
AusCERT arrest - yes, "arrest" - justatdotin
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/grubbs-story-privacy-news-and-the-strong-arm-of-the-law-20110518-1esn9.html
======
ck2
It doesn't matter what country you are in - there is no such thing as a
"friendly conversation" with any level of law enforcement - there are so many
laws about everything and anything and you can be contributing to your own
arrest and prosecution without even realizing it, doesn't matter if you are
actually not guilty, why set yourself up?

Laws aren't necessarily logical or fair and you might never grasp the danger
of that until you are on the wrong side of one. Unless you are purposely
trying to get arrested to make a protest, stop chatting with cops! Their
policy is typically "arrest anyway, get them in the system, let the courts
sort it out later".

Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and
mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to
make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning.

What's really surprising in this case is only that this particular person
didn't grasp the concept. He probably got to walk away only because they knew
the ipad data could make much better evidence to arrest others than forced
testimony. But they obviously used his arrest to leverage him giving it up
without a fight.

~~~
radu_floricica
That may be true, but it's not a solution. Personally, I want to live in a
world where law enforcement is the ally, not the enemy. And if this is not
possible, that's the bigger problem.

~~~
jdietrich
The job of law enforcement is to prevent crime, to detain criminal suspects
and to gather evidence.

If the police are talking to you then by definition they are trying to
incriminate someone, that's their job. Police officers are obliged to use any
legal means available to obtain evidence - anything less would be negligence.
As they are obliged by law to tell you, anything you say or do can be held
against you in a court of law. You have a legal right not to incriminate
yourself, but you don't have the right to un-incriminate yourself in
hindsight, even if you incriminated yourself only inadvertently. If you have
evidence that proves you did not commit a criminal offence, then it is in your
best interest to use your right to legal representation to ensure that you
give that evidence as clearly as possible and do not say anything that could
undermine that evidence.

Not talking to cops is a basic principle of privacy, like shredding your
credit card bills or using a password on your e-mail account. Once information
is out there, you can't get it back, so it's your duty to preserve it at all
costs.

If talking to the cops made sense, the cops would be doing a lousy job.

~~~
danssig
>If talking to the cops made sense, the cops would be doing a lousy job.

This is a poor attitude and probably explains why dealing with police in the
US is such a big deal. It doesn't have to be like this, and isn't in a lot of
other countries.

~~~
jdietrich
It's like that in _every country on earth_ , more so in most countries other
than the US. Much of South America still operates under Napoleonic law in
which there is a presumption of guilt. I'm British and would never dream of
speaking to a police officer anywhere in Europe without legal representation.
American police are slightly more corrupt than the first-world average and
sentencing is unusually punitive (especially for drug offences), but by global
standards the US legal system isn't exceptionally bad.

How could we possibly architect a legal system in which it doesn't make sense
to speak to a lawyer before giving evidence? Unless we massively simplify the
law _and_ train every single citizen in the law to a fairly high standard, the
benefit of representation will persist. The system recognises this and
enshrines the right to legal representation.

~~~
danssig
>It's like that in every country on earth, more so in most countries other
than the US.

This claim is even more extraordinary than the first. I'm living in
Switzerland and I can tell you dealing with the cops is not a problem here
because they use their heads (instead of just trying to close a case). Of
course if they think you're a scum bag then you won't get the benefit of the
doubt, but I can understand that.

>but by global standards the US legal system isn't exceptionally bad.

To be honest, I would trust the US system more than I would the UK system
because at least if something stupid happens I would expect to be able to sue
someone for lots of cash. The UK could just D-notice me away.

------
16s
This is a very good example of why you should never, under any circumstances,
use a proprietary computing device that cannot be fully encrypted where you
alone hold the decryption key.

The convenience these devices provide comes at the cost of your personal
privacy and security. You basically give up control of your data when you
decide to use an iPad. Most people just don't realize it.

I really wish the device manufactures would allow, open-source, transparent
whole device encryption that can be externally validated (Droids may have the
capability already thanks to Linux and dm-crypt). In general, user's don't
demand it, so the Apples of the world have no incentive to do it. All the
while, they provide full access to the device's secret/undocumented data
recovery/snooping features to governments leaving their user's private,
personal data easily accessible.

