DailyTech - European Union Encourages British Police Hacking

Submit News

Internet European Union Encourages British Police Hacking
Michael Barkoviak - January 7, 2009 10:25 AM

E-mail

del.icio.us

10 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jan 8 at 4:48 PM

British authorities have been encouraged to hack into computers more

The Council of the European Union recently gave its approval for "remote searching," which will allow police authorities to remotely access computers of criminal suspects.

"The UK has agreed to a strategic approach towards tackling cybercrime on the same basis as all member states; however… the Council conclusions are not legally binding, and there are no agreed time scales," the British Home Office said in a published statement. "We fully support work to develop an understanding of the scale and impact of electronic crime across the EU and will work with member states to develop the detail of the proposal."

Public disclosure of the plan has privacy and security experts worried that the government is seeking further control, and it begins with the ability to access people's PCs without the user's knowledge, or without the use of a warrant. Privacy advocates want to know how suspects will be chosen, and if any safeguards have been put in place to protect regular citizens from getting spied on.

To avoid traditional phone taps used by the police and federal authorities, more criminals are heading to the internet, which allows them to meet anonymously. E-mails, instant messages, and all internet activities would be fair game for the police authorities.

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 has given police the ability to hack into suspect PC systems without a warrant for 13 years, when a 1994 amendment was put into place in 1995. It's most likely police will rely on keyloggers to monitor the activities of a suspect, but specific details were not released.

Each new case must be approved by a chief constable, but it's possible the agreement will give police agencies in other parts of Europe the ability to also begin to monitor suspect activities.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

thoughts

By Visual on 1/7/2009 11:58:37 AM , Rating: 2

My first reaction is that this should only be allowed after acquiring a court order, much like searching one's house or tapping their phone.

On the other hand, I probably have a very unusual view on hacking illegality in general. I know most people will disagree with me, but if someone is stupid enough to run an executable that I emailed them claiming it is porn, I don't agree that I am guilty of "hacking" or anything like that - it is their own fault.
For another example, there have been lots of cases already where various people or corporations or whatever, mostly due to ignorance, left important and possibly confidential information exposed to the public, and all it takes to "hack" into it is to guess an URL. I don't agree that someone taking advantage of that situation should be declared a criminal - in my opinion they are free to use or redistribute the acquired information however they decide, except if that violates some copyright or such.
There are also some sites that have such insecure design that you can modify or delete their data quite easily if you know a bit about web programming. Doing so is quite clearly "hacking", no dispute there, and I do not suggest or encourage it, but I still think it should not be considered a crime. If there is anyone to be blamed for any damages from that act, it should be the developer of the site if they gave any warranty for their product, or the site owners themselves for their inability to find a competent developer and include a suitable warranty clause in their contract.
Even in the most extreme cases of hacking, where someone manages to exploit an obscure flaw in some software that was admittedly very hard to foresee, I would argue the same stance - the hacker is not the one that should be blamed, unless he violated some actual contract that he was bound to or such. This part brings us to another controversial topic, namely the validity of EULAs and TOSes that state absurd things like "by opening the box/accessing this site you agree to...", but let's not go there now.

My whole point is that if the police, or anyone else for that matter, manage to convince me to run their keylogger or even install it through some hole in my system that I didn't patch in time, then it is my own fault. Even if they install it through some app that is advertised to be clean of bugs or backdoors or such, they still are not to be blamed... I should be able to sue the developer of the app in that case for false advertising at the least, and for damages if I didn't agree to some "no warranties" clause somewhere.

But enough of my rambling, most of you probably think I am crazy already and will never agree with me.

RE: thoughts

By ceefka on 1/7/2009 3:33:38 PM , Rating: 3

I agree with your first paragraph about the court order. And that's where you should have left it IMHO.

The rest sounds to me like taking advantage of anything is always allowed even if it is not the right thing to do. Why worry about copyrights when you are about to destroy someones website? If a site is written poorly, you shouldn't hack it and blame the developper who happens to be a html-noob. That's like trashing someones garden just because the fence was open. You didn't pay for that webspace so it isn't yours to alter it.

Parent

RE: thoughts

By Visual on 1/8/2009 5:23:00 AM , Rating: 2

well my problem with that analogy and the ones mentioned in the other replies is that i am not actually entering your garden, i am sitting in my house. i am not on your property, i am on my own property, working with my own pc, and i feel i should be free to do whatever i want with it.
you have created a big red button with a flashing "do not press" sign that destroys your own garden or deletes your data and you put it in my yard... what follows is only normal.

but whatever. society is lucky i am not making the laws, i guess :p

Parent

RE: thoughts

By rcc on 1/8/2009 4:48:29 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
but whatever. society is lucky i am not making the laws, i guess

Indeed we are. We dumped most of your ilk in the Medeival might makes right days.

So, if you come out onto public property, and I steal your wallet, it's your fault for not being able to stop me, right? That's pretty pathetic.

As far as "being on your own property", ok, disconnect from the Internet and you can do what you want with your computer. Once you hit the Internet and invade someone else's section of it, you aren't "on" your own computer anymore.

Or, is it ok for me to throw junk in your backyard as long as I don't step on your property?

Parent

RE: thoughts

By Kenenniah on 1/7/2009 4:46:55 PM , Rating: 2

Following that line of thinking, it shouldn't be illegal to steal someone's car if they left the keys in it. Or even if locked, it shouldn't be illegal, it should be the car manufacturer's fault for not making the car more theft proof. If I buy a home security system and someone gets in and takes my belongings, that shouldn't be illegal. It should instead be the security company's fault. If someone stabs me, he shouldn't be labelled a criminal because the clothing company should have made my sweater more knife proof. Heck, after applying your logic, we could rationally conclude that almost nothing is illegal.

Parent

Yeah, but were is the short bald guy and the girls in bathingsuits?

By austinag on 1/7/2009 11:11:34 AM , Rating: 5

When I read this, I immediatly had the image of a British Bobby sitting at a computer trying to figure out how to hack while the Benny Hill music plays in the background.