Bluewolf Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 Serious question.. If any of you were involved in a crime as a victim would you be ok with handing over your mobile phone to the Police so they could Digitally Extract the contents on it??
nudge Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 59 minutes ago, Bluewolf said: Serious question.. If any of you were involved in a crime as a victim would you be ok with handing over your mobile phone to the Police so they could Digitally Extract the contents on it?? What's the context here? If there's evidence of said crime on my phone, then yes, it's a no brainer. If it's not related to the crime whatsoever (and the police has no reason to believe it can contain any evidence), then it's an unnecessary privacy invasion and I wouldn't consent to that.
Azeem Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 I would first inquire why they want it if it's not related to the crime in any way
Administrator Stan Posted July 16, 2020 Administrator Posted July 16, 2020 I'd give them the data I think is necessary relating to the crime I'm a victim of. Why would they need all of the data and what would they do with it after?
Subscriber Pyfish+ Posted July 16, 2020 Subscriber Posted July 16, 2020 As a victim, I'd hand my phone over but I'd want to know exactly why they needed it, what they needed and what they were planning on doing with it. I don't have anything to hide (that's what they all say, I know) but I wouldn't want to get pulled up on something that isn't related to the crime they are investigating.
Bluewolf Posted July 16, 2020 Author Posted July 16, 2020 20 minutes ago, nudge said: What's the context here? If there's evidence of said crime on my phone, then yes, it's a no brainer. If it's not related to the crime whatsoever (and the police has no reason to believe it can contain any evidence), then it's an unnecessary privacy invasion and I wouldn't consent to that. Well I was reading an article this morning about how the CPS ( Crown Prosecution Service ) have had to drop their policy for 'Digital Data Extraction Consent Forms' as they called them which granted Police access to their data in relation to crimes of a sexual nature ( One was Rape ) to enable them to gather any relevant information that could help with a case. Last year one of these alleged victims refused to hand over her phone as part of an investigation into a rape case and it was promptly dropped by the CPS on the grounds she was refusing to cooperate. She is saying it was 'Unlawful, Discriminatory, and Intrusive' Now I am a big fan of privacy, as most of us probably are and I think the powers that be already have enough as it is without needing to go ott in some regards and in one of the cases one of the women involved was asked for 7 years worth of data which is wholly disproportionate with any recent crime so totally on board with that argument but I was curious that if a victim can be allowed to refuse to give any information or data relating to a crime for either the defence or indeed the prosecution could the accused also have the same rights?? Rape or Abuse cases can be very hard to prove at times and it's a minefield for any victim to have enough strength to come forward as it is without making the whole ordeal any harder than it has to be so agree in part that powers used should be case specific where possible so as not to put people off coming forward but refusing to grant access to any evidence that could prove either guilt or innocence for either party I am not so sure about?? The idea behind the forms in the first place was to help reassure victims that cases were being taken seriously but seems to have backfired when reasons for the withdrawal were that police forces were not giving enough consideration to 'Necessity, Proportionality, and Collateral Intrusion' If I had been involved in a crime as a victim I would have no problem handing over my phone if requested if I felt it helped my case even though I am not a big fan of privacy invasion
Subscriber CaaC (John)+ Posted July 16, 2020 Subscriber Posted July 16, 2020 Talk to my solicitor first and listen to his advice then leave it in his hands to deal with.
