European Cyber Police Get Five Year Plan

[DayDark]

If don't particularly care if some police looks through my files for child porn, or any other illegal stuff, I mean all it could possibly do is prove my innocence. If it helps an investigation, then I almost feel a responsibility to provide help.

 

[Galletea]

I suppose it's ok in theory. The problem comes about when you're trying to figure out what constitutes pornography. People having photos of their own children in swimming costumes have been in trouble for that kinda thing before, so this might lead to more people being accused of hideous things they're innocent of.
Other than that, I don't really see the problem, this kinda thing really needs cracking down on and I don't see how it's going to be possible without something drastic being done.

 

[DayDark]

Ah, but wasn't the rule "Innocent until proven guilty"? This reverses that and puts everyone guilty until proven innocent. I know that stopping the sexual exploitation of children is a very important and noble task, but it still shouldn't give any authority the right to annul your rights or freedoms without evidence to merit it. Proof then search, not search for proof.

That's not what I meant, I mean it will indirectly prove my innocence. If I'm a suspect, then the police will obviously only look for things that will prove guilt. They should have a reason before looking of course, but I'm not gonna halt an investigation just because of my privacy.

 

[Sonicron]

Noble intentions, to be sure, but in the end I get the terrible feeling they might have opened Pandora's box with this move...

 

[AceDiamond]

Ah, but wasn't the rule "Innocent until proven guilty"? This reverses that and puts everyone guilty until proven innocent. I know that stopping the sexual exploitation of children is a very important and noble task, but it still shouldn't give any authority the right to annul your rights or freedoms without evidence to merit it. Proof then search, not search for proof.

That's not what I meant, I mean it will indirectly prove my innocence. If I'm a suspect, then the police will obviously only look for things that will prove guilt. They should have a reason before looking of course, but I'm not gonna halt an investigation just because of my privacy.

All right, now say they plant stuff on your hard drive. I mean they can monitor it what's to say they can't alter the content?

Or better yet, what if they start, NSA-style, to monitor hard drives regardless of suspicion in the hopes that they do catch something? Now again you don't have anything that is incriminating but just think about it. Think about the principle. They now have the belief that nobody is innocent and at anytime you or anybody else is a crime waiting to happen. I.E. Guilty until proven innocent.

Now again I'm not saying they're going to do any of these things, but at the same time I don't have enough faith in any authority to not abuse a system that sounds Orwellian in nature.

 

[DayDark]

All right, now say they plant stuff on your hard drive. I mean they can monitor it what's to say they can't alter the content?

why would they do that. That wont stop or reduce the illegal activity, since it's not catching the criminal. I'm getting a feeling you don't trust the integrity of the police very much.

Or better yet, what if they start, NSA-style, to monitor hard drives regardless of suspicion in the hopes that they do catch something? Now again you don't have anything that is incriminating but just think about it. Think about the principle. They now have the belief that nobody is innocent and at anytime you or anybody else is a crime waiting to happen. I.E. Guilty until proven innocent.

Why would they do that? that just sounds like an excellent way to waste resources. why do you persist with the guilty till proven innocent, I don't see it, we also have to keep ourselves in reality, they aren't monitoring something, unless they get a reason to, otherwise they are just wasting resources. I actually think they want to solve problem, not just make it seem so.

Look, I can't help but think that you're doing exactly what you fear they are gonna do. You mistrust them, because you fear they will mistrust the people. Aren't you assuming they're guilty too?

Now again I'm not saying they're going to do any of these things, but at the same time I don't have enough faith in any authority to not abuse a system that sounds Orwellian in nature.

Of course, I agree that there should be a way to self correct the system, Internal Affairs, stuff like that. The Police are human, with human flaws, and whatever system that they wanna put up should be mindful of that.

Anyways I guess what I'm trying to say is that I see a circle of mistrust here.

You:

"I don't have enough faith in any authority to not abuse a system that sounds Orwellian in nature."

Paranoid Policeman:

"I don't have enough faith in any citizen to not abuse there rights, when we're not looking!"

EDIT: Reading through my post, it might come off as if I'm trying to jump you, it's not the case though, I mean no offense.

 

[Nickolai77]

The introduction of EU Cyber police comes at a time when this act was passed through the EU parliment-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091105/ttc-eu-agrees-on-internet-user-rights-e1d36ba.html

Seems like where already seing results of this act. This act does give EU citizens some liberities however such as- (quoting from the article here)

authorities would no longer be able to immediately cut off internet services to users without providing evidence of illegal downloading.

includes efforts to bolster privacy and consumer rights

What this exactly entails in terms of privacy i don't know, the article is rather vague. The BBC states that the police can make "remote searches" which may mean they can look through peoples hard drives, hopefully that is only if they think they have child porn or any other illegal files on there.

Still, not keen on the way this is going. A better way of dealing with the child porn problem would be to find the actual people making it and arrest them through conventonal methods rather than go around chasing the illegal images which are being passed through the internet.

