[HN Gopher] Brit cops rapped over app that recorded 200k phone c...
___________________________________________________________________
Brit cops rapped over app that recorded 200k phone calls
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 67 points
Date : 2023-04-18 14:01 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| rcme wrote:
| The part I'm missing is: why is this bad? I expect police
| officers to wear body cams, for instance. I automatically assume
| any interaction I have with a police officer is being recorded. I
| didn't realize these was an expectation of privacy.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| It's bad because it discourages "off the record" tips given to
| police officers.
|
| Not everyone who talks to a police officer is a criminal.
| rcme wrote:
| Don't you have a right to meet your accuser, however? I know
| this typically only applies in court, but encouraging off-
| the-record communication is basically encouraging parallel
| construction is it not?
| noxvilleza wrote:
| That's generally (as in, both in the US [6th amendment] and
| the UK [Article 6 of the ECHR]) regarding witnesses
| offering testimony during trials (and the right of the
| defendant to cross-examine them) - not people giving
| anonymous tips which might inspire police to do
| investigations of their own.
|
| In the UK, even if a witness is giving direct testimony in
| a trial there are situations which, for safety reasons, the
| witness might be allowed to be anonymous:
| https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/witness-protection-
| and... outlines this.
| jack_pp wrote:
| Not when you're a gangster able and willing to send goons
| to kill or hospitalize your accuser.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Don't you have a right to meet your accuser, however?
|
| It only applies to those who give testimony against you in
| court.
|
| If an informant's tip leads to enough hard evidence to
| convict, they may not need to testify and thus are not your
| accuser; your accuser is whoever's testifying about that
| evidence (forensic tech, detective, etc.) Anonymous tips
| are a thing, after all.
| kbutler wrote:
| Wondered about "rap" in this context:
|
| From Collins dictionary of British English
|
| """ Rap: 2 (verb) in the sense of reprimand
|
| Definition to rebuke or criticize sharply """
|
| Other interpretations would have been too good to be true.
| badcppdev wrote:
| I feel "The Register" specialises in headlines that can be
| parsed in more than one way.
| pjdesno wrote:
| They hold to the best traditions of British tabloid
| journalism. My favorite is Every! Single! Headline! About!
| Yahoo!
| a4isms wrote:
| US-flavoured English has this type of "rap" as well, as in
| _Raganwald faced the rap for making too many reddit-esque puns
| on Hacker News. The mods reviewed his rap sheet and determined
| that permanent expulsion was warranted for this transgression._
|
| I believe both descend from "rap" as a form of rebuke, in one
| case synonymous with criticism, in the other synonymous with a
| conviction in a court of law.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Surely "faced the rap" comes from a rap sheet, the Record of
| Arrests and Prosecutions, aka the documents inside the
| manilla folder you see in movies, in the scene where the
| detective whistles and says "looks like our guy's been
| busy..."
| zerocrates wrote:
| I bet "record of arrests and prosecutions" is a false
| etymology for "rap sheet."
|
| OED attests "rap" in this sense of punishment back to the
| 1860s at least, and "face the rap," "beat the rap," etc.,
| to the early 1900s. "Rap sheet," the 50s.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I mean it might be. It does feel a bit like "port out,
| starboard home" or "gentlemen only, ladies forbidden".
| Wikipedia uses it, but without citation.
| OJFord wrote:
| The rebuke sense is surely is figurative from physical rap
| ('rap on the knuckes', 'rapping on the door'), via 'take the
| rap' etc.
| a4isms wrote:
| I agree that they are derived from the physical "rap."
|
| I am curious about is the origin of 'rap' as an informal
| discussion: _I want to rap to you today_ --lyric spoken by
| Maurice White of "Earth, Wind, and Fire."
|
| I believe that's the origin of the noun Rap as a music
| genre, which is now mostly known as Hip-Hop.
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's probably from the "rap on the door" sense, carrying
| the metaphor of visiting someone to talk. _" Calling" on
| someone_ is a (somewhat anachronistic) similar idea.
|
| I'm pretty sure it's jazz talk, so I'd look at urban
| black culture of the early 20c.
|
| Could have ended up being _knock music_ or _call music_?
|
| edit: your "rap" is (usually) how you talk to women, and
| going "calling" was once the same sort of euphemism.
| gadders wrote:
| It's one of those words that only gets used in headlines to
| save space. See also "slams".
| [deleted]
| ip_addr wrote:
| F the police?
| twic wrote:
| Help the Police! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZyqwOOmETI
| bheadmaster wrote:
| Help the Police, coming straight from the downtown! Young
| cop eating donuts, so he's round.
| jaclaz wrote:
| Yep, I expected a link to a TikTok or Youtube video with the
| officers singing and dancing ...
| musha68k wrote:
| Maybe someone local could explain to me why "living inside the
| panopticon" has been so widely accepted?
|
| Is this historically derived from loyal trust in the monarch?