~~~
mahyarm
Apple has had FileVault for a while, and Lion will have whole disk encryption
when it's released. Corporations of the world demand these things and you'll
start seeing them once they can start dictating feature demands more and more.
Apple does add encryption here and there, but only in small bits
unfortunately.

~~~
jacques_chester
A few years ago Rio Tinto (a massive mining company) flat out _banned_ staff
from using iPhones because they weren't encryptable. This came about because
an executive based in China was arrested and his iPhone taken.

------
djmdjm
The Queensland police have form for overzealous prosecution. A couple of years
ago they arrested and charged a man with publishing child-abuse material after
passing on a viral video that had already been shown on national TV:
[http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/net-video-
crime-e...](http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/net-video-crime-
epidemic/2008/12/11/1228584982919.html)

Moral of the story: don't use the Internet in Queensland.

------
justatdotin
I'm just posting this recount because discussion on the previous article (and
assertions by the tweeting police) suggested he wasn't arrested.

and I read here [http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-story-arrest-
disp...](http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-story-arrest-disputed-on-
twitter/story-e6frfro0-1226057758607) that the queensland police thismorning
tweeted again: "Our bad @bengrubb was arrested for questioning briefly Our
tweet last night was based on information provided at the time Apologies,"

~~~
fungi
> Our bad @bengrubb was arrested ...

its absolutely infuriating that cops can be so drunk with power that they can
be so publicly blasé with the fact that they are fucking with someone's life
and liberty.

~~~
Joakal
If you think that's bad then there's this:

Detective Superintendent Brian Hay today likened the issue to receiving stolen
goods, but refused to go into details of Fairfax journalist Ben Grubb's case.

"Let me give you an analogy. Someone breaks into a house and they steal a TV
and they give that TV to you, and you know that TV is stolen, and you apply it
to your own use ... that's receiving stolen property," he said. [0]

[0] <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/18/3220071.htm>

~~~
alexqgb
And that's EXACTLY why talking to the police about IP cases in particular is
such a catastrophically bad idea.

Most of these guys have absolutely no understanding of the law, which is
hardly their fault. After all, IP law was established decades ago, in the pre-
digital world. For most of its evolution, it functioned as a highly obscure
branch of industrial law, used almost exclusively to govern relations between
corporate publishers with large legal and clearance departments. It was
manifestly NOT designed to govern the conduct of private individuals.

In other words, police are as well-equipped to deal with this as they are to
handle international trade disputes, which is why 'additional training' isn't
the solution, since no amount of training can turn a blue collar union guy
into the kind of highly educated corporate lawyer whose domain this really is.

I agree with every other poster here - if you really want to balance your
desire to be a good citizen with a measure of intelligent self-preservation,
say you're happy to help with their investigation. Ask them to leave a number
where they can reach you, and let them know that your legal representative
will be contacting them there. Your lawyer can start by insisting that your
cooperation is contingent upon a grant of total immunity. If there's any
hesitation here, you'll know that actually, their request wasn't so friendly
after all, and that they were, in fact, viewing you as a possible suspect the
whole time.

------
Duff
There's a great lecture by a law professor on YouTube called "Don't Talk to
Police". Watch it for some great insight on this.

A key concept to understand is the phrase "Anything that you say can be used
against you." That's a key phrase because of what isn't stated -- that words
you say will be not be used to help you. A prosecutor has broad discretion to
prosecute, and can (and will) cherry-pick information to use against you.

Most cops and prosecutors are great people to have a beer with, and are not
corrupt. But sometimes their position gives them a myopia and they see things
or make connections are convenient or expedient. They are also invested with
powers that make them extremely dangerous to interact with in many scenarios.

------
JoeAltmaier
Lots of advice about stonewalling police. Then you get robbed, and imagine
your frustration when the neighbors, who witnessed the van pull up while you
were away and empty your house, turn their backs and walk back into their
houses.

You get the world you're willing to participate in. Enlightened self-interest
may be in play here.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
To some extent, yes; but in that case the neighbours have much better reasons
to think that they are not a suspect than when a police officer starts
chatting to them for no apparent reason.