nudge Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bluewolf said: Well I was reading an article this morning about how the CPS ( Crown Prosecution Service ) have had to drop their policy for 'Digital Data Extraction Consent Forms' as they called them which granted Police access to their data in relation to crimes of a sexual nature ( One was Rape ) to enable them to gather any relevant information that could help with a case. Last year one of these alleged victims refused to hand over her phone as part of an investigation into a rape case and it was promptly dropped by the CPS on the grounds she was refusing to cooperate. She is saying it was 'Unlawful, Discriminatory, and Intrusive' Now I am a big fan of privacy, as most of us probably are and I think the powers that be already have enough as it is without needing to go ott in some regards and in one of the cases one of the women involved was asked for 7 years worth of data which is wholly disproportionate with any recent crime so totally on board with that argument but I was curious that if a victim can be allowed to refuse to give any information or data relating to a crime for either the defence or indeed the prosecution could the accused also have the same rights?? Rape or Abuse cases can be very hard to prove at times and it's a minefield for any victim to have enough strength to come forward as it is without making the whole ordeal any harder than it has to be so agree in part that powers used should be case specific where possible so as not to put people off coming forward but refusing to grant access to any evidence that could prove either guilt or innocence for either party I am not so sure about?? The idea behind the forms in the first place was to help reassure victims that cases were being taken seriously but seems to have backfired when reasons for the withdrawal were that police forces were not giving enough consideration to 'Necessity, Proportionality, and Collateral Intrusion' If I had been involved in a crime as a victim I would have no problem handing over my phone if requested if I felt it helped my case even though I am not a big fan of privacy invasion Yeah, I figured it was about rape/abuse cases. Very complicated, to be honest. On one hand, I understand the reasoning behind it, as like you said, those cases are often very hard to prove and there are also cases with false accusations, so the data on the victim's (or the accuser, if it's a false one) phone can be crucial. On the other hand, I can also sympathise with the actual victims who already went through the whole ordeal of rape or abuse and are now asked to surrender personal data (which might as well include very sensitive data such as nudes or intimate conversations, etc) which will be viewed by numerous other people and stored somewhere for who knows how long; I can understand why they'd feel violated by that... Then there's also the issues of disproportionate data collection, protection of sensitive data, storing and access to it by third parties, potential of misuse. There's many things to consider, but overall, if I was the victim and knew that there's even the slightest chance that the data on my phone could help put the perpetrator behind the bars, I'd go along with it, even if it's a huge invasion of privacy.
Administrator Stan Posted July 16, 2020 Administrator Posted July 16, 2020 33 minutes ago, Bluewolf said: Well I was reading an article this morning about how the CPS ( Crown Prosecution Service ) have had to drop their policy for 'Digital Data Extraction Consent Forms' as they called them which granted Police access to their data in relation to crimes of a sexual nature ( One was Rape ) to enable them to gather any relevant information that could help with a case. Last year one of these alleged victims refused to hand over her phone as part of an investigation into a rape case and it was promptly dropped by the CPS on the grounds she was refusing to cooperate. She is saying it was 'Unlawful, Discriminatory, and Intrusive' Now I am a big fan of privacy, as most of us probably are and I think the powers that be already have enough as it is without needing to go ott in some regards and in one of the cases one of the women involved was asked for 7 years worth of data which is wholly disproportionate with any recent crime so totally on board with that argument but I was curious that if a victim can be allowed to refuse to give any information or data relating to a crime for either the defence or indeed the prosecution could the accused also have the same rights?? Rape or Abuse cases can be very hard to prove at times and it's a minefield for any victim to have enough strength to come forward as it is without making the whole ordeal any harder than it has to be so agree in part that powers used should be case specific where possible so as not to put people off coming forward but refusing to grant access to any evidence that could prove either guilt or innocence for either party I am not so sure about?? The idea behind the forms in the first place was to help reassure victims that cases were being taken seriously but seems to have backfired when reasons for the withdrawal were that police forces were not giving enough consideration to 'Necessity, Proportionality, and Collateral Intrusion' If I had been involved in a crime as a victim I would have no problem handing over my phone if requested if I felt it helped my case even though I am not a big fan of privacy invasion I wouldn't say it's wholly disproportionate. Depending on the case, there could be a history of behaviour from the accused/perpetrator against the woman. Piecing together bits of history that could be used as evidence is important, even if it wasn't reported. Especially in the case of domestic abuse/domestic violence. Not all domestic abuse is visible and data going back years could link to or point to things like emotional abuse as well. I'm not entirely sure that accused would have the same rights, either. They'd have to have a very good reason not to do it. A victim is allowed control of their own data whether that's on their own phone or someone else's. They have the rights to that and what's done with it. When it comes to the accused, if the data on that can implicate safeguarding restrictions and be used to prevent further harm to an individual (whether by the accused or not) then they would be duty-bound to hand it over. It's worse for an accused party to withhold data as naturally it just looks like you have something to hide.
