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

71–80 of 94 posts

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

#71

Post by denton-scratch »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #50
denton-scratch wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg to differ. I don't think Google is relevant. As far as I can see, Google provided a search-result, which eventually (after Google's batted it around internally a few times) turns into an HTTP request to the CBS website, which resulted in password-free access to a public document. So that will show up in the CBS webserver's access log; that's how they got the IP address. Nothing to do with Google. Getting from t…

He wasn't charged.

You're right, he wasn't charged. He was "just" arrested.

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

#72

Post by mattmanser »

trhway wrote: post #65
mattmanser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think it's fair enough, the company probably claimed it was secure, therefore he must have hacked them. The police reacted, but when he could show it clearly wasn't secure and exposed to the public, they dropped it. And hopefully gave the company a private ticking off about wasting police time. In the UK, an arrest under reasonable suspicion gives them the right to search your property for evidence, and…

>I personally think it's fair enough, the company claimed it was secure, therefore he hacked them. The police reacted, but when he could show it clearly it is absolutely not fair. The fair would be if the company had to show before the arrest that it was minimally secure. I mean they for sure had the HTTP transaction in their own logs - like GET document, response 200. They couldn't have reasonably in good faith clai…

Firstly, all those logs can be easily falsified and you're got absolutely no clue at all what that company showed to the police to convince them.

So get off your extremely manufactured high horse.

Secondly, even if you could somehow wave a magic wand and know the logs were real, you're approaching this as an expert and not as a layman.

A crime was reported, it was followed up, an arrest was made (maybe that means something different in America? It's just an arrest). No charges were levied, now the company that reported it look like fools in national news.

They'll not be pulling this shit again.

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

#73

Post by unholythree »

jdjdu wrote: post #59
dheera wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Cooperative people accused of non-violent crimes should NEVER be taken into custody until proven guilty in a court with fair trial. Uh, so if someone set fire to a bunch of homes in a neighborhood, and there's video of them doing it, but they did it knowing the homes were empty, they should just be left free until the trial is over? I'm sorry but I feel like a lot of online comments on criminal justice are very shor…

A quick google search indicates arson is considered a violent crime in the US even though it is a property crime. I assume because of the high potential of injury or death. I do however agree with you that there are some property or financial crimes in which arresting a suspect would be warranted, especially if they had incentive to flee or intimidate potential witnesses.

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

#74

Post by calvinmorrison »

shellac wrote: post #47
calvinmorrison wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they're name dropping Google in the title for clickbait when the core issue is that the website didn't properly protect its data. The core issue is the government raided someones house for doing nothing wrong.

The police raided someone's house after a complaint. The government had nothing to do with this.

The government is entirely predicated on rule of law and the monopoly of violence imposed by police. Nice try though

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

#75

Post by crtasm »

woah wrote: post #37
gowld wrote: post #10

This is why people say that the police are an agent of the wealthy to oppress the common people. The wealthy "file a report", and the police "take the report seriously", trampling the rights and stealing precious time of people's lives (and sometimes much worse), but the common people can not do the same to their oppressors.

Except the man arrested in this case was opposed to social housing for low income residents. What the police did was obviously wrong, but it doesn't really fit your narrative.

I'm not sure it's resaonable to sum up someone from a "Campaign to stop Leathermarket CBS building on the popular ballcourt, removing children's outdoor sports space and green spaces" as "opposed to social housing".

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

#76

Post by xnyan »

crimsoneer wrote: post #69
Jsharm wrote: post #5

Is he entitled to any compensation?

Not really. They arrested him to investigate and let him go. It's not very nice, but it's lawful and working as intended

The power of arrest has and is abused to punish and harass people. Perhaps I'm mistaken and in the UK those accused of unauthorized downloading are subject to arbitrary arrest, but this all seemed very abnormal. The police only investigate a fraction of the crimes reported to them, even when there's evidence or they they think they could get a conviction.

If you called up the police, any police anywhere, right now and said "Officer arrest this man, he downloaded a pdf from my server and I have the log.txt file to prove it!", I would honestly be willing to wager the deed to my house that the police would not be banging my door at sunrise to forcibly take me away and interrogate me.

At best it was gross incompetence, at worst abuse of power.

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

#77

Post by dang »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #52
dang wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah ok. Fixed. Thanks!

I would change "raided" to "arrested". The word "raid" is only used by El Reg and not any primary source. The account the arrestee gives in the BBC is "four police officers turn[ed] up at [my] door at 8:30" which suggests to me they just served him with a warrant and he let them in. Perhaps some people might call any execution of a warrant a "raid" but to me it suggests a forced entry.

Ok, we've done that. Thanks!

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

#78

Post by trhway »

mattmanser wrote: post #72
trhway wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I personally think it's fair enough, the company claimed it was secure, therefore he hacked them. The police reacted, but when he could show it clearly it is absolutely not fair. The fair would be if the company had to show before the arrest that it was minimally secure. I mean they for sure had the HTTP transaction in their own logs - like GET document, response 200. They couldn't have reasonably in good faith clai…

Firstly, all those logs can be easily falsified and you're got absolutely no clue at all what that company showed to the police to convince them. So get off your extremely manufactured high horse. Secondly, even if you could somehow wave a magic wand and know the logs were real, you're approaching this as an expert and not as a layman. A crime was reported, it was followed up, an arrest was made (maybe that means som…

>maybe that means something different in America? It's just an arrest

an arrest record searchable by all the prospective employers (until you spend an effort/money to seal it in jurisdictions where it is possible, and even then you still would have to disclose it any time you deal with federals). Good luck finding a job anywhere where computers are present with an arrest for hacking.

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

#79

Post by rlpb »

Jsharm wrote: post #5

Is he entitled to any compensation?

I'd like to think so, on the basis of negligence both from the police and from the accuser.

The accuser, because they were negligent in 1) securing their files; and 2) making allegations against the victim without appropriate confirmation.

The police, because they were negligent in that they did nothing to verify the allegation before taking some pretty drastic steps (arrest, device seizure) to the detriment of the victim.

However, I'm not aware of any success in this area before. It'd be new legal ground. I'd like to think that there should be some bar of reasonableness in the handling of a "computer crime" where anything below does qualify as negligence - along the same lines as unlawful arrest for any other reason. However I don't think the courts have ever considered such a case. It's impossible to make any claim as to whether compensation is due or not because there's never been an appropriate test case that can be referred to.

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

#80

Post by rlpb »

denton-scratch wrote: post #15

El Reg doesn't say in so many words that Hutchinson didn't know he was in a password-protected area (sorry, double-negative). I mean: I believe that if he knew the material he accessed was behind a password wall, and that the search-result had pierced it, then he would be in violation of the CMA. That is: I think the Act doesn't require any kind of "breaking in" to create an offense; you just have to believe you're n…

The BBC article on this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58165478) says:

""" None of the documents had any marking to suggest that they were confidential, nor were they protected by a password, he says.

He believed they were the type of material an organisation like Leathermarket CBS would and should publish.

...

Mr Hutchinson saw no issue downloading what he regarded as public documents, but the CBS disagrees. """

Post reply on HN