[EDIT: make it clear that I'm referring to the neighbours, was "To some
extent, yes; but in that case it's a much more reasonable assumption that
you're not a suspect."]

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Missed the point: the neighbors are ignoring the police, and you suffer. Now
you are frustrated at the advice "don't talk to the police for any reason".
Just an example.

~~~
alexqgb
Unless, of course, your neighbors consider themselves potential victims as
well, and cooperate based on a sense of self-interest, rather than concern for
your well-being.

~~~
hugh3
This would _also_ make sense, and just goes to show how the "never talk to the
police for any reason" meme is just plain silly, not to mention antisocial and
dickish (if nobody ever talked to the police for any reason, then no criminals
would ever get locked up). It's just part of a paranoid mindset which gets you
karma on the internet but probably doesn't do you any good in the real world.

By all means have your wits around you when talking to the police, especially
if you think they suspect you of something, but the police are _not_ out to
get their jollies by locking up innocent folks for no reason, and your chance
of winding up in prison for a crime you didn't commit based on a random off-
hand innocent remark to a police officer is... much lower than other things
you hardly ever think about.

Hey, did you know that you have a one in eight hundred chance of getting
multiple sclerosis? Go worry about that for a while instead.

------
pieter
I wonder if it's legal to remote wipe your iPad with MobileMe after they've
taken possession of it. Or what about "Oh, you're going to arrest me? Can I
have one second before you read my rights?" and then wipe it?

~~~
Jco_
Or you can make sure nobody can access your data. Truecrypt, anyone ?

~~~
mike-cardwell
This is why my next phone will be compatible with Whispercore
(<http://whispersys.com/whispercore.html>) and hopefully my next Tablet too.

This is also why I automatically encrypt all of my incoming email with my
public pgp key on the mail server. So any mail sat on my phone/laptop/server
is encrypted with my password protected private pgp key
([https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_E...](https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_Email))

I'm in the UK, so unfortunately they can demand that I give up my encryption
keys and passwords and charge me if I choose to refuse, but at least it will
slow them down enough so I can get a lawyer involved. And at least I have the
choice of refusing.

~~~
VladRussian
>I'm in the UK, so unfortunately they can demand that I give up my encryption
keys and passwords and charge me if I choose to refuse

do they have the right to scan your brain if you forgot the password or
produce the wrong one under the stress of the arrest (my hands shake, heart
races and i have hard time finding insurance card lying in plain view in glove
compartment even when i'm having a traffic stop, less hard to imagine how i'd
feel when/if i'd be "arrested for questioning")?

~~~
zcid
No but they will send someone to jail if they refuse to give up the password.
Think of it as a contempt charge. If they still can't remember after a few
weeks or months, they can be charged again, go back to jail, and then repeat
the process until they don't feel like dealing with the situation anymore
(theoretically, it could turn into a life sentence composed of multiple
smaller sentences).

------
hugh3
Since I was one of the ones doubting that he'd really been arrested in the
previous thread I should throw in a _mea culpa_ at this point.

It seems like they arrested him primarily because they wanted the evidence on
that iPad to charge the other guy. I assume that the actual one-on-one
demonstration had taken place _on_ that iPad? The details aren't given, but it
kinda makes sense.

The justification they used to arrest him is iffy, and I suspect they know it,
but it's _just_ strong enough that it doesn't count as a false arrest (though
they're certainly not going to bother to charge him with receiving stolen
goods).

While some people are using this as an opportunity to spread the "don't talk
to police" meme, I'd like to use it as an opportunity to spread the "don't do
illegal stuff with your computer _or_ let other people do illegal stuff with
your computer" meme, as this seems to be an easier way to avoid running afoul
of the law.

~~~
dkarl
You seem pretty determined to give the police the benefit of the doubt; why?
It's a lot easier to believe that someone at Facebook called them up and made
a lot of scary noises about "information about the commission of a crime" and
"threat to the personal safety of our customers" and "possible dissemination
of proprietary data and trade secrets in the form of illegal hacking
techniques." (Maybe that's not impressive, but I'm just an amateur; a lawyer
could sound much more scary while being a lot less specific.) Maybe whoever
was in charge of the investigation was too easily cowed, too scared of bad PR,
too easily panicked by vague specters of anarchy, or simply too trusting of a
successful and established business. That seems pretty believable to me, and I
haven't heard an equally plausible explanation.

(I agree its a little silly that "don't talk to the police" dominates this
page so much it's a pain to find the posts about the actual article.)

------
adamc
More evidence that the police (and the governments behind them) are out of
control. Makes me think you should never answer questions without a lawyer of
your own present. Of course, that presents serious problems for the poor.