| arcticbull wrote:
| Likely the same reason folks in China and Singapore accept a
| panopticon. It's a safe, comfortable environment. I feel
| dramatically safer at 2am in Shanghai than I do in any US city.
| It's not the trade-off I want for myself, but it's
| understandable - and were I born there, I might even endorse
| it.
|
| To the extent that the economy is doing well and folks feel
| like the country is headed in a positive direction they're
| generally willing to accept an awful lot from the state.
|
| When that inevitably changes though (due to cyclicality),
| things tend to get spicy.
|
| Don't suspect this has much to do with the King.
| latexr wrote:
| > I feel dramatically safer at 2am in Shanghai than I do in
| any US city.
|
| To be fair, the US is a poor example. I'd feel safer in any
| European city at 2am then in a US city in the middle of the
| day. At least I don't have to worry about being shot for no
| reason.1 In the US I was reminded of that possibility _every
| time_ I walked into a museum.
|
| 1 https://text.npr.org/2023/04/18/1170593395/kaylin-gillis-
| new...
| Silhouette wrote:
| It is historically derived from trust in the government, police
| and security services. High profile failures aside, that trust
| has mostly been earned and respected for a long time. It
| doesn't change the principles or deeper dangers of course but
| it does affect public perception. Most people simply have
| bigger things to worry about when they believe these tools are
| usually being employed with good intentions.
| [deleted]
| musha68k wrote:
| Yes, it's understandable that most don't (have the
| time/energy) to worry.
|
| I'm Austrian though and hence have a deep distrust of any
| bureaucracy that records "everything" and generally works too
| well.
|
| I think it's a fallacy that these systems can't / won't ever
| be exploited on a larger scale (pretty large already telling
| from the article..)
| Silhouette wrote:
| I think your distrust is probably wise. Even if things are
| trustworthy today there is always a chance of that changing
| with a new government tomorrow and history provides too
| many examples where that didn't end well.
|
| Unfortunately part of the problem is that different types
| of people experience these systems very differently. I'm
| unremarkable and unlikely to attract the interest of the
| authorities by association either so most of the ongoing
| problems you do see in the news don't tend to affect me or
| those close to me. I remember how one similarly
| unremarkable person I know was shocked and quite upset when
| they were challenged by a huge scary-looking guy to show
| some kind of ticket while travelling in London even though
| they had one and hadn't done anything wrong. And then I
| wonder how often a mid-teens black kid living on the estate
| 25 metres overhead has been "profiled" by the Met and what
| their experience of being challenged by authority must feel
| like.
|
| Until we fix the glaring inequalities in our society there
| will always be big problems lurking underneath sadly.
| throwawayuk5435 wrote:
| Panopticon!?
|
| Why do Americans routinely still believe the UK is an
| exceptional, universal surveillance state?
|
| There were two studies done (in Kings Lynn in Norfolk and in a
| section of Putney) that are full of mistakes, that US media has
| picked up as some kind of indication that the UK is down some
| dark path the same as China.
|
| People believe every residential street has police cameras (not
| even close to true) or that the _government_ operates
| "millions" of cameras (not true), or that there's nowhere you
| can go in the UK where you can't be immediately followed on
| camera.
|
| Most of the "millions" of cameras in the studies are, like most
| of the millions of cameras in the USA, pointing from the back
| of shop out through the glass at the front. If the police want
| those they have to ask, on foot, to the manager of the store,
| and the store manager may require them to have a warrant.
|
| See:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
|
| And then ask yourself: how different is it in the USA?
|
| (Throwaway because I am really done with commenting here, but
| this CCTV misunderstanding always makes me laugh. Here's a tip:
| the USA is not really very different. (Except that our police
| aren't armed to the teeth, you don't get nearly shot to death
| for going to the wrong house while black, and our politicians
| don't plan to put prisons next to theme parks to score points)
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Your comment is basically just whataboutism. Bringing up
| racism in the US for no reason (in a way that subtlety denies
| the massive racism problem in the UK/europe) just to deflect
| from the debate of surveillance powers in the UK is quite the
| take. Especially when the comment you are replying to seems
| to be written by an _austrian_ not the american boogeyman.
|
| It's weird that you only focus on the issue of CCTV cameras,
| when the debate is about much more than that. British
| authorities are allowed by law to engage in massive
| surveillance that does not happen even in the US (or at
| least, not overly and not fully allowed by the law). You
| might be ok with that, but it's weird to downplay it.
|
| >but it will also introduce new domestic powers, including a
| government database that stores the web history of every
| citizen in the country. [..] >Police officers will then be
| able to access a central search engine known as the "request
| filter" to retrieve this information. [..] >The key point
| about this power, though, is that it has no judicial
| oversight. Access to citizens' web history will be solely at
| the discretion of the police, with a specially trained
| supervising officer approving or denying requests
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/23/13718768/uk-
| surveillance...
