Big Brother

[hnpcc]

This article ("Police Home In On Child Porn") left me a bit disturbed.

Mostly for this sentence:

The method gives police the capacity to identify the contents and images on computers without applying for court-approved search warrants and without raiding suspects.

The way they're doing this is by tagging known images, and then following the tags to see where they lead. I guess the question I want answered is - what's to stop them doing this with things that aren't child pornography? Like, for example, music files? Or petitions against the government? Or exposes of corruption?

As far as I can see, the answer is "nothing".

You can add these tags to just about anything electronic. You don't need a court order. You don't need a search warrant.

The other question I'd like answered is how likely it is some of these arrests are going to hold up in court without a court order. Just curious.

Comments

[vestalvagrant.livejournal.com]

One time when T went out on a warrant they got to seize a guy's laptop because of the business he'd been conducting online. He took it to whatever the online crimes division is and as procedure had to look at every image file on the hardrive - everything from porn to decorative bullet points. Apparently it's quite a boring task.

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Also I have to wonder if the people coming up with these schemes have ever actually used the internet. It's quite possible to have downloaded or "viewed" images without knowing about it or ever having actually viewed them, through the magic of malware...

[hnpcc]

I wondered about that too. I guess if they've got more than one image tagged and they're all ending up in the same place it's an indication that there's something going on. I still think they need a warrant though.