 

[DayDark]

Aha, but how can you prove they had just cause to inspect your hard drive? Sure, they found nothing so you aren't going to have any trouble from them, but what gave them the right to dig in there anyways? Normally, they need reason to suspect you, and a warrant.
Normally, they don't dig through the private affairs of random people on the hopes of finding something to bust them on. That is the violation in question, and helping their investigation is irrelevant as they shouldn't be investigating you without cause.

How do you know they just dig through private affairs of random people is to find something to bust them on? What makes you think it is even about you, and not someone you have talked to/bought the hardware from/who has planted something on your PC?

I don't care if it's a crusade to stop pedophiles, tax evaders, serial killers, or suicide bombers... You can't invade someone's privacy or step all over their rights without something concrete to justify it. And "because he's on the internet" is no more justification to search hard drives than it is justified to suspect someone of terrorism simply because they're middle-eastern.

What in your private life, is so important that it is worth stalling a search for pedophiles, tax evaders, serial killers, or suicide bombers?

 

[Dogstile]

Remote searches? on my machine?

If it happens, I'm suing, that's a breach of my personal privacy. I'm British, I'm very private you see.

 

[DayDark]

What in your private life, is so important that it is worth stalling a search for pedophiles, tax evaders, serial killers, or suicide bombers?

Oh, how about MY FUCKING PRIVACY?!

Are the concepts of due process or personal privacy completely lost on you?

Let me put it to you very simply. If the government came into your house, cut up your furniture, trashed the walls, and broke open all your possessions in the search for drugs, it would probably piss you off righteously, right?

Then I would be pissed off that they trashed my stuff, but not because they searched my place for drugs. If they came in and not trashing my stuff, but still searching, then I really couldn't care less.

Let me put it to you very simply. If they destroy my property, I'm gonna be mad, and they will need to replace it. However, if they search my for drugs without destroying my stuff, then who gives a shit?

Now if they did this because they had proof you were selling coke to school kids, with a warrant from the proper authorities, then boo-hoo to you.

But if the police came, did the same thing as above, but DIDN'T have a warrant, didn't have any kind of indication you were selling or in possession of drugs, would that not bother you? Can you tell me that what they did is acceptable?

Destroy my stuff, and we have a problem, just going through my stuff because you wanna rule me out of a drug trade, that I have been in proximity of? Sure, go right ahead, please return everything to the place you took it, want some coffee while you're working?

It doesn't have to be as extreme as a house raid, but by law and principle, ANY unwarranted invasion of someone's personal privacy by the police or government is an attack on the very foundation of what our nations stand for, the rights we supposedly possess, and the personal security we hold dear. If you can't understand that, then you should try a couple years in a dictatorial police state. Maybe that will give you some perspective.

I thought the problem with a police state, was that the police could charge you for nothing, not go through your laundry. There's a long way from trashing your home, and charging you for an opinion, to simply go through your stuff.

I'm also not a US citizen, so maybe it's a cultural thing, I'm just not aware of the USA ever having experienced a dictatorship police state.

 

[Diablini]

The tittle made me think I was finally going to see ROBOCOP!
Anyway. On my hard drive they will only find a lot of games and porn.

PS: They took er' privacy!

 

[DayDark]

Obviously you don't give a shit, but most people, self included, DO. If you want to allow the cops to investigate you on anything they like, without probable cause, a warrant or any of the other constitutionally / legally required articles, good for you. But the rest of us don't, and will stand up for our rights.

Well it shouldn't be without cause, searching stuff with the cause to just find "something", rather then looking for anything specific, is not what I have in mind. It should be an aid, to an ongoing investigation, not a means to just look, for looks sake. I don't particularly have anything against the current system. It's just that I will personally not hold back an officer, simply for the sake of my privacy, when I haven't done anything, but of course I would like to know what he's looking for, if nothing but to help him on his way. I just don't get why someone would hold back an officer based on the grounds of "just because".

A police state is also applicable when one is under constant surveillance, having no privacy in their lives. That would apply here.

Even if this cyber police comes to pass, There's no possible way that they can keep all under constant surveillance. But a thing to keep in mind about the article:

"The Cyber Police will also be trained in making 'remote searches' in order to track down criminals, within the limits of the various Data Protection Laws."

To me that sounds like they will need a valid reason in order to get hands on your data.

Well I know little about culture in Denmark, or the law there. Maybe it isn't a big deal for your way of life. In North America, unwarranted investigation is tantamount to a crime itself. Police can lose their jobs, even face civil or criminal charges and prison time for prying into the private affairs of a citizen without cause. At the very least, evidence gathered by such illegal/unconstitutional means would have any case thrown out of court, making it a pointless effort. This only serves to make things worse as the guilty go free on technicalities while the innocent have irreparable harm to their reputation.

It becomes a witch hunt. Those never end well.[/quote]

I think this kind of procedure is universal, because I'll be surprised if this wouldn't occur in Denmark as well. However, I do believe we have a law which dictates that in case of Terrorism threat, they don't need a warrant.

I guess I just assume that the police actually wanna find out THE bad guy, instead of just someone who fits the description.