|
| But I guess CCTVs are not as bad as internet discourse says
| they are, so whatever.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Look up 'collective action problem'.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| As an iPhone user in a region where single-consent is the law,
| are there any convenient ways to record phone calls without extra
| hardware or jail breaking?
| mnw21cam wrote:
| As an android user, same question. The last app I used
| successfully stopped working after a while, and I got the
| impression Google did this deliberately.
| sdwolfz wrote:
| This one?
|
| * https://gitlab.com/axet/android-call-recorder
|
| I tested it a few months ago, but since I don't do phone
| calls any more I don't know what today's status is, if it's
| still working or not.
| mrcheesebreeze wrote:
| speaker mode + separate device to record.
|
| Either that or use a computer to do the call and record using
| software on the computer.
|
| I don't know how the latter is done but I know many companies
| do that.
| aastronaut wrote:
| just patch inputs and outputs to audacity (or your recording
| software of choice). for pipewire theres helvum[0] or
| qpwgraph[1]. for JACK there's Catia[2].
|
| [0]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/helvum
|
| [1]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/rncbc/qpwgraph
|
| [2]: https://kx.studio/Applications:Catia
| ummonk wrote:
| Can't one stick a recording device between the headphone and
| phone?
| filoeleven wrote:
| Yes, I've read that this is what most reporters do. There
| are a number of devices built for it. I've never used any
| so have no recommendations.
| Zigurd wrote:
| _If_ you have a headphone jack and a splitter that could
| work. I do not know of any "two sided" Bluetooth devices
| that could sit between a phone and headset.
| rcme wrote:
| Why couldn't your bluetooth mic / headset record?
| kleiba wrote:
| _Surrey Police and Sussex Police were given access to the_
| Another Call Recorder _app [...] The police officers were
| themselves unaware that calls would be recorded_.
|
| Yeah, I guess that wasn't clear from the name of the app...
| imjonse wrote:
| Well, the app name suggests that _another_ call will be
| recorded.
| cmilton wrote:
| One of the downsides to have a device for both personal and
| business use with no easy way to separate the two.
| olliej wrote:
| I read that wrong and was disappointed there weren't a bunch of
| "cool" police officers interacting with The Youth.
| bragr wrote:
| This uses some awfully passive language about how the app came to
| be installed. Did the officers install it themselves from the
| list of approved apps, or did someone push it down onto a bunch
| of devices? If the officers installed it themselves, that
| somewhat discredits the idea the individual police officers had
| no idea.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Misconduct involving police is described in the passive voice.
| The pinnacle of which is "officer-involved shooting".
| skrtskrt wrote:
| "bystanders were struck by bullets as police responded"
| kevviiinn wrote:
| It works great for deflecting responsibility from police
| [deleted]
| quijoteuniv wrote:
| This seems all a bit of a joke. They are now pretending they
| did not know, they apologise and thats it. Not on mayor media
| either... hopeless
| dewclin wrote:
| > Not on major media either...
|
| Guardian have something:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/18/surrey-
| and-s...
| darreninthenet wrote:
| As well as the Guardian link somebody else has posted, the
| BBC are reporting it:
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-65309114
|
| And it was a story on the news section of the radio station
| (Classic FM, a nationwide one) I am listening to just now
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| And should be treated as a pretty major policy gap in
| policing... Officers should not be using BYOD, they work with
| far to sensitive of data both in the sense of leaking what
| they're working on (giving privy folks a preview to
| investigations), but also leaking "customer" (the public's)
| sensitive data to those without authorization.
| caiusdurling wrote:
| They likely have work issued mobile phones, I know my local
| force does that.
|
| Edit: reading the judgement shows the phones were issued by
| the force:
|
| > While it is acknowledged that the App was downloaded onto
| officially provided encrypted mobile devices, evidence was
| provided during the investigation to indicate that copies of
| call recordings had been manually transferred onto removable
| media
| Zigurd wrote:
| Considering the discretion police can exercise, which is in
| practice far greater than laws would suggest, knowing who the
| individuals involved in such decisions is even more important.
| Keeping bad decision makers out of positions of responsibility
| is crucial to competent policing.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| > but instead opted for its revised public sector approach in
| which it seeks to help entities learn from their mistakes
|
| because "that was naughty don't do it again" has worked out
| wonderfully so far.
| trebligdivad wrote:
| The problem is fines dont work either since it's just one gov
| dept fining another.
| setr wrote:
| Fines should still have an impact; it's basically a
| reallocation of budget, and any org presumably wants to
| maximize their slice of the pie to achieve whatever their
| goals are (personal or otherwise).
|
| Ofc, the usual story is that the fines aren't that high, and
| can be effectively treated as a cost of doing business, so
| they do little to nothing for incentives.
| alistairSH wrote:
| All the fines eventually get paid by the tax-paying public,
| so it's a no-win to fine government agencies.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-18 23:02 UTC)