Cookie conundrum
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Graeme on 3 Feb 2010 02:36 In message <7ss7djFf51U1(a)mid.individual.net> James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > Jack Campin wrote: > > > >> I've no idea what sort of data Flash cookies encode, anybody know? > >> I'd bet a police forensics team could call on somebody who does. > > > > I'd bet that the /typical/ police investigation team would not know that > > there's anything to find out in that direction. > > I think they have a department of specialists for that, so the "typical" > investigation team just boxes up any seized computers, sends them off, > and waits for the results. You can be pretty confident that a police > forensic team will have automated tools for listing browsing history, > HTTP cookies, Flash cookies, bookmarks, stored passwords, etc. > You'd think so wouldn't you? However... -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: James Taylor on 3 Feb 2010 03:29 Graeme wrote: > James Taylor wrote: > >> I think they have a department of specialists for that > > You'd think so wouldn't you? However... However what? -- James Taylor
From: Peter Ceresole on 3 Feb 2010 03:43 James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >> You don't really want to walk blindly into a police state (oh, > >> that's a bad example because the UK is already there) into a Big > >> Brother society do you? > > > > We *HAVE* a Big Brother state. > [...] > > It's a police state when the cops run things. > > > > They don't. > > Ok, I see that distinction. I was using the terms inaccurately. But even so... <http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/09/26/david-mery-g ets-an-apology-for-his-unlawful-arrest-after-4-years---it-should-hav.htm l> I know the chap, have seen the police letter they quote. The blog item is spot on; It should never have happened at all, but it's not a police state. But be careful about the idea of our surveillance state being a Big Brother state. Remember that the Big Brother state wasn't just universal surveillance; that was just the first stage. Remember, Minilove, rubber truncheons and boots smashing into faces forever, Room 101 and the rats... That was the *real* Big Brother state. Routinely. And it really happens in North Korea, Burma, China, even Japan. But not here. This may be a pedantic point- this isn't a literary (or literal) discussion of Orwell's work. But I think that people too easily slip into a knee-jerk description of the surveillance system here, to attack it. Remember that the criminal acts, an extraordinary number of them, all the time, are committed by members of the public, causing far more suffering than anything the police ever do. It's the reason that the surveillance was put into place. I'm sure that the police do horrible things from time to time; that's why there's now the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, custody records, recorded interviews, all those things that coppers complain waste their time, but all of which were introduced to reduce unlawful behaviour by the police. With, it seems to me, considerable succcess. But yes, it does require us to have the systems in place, and to be vigilant about their application. And change them when they have unintended consequences. This happens; it's the way it works in our kind of society. I'm thinking of 'The Power of Nightmares'. Adam Curtis is one of the cleverest (and funniest) people I have ever met, thinks hard and agilely, and gets an astonishing amount of stuff right. He's not the whole story by a long chalk (what the hell is the origin of *that* expression?) but he's part of the discussion and the control mechanism, As, in an infinitely small way, are we. -- Peter
From: Peter Ceresole on 3 Feb 2010 03:52 Graeme <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > I think they have a department of specialists for that, so the "typical" > > investigation team just boxes up any seized computers, sends them off, > > and waits for the results. You can be pretty confident that a police > > forensic team will have automated tools for listing browsing history, > > HTTP cookies, Flash cookies, bookmarks, stored passwords, etc. > > > > You'd think so wouldn't you? However... I'm not sure about the 'however'. In my Fido days, meaning the early '80s, I was friendly with Oliver Clarke, who had more than a clue or two about computer systems (in his case PeeCees). He was a copper in Manchester, and was involved with the start up of a specialised IT crime unit. Things have moved on a fair way since then, although I'm sure that the units are under-funded, as everything is... -- Peter
From: Graeme on 3 Feb 2010 03:57
In message <7ssqemF2vkU1(a)mid.individual.net> James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Graeme wrote: > > > James Taylor wrote: > > > >> I think they have a department of specialists for that > > > > You'd think so wouldn't you? However... > > However what? > Quite a few constabularies don't have such a department. Specialists cost money and police budgets are a prime target for cuts. Even those that have such specialists have problems keeping them as such people are civilian staff rather than warranted officers and the pay grades and job prospects are just not comparable to outside industry. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/> |