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

Post by StanislavPetrov » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 8:11 PM UTC

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…

Post by rualca » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 12:20 AM UTC

lenkite wrote: post #88

TechBro8615 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know mate, even if there is only the potential for a dangerous crime, we need to keep these criminals off our communication infrastructure until we know for certain. Perhaps a better idea is a public/private partnership between all the big search engines, social media companies and police organizations who want to join and can pay dues. Information sharing between members of the federation would reduce crime…

Would you still hold this opinion if all your personal computing devices are held for multiple weeks based on any arbitrary allegation and the record of your false arrest is available to all future employers ?