Bluewolf Posted July 16, 2020 Author Posted July 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, Stan said: t's worse for an accused party to withhold data as naturally it just looks like you have something to hide. Could the same not be said for the accuser though?? The Accused has the same rights to privacy as the accuser surely?? Sadly these days the accused can suffer far greater harm just by being accused than they can if they were actually found guilty... They get named, Can lose their jobs, be sneered at in the street, lose friends and family have their whole life turned upside down before a verdict is even reached and the victim gets to stay hidden behind anonymity and worse, even if the accused is found innocent the damage is already done and the false accuser ( if proven ) still gets identity protection... I am all for making the whole thing easier for victims because you do get some right arseholes out there but the scale is getting tipped further in the favour of the accuser in my opinion.. There has to be a fair balance...
nudge Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, Stan said: I wouldn't say it's wholly disproportionate. Depending on the case, there could be a history of behaviour from the accused/perpetrator against the woman. Piecing together bits of history that could be used as evidence is important, even if it wasn't reported. Especially in the case of domestic abuse/domestic violence. Not all domestic abuse is visible and data going back years could link to or point to things like emotional abuse as well. Apparently the woman who was asked to provide access to 7 years of data was attacked by a group of strangers, so surely the data is irrelevant anyway?... Also just read about another case where the police demanded the mobile phone, educational and medical records of a woman who was raped by a stranger eight years ago - even after identifying her attacker using DNA evidence. That's just a ridiculous misuse of power and a completely unnecessary privacy intrusion, and just highlights how the procedure needs to be improved to limit it only to cases where it's absolutely necessary and then only for data which is directly related to the crime.
Bluewolf Posted July 16, 2020 Author Posted July 16, 2020 28 minutes ago, nudge said: if I was the victim and knew that there's even the slightest chance that the data on my phone could help put the perpetrator behind the bars, I'd go along with it, even if it's a huge invasion of privacy. Well that was my thinking.... I appreciate that there may be some nudes or other very private stuff shared between partners and so on but given the gravity and seriousness of a potential sexual assault or rape then you might hope that they would allow it just to be in the clear or help their case if applicable. The other matter of course would be about having safe guards around the viewing and retaining of that information/data and who sees it etc.. and what is done with the none relevant information that might be accessed which has nothing to do with the case.
nudge Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Bluewolf said: Well that was my thinking.... I appreciate that there may be some nudes or other very private stuff shared between partners and so on but given the gravity and seriousness of a potential sexual assault or rape then you might hope that they would allow it just to be in the clear or help their case if applicable. The other matter of course would be about having safe guards around the viewing and retaining of that information/data and who sees it etc.. and what is done with the none relevant information that might be accessed which has nothing to do with the case. Yes, the key issue I see here is the need to clearly explain why the data needs to be extracted, what data exactly is extracted, how is it going to be used and stored, and what steps will be taken to ensure the protection of senstive personal data (especially that not related to the case). So all in all, I think the idea behind it is fine, just the approach and the actual procedures need improving.
Bluewolf Posted July 16, 2020 Author Posted July 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, nudge said: Apparently the woman who was asked to provide access to 7 years of data was attacked by a group of strangers, so surely the data is irrelevant anyway?... Also just read about another case where the police demanded the mobile phone, educational and medical records of a woman who was raped by a stranger eight years ago - even after identifying her attacker using DNA evidence. That's just a ridiculous misuse of power and a completely unnecessary privacy intrusion, and just highlights how the procedure needs to be improved to limit it only to cases where it's absolutely necessary and then only for data which is directly related to the crime. Where do you find all this stuff... I didn't have any of that info in the article I was reading??? You do like to do your research..
