website 4. Website owners go to police, report “illegal access” 5. Police arrest guy Either the police arrested him, and the company declined to inform the police that these illegally accessed files ha…

> He was taken into custody and later released under investigation. Following a review of all available evidence, it was determined no offences had been committed and no further action was taken.

Sounds like the first one

Re: Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

#29

Post by zoomablemind »

throwthere wrote: post #22
zoomablemind wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... the core issue is that the website didn't properly protect its data. It seems that the bigger issue is that the activist was arrested by the police on supposedly only IP address evidence presented by the company/society. Somehow the IP had to be linked to the person, probably a warrant should be needed for that too.

That's not a bigger issue because the police simply had a warrant for the person who shared the documents. The first sentence of the article is: > A man who viewed documents online for a controversial London property development and *shared them on social media* was raided by police after developers claimed there had been a break-in to their systems.

Quoting from the article:

"...Hutchinson said his identification by Leathermarket and subsequent arrest raised questions in his mind, saying police confirmed to him that the company had handed over an access log containing IP addresses: "Now, how that ended up with me being in the frame, I don't know. There's part of this that doesn't add up..." ..."

Re: Activist arrested by London police after downloading docs found on Google search

#30

Post by mellosouls »

dheera wrote: post #17
jdjdu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? By investigating a report of a crime, determining it was false, and releasing the guy?

There is no reason to take the guy into custard for downloading a file, he didn't do anything violent, and should be allowed to stay home as long as he cooperates with the investigation. Cooperative people accused of non-violent crimes should NEVER be taken into custody until proven guilty in a court with fair trial.

There is no reason to take the guy into custard for downloading a file

He was definitely in a jam

Post reply on HN