~~~
VladRussian
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning> :

"the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult
with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and
that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to
represent her or him."

~~~
adamc
Fair enough. In the last month I was part of an attempt to empanel a jury (in
Texas) for a misdemeanor. We were told that the defendent was defending
himself and that in Texas there was no right to an attorney in such cases (I
think because the maximum punishment was a fine).

------
daimyoyo
It's been said, but it bears repeating: NEVER talk to police without a lawyer
present. Ever. The fact is that the the people interviewing know you law
better than you do and know how to gain information they can use against you
without you being aware of what's happening. There are people who contend that
"if you're innocent you have nothing to hide" but frankly, the risk is too
high of having something I said misconstrued. I'd rather look guilty and be
free, than know I'm innocent and be in jail.

------
KaeseEs
How long have Australian police been in the habit of reading suspects their
Miranda rights (or are they required to)? I'm really curious how that made it
from our law to theirs.

~~~
Joakal
Miranda rights only exist in USA. Here's Australia equivalent, it's pretty
loose:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Miranda_right...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Miranda_rights#Australia)

------
Nick_C
I wonder if AusCERT will be held in Queensland ever again. If I was one of the
organisers, I would be having a long hard think about that.

------
satori99
Here is some interesting information about the Arresting officer Senior
Constable Errol Coultis. Seems he may have a penchant for bittorrents. lol.

[http://www.zgeek.com/showthread.php/101079-Article-
Queenslan...](http://www.zgeek.com/showthread.php/101079-Article-Queensland-
cops-now-say-they-didn-t-arrest-Ben-Grubb?p=1669346&viewfull=1#post1669346)

------
shareme
Rules when dealing with police:

1\. Always assume that police and computers are a disaster waiting to happen
and thus that law officers are often overwhelmed by complexities of computers.

2\. Always fight any request to impound any computer device. Its taking
control of your property under somewhat shady if not illegal circumstances.

3\. Have a business card with someone reachable 24-7 that will go to bat for
you and claim that the device in question if company property and cannot be
confiscated or impounded.

4\. Be a little less naive, as breaking into two FB accounts that I won or
control is not illegal, breaking into someone else's is somewhat illegal even
for demo purposes. However, what saves this journalist's ass is its just a
photo that does not have large company copyrights attached to it.

~~~
uxp
> 4\. Be a little less naive, as breaking into two FB accounts that I own[sic]
> or control is not illegal, breaking into someone else's is somewhat illegal
> even for demo purposes.

FaceBook's TOS specifically states that anything uploaded onto their site,
including the text of a status update, pictures, videos and comment text, is
the irrevocable ownership of FaceBook. This gives them the ability to use your
friend's pictures inside targeted ads, as well as take general screenshots of
the site that may contain your comments or pictures as marketing tools for
their own benefit and not yours.

I wonder if unauthorized access to a FaceBook account is deemed theft of
stolen property with the owner of the account as the victim, or if this was to
go to court, would FaceBook be in the prosecution chair claiming their
property was stolen†. If the latter, does anyone besides FaceBook have any say
on how an unauthorized entry to some account should be treated?

†Stolen in this context just means the "downloading" of page assets that
occurs when one visits a web page.

~~~
alexqgb
Not totally correct. FB wouldn't be able to legally republish your photos on
your friend's profiles were it not for a legal grant permitting them to do so.
While you are giving them the unrestricted right to do pretty much anything
they want with material uploaded to their site, they are not going so far as
to claim that you're transferring clear title as well. You remain the
copyright holder, they remain a (very privileged) licensee.