nudge Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bluewolf said: Where do you find all this stuff... I didn't have any of that info in the article I was reading??? You do like to do your research.. Hehe, that's what I do for a living... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49072302 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-medical-records-met-police-cps-a8949636.html https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/23/rights_groups_attack_uk_cops_crime_victims_phones/ This one is from the non profit who deals with things like that, it's a long report but skip to the "Victim experiences" part on page 46: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Digital-Strip-Searches-Final.pdf
Administrator Stan Posted July 16, 2020 Administrator Posted July 16, 2020 43 minutes ago, Bluewolf said: Could the same not be said for the accuser though?? The Accused has the same rights to privacy as the accuser surely?? Sadly these days the accused can suffer far greater harm just by being accused than they can if they were actually found guilty... They get named, Can lose their jobs, be sneered at in the street, lose friends and family have their whole life turned upside down before a verdict is even reached and the victim gets to stay hidden behind anonymity and worse, even if the accused is found innocent the damage is already done and the false accuser ( if proven ) still gets identity protection... I am all for making the whole thing easier for victims because you do get some right arseholes out there but the scale is getting tipped further in the favour of the accuser in my opinion.. There has to be a fair balance... They'd have the same rights as any person regardless but once it becomes a legal matter, and there's justification for giving that data from an enforcing authority, then they'd have to. I guess that does go for the accuser, too. All that stuff you mention can happen way before police can start investigating anyway so it's a bit of a moot point in this regard. I agree there needs to be a balance but the stuff you mention is veering away from the concept of digital extraction? The accused can suffer because these days there is 'trial by media'. It's a savage world and sometimes those media articles/media attention can impact a trial or legal process in a very destructive way. There's a reason victim's identities are kept secret to help cases (when they get to court/trial) find the right outcome. 41 minutes ago, nudge said: Apparently the woman who was asked to provide access to 7 years of data was attacked by a group of strangers, so surely the data is irrelevant anyway?... Also just read about another case where the police demanded the mobile phone, educational and medical records of a woman who was raped by a stranger eight years ago - even after identifying her attacker using DNA evidence. That's just a ridiculous misuse of power and a completely unnecessary privacy intrusion, and just highlights how the procedure needs to be improved to limit it only to cases where it's absolutely necessary and then only for data which is directly related to the crime. Okay, that wasn't mentioned and as we were talking about rape/abuse I presumed that was the same context! If it was an attack unprovoked and unlinked, then yeah it is irrelevant. But data can include messages, pictures, social media accounts, videos, you name it. There may be things in that data that have happened over the period of 7 years that could have come from those strangers, or acquaintances of. I agree that it's misuse of power and data in the other case you mention. It's also an abuse of trust I might add as well! Hopefully the new GDPR rules can avoid that kind of misuse of data so 1) it doesn't end up in the wrong hands and 2) it is only used for the right purpose and justifiably so and 3) the person who's data it is has more control over it.
Rucksackfranzose Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Pyfish said: As a victim, I'd hand my phone over but I'd want to know exactly why they needed it, what they needed and what they were planning on doing with it. I don't have anything to hide (that's what they all say, I know) but I wouldn't want to get pulled up on something that isn't related to the crime they are investigating. Of course you have, everybody has something to hide. Even, if your telecommunications data isn't illegal, it's definitely private, and nobodies glass of beer but yours. Surely the executive isn't entitled to track your contacts!
Subscriber Pyfish+ Posted July 16, 2020 Subscriber Posted July 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Rucksackfranzose said: Of course you have, everybody has something to hide. Even, if your telecommunications data isn't illegal, it's definitely private, and nobodie's glass of beer than your's. Surely the executive isn't entitled to track your contacts! Oh yeah, I absolutely agree. I meant that I don't have anything to hide that would likely get me in trouble with the law.
Dr. Gonzo Posted July 19, 2020 Posted July 19, 2020 I probably wouldn’t be thrilled with this as I buy drugs from time to time.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.