UK - Why do police think that they are a law unto themselves?

[Bikelbees]

Many people on this forum although not exactly being on the police's side when it comes to drug law enforcement, recognise that their true enemy is the law as it is (illiberal, incoherent and irrational) and governments which compel the police to enforce these bad laws.

What is really putting the police in a bad light however is how they enforce the laws and how they behave when they get it wrong. I friend on mine has an interest in legal entheogens. The police decided that they could make some kind of example out of him in their own words "establish a precedent" as he had some torch cacti in his home. So they did smash his door down at 6am, they did terrify the occupants with a heavyweight team of officers in full kit. They did take all his herbs, all his papers all his computers (needed for work), mobiles etc and they did put him through 18 months of hell through the courts, multiple interviews, all at his own expense (financial, a lot oftime, travel, waiting, advice and serious stress).

In the end the judge dismissed the case without a trial. Tens of thousands were spent on the enquiry, legal teams, police traveling around the world on a hapless fact-finding mission, and yet the police see fit to keep part of his possessions. Thats right, the are keeping the "herbs" which are clearly legal - (if there was any argument before this case about that, there cannot be now). Now why do you think some persons (law-abiding types to boot) find it difficult to reconcile the "only doing my job" cliche with these buggers?

Reputation Comments on this post:

watch the double post. small # of points.

[Woodman]

Man, I hear ya!

...but I think this is a topic better suited to this forum:
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=75

Check this out:

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37169

[Bikelbees]

This is an ongoing case, SWIM is currently taking legal advice. On that basis (sorry if that wasn't clear but SWIM really is SWIM), then its in the right forum.

[Nagognog2]

Now find a copy of Pete Seeger doing "Next Train to Nuremburg" and crank it up. Always keep a copy cued in your car just in case.

[sergei77]

Yep, well said Bickelbees... there is a big distinction between the police simply doing their job and enforcing the laws they have to enforce (whether they agree with them or not) and them effectively taking the law into their own hands, which is what happened, and is continuing to happen in the case you refer to in the UK (see http://www.erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law2.shtml).

What the police have shown in this case is effectively utter contempt for the court's decision that the defendant had committed no crime. What they should be doing is apologising and returning his property, but instead they choose to continue to withold private property several months post-trial with not a single word of explanation and no legal basis whatsoever. Unfortunately this kind of behaviour brings the British police into disrepute and loses them the trust of the general public.

The person in question will be taking appropriate action, however it is sad that after all he has been through he as to once more go through the justice system and be put through more stress simply to get his property back, having broken no laws. Shameful.

[Felonious Skunk]

I think the issue here is when a society's government passes laws that make criminals of its citizens for engaging in consensual and nonviolent activities (for the purpose of feeding them into extremely profitable industries), the role of law enforcement in such a society transforms from that of protecting citizens to that of exploiting them.

And since such a transformation is by its very nature insidious, the attitudes of some law enforcement agencies undergo a similar change toward the citizens who, on a surface level, they are assigned to protect.

It is unfortunately part of human nature to hold in contempt that which is exploited, and this at least partly explains why citizens erroneously raided by bungling SWAT teams looking for drugs are left with trashed homes and no apology.

[Broshious]

Not to mention the old adage of power causing corruption, and one that I feel even more accurate that power draws the corruptible.

[Evil GIR]

"only doing my job"

Strange you say that, thats all swim gets over his problems with cacti chips.
The first 3 bail interviews, it was blah, blah blah, your going down.

Ever since swim was able to give the police lots of legal info from the cacti case :

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law2.shtml

its been sorry only doing my job, thing is swim has not been charged with anything, just been forced to goto there stupid bail to be re-bailed. Swim lost a job becasue he had to take the day off and they wouldnt let him.

Swims computers gone, though encrypted, officer asked for the password but got denied. Swim was laughed at by the police saying there experts would break the encryption and when asked what would happen to swims case if they didnt, officer mumbled something under his breath.

Though they are a pain in the ass, but I am guessing its still not the police them selfes but someone higher up pulling the strings and the fact that when it comes to drugs the police are taught heroin is as bad as mescaline, well thats what a certain officer though when swim spoke to them.

[Felonious Skunk]

Don't fall for the ruse that their "experts will crack the encryption."

They can't, because if they could they wouldn't be asking for passphrases. And in the US at least, their "experts" often know less than the average 14-year-old computer geek because the salaries offered for the work simply aren't attractive to the people who can really do it well.

Which is to say that people who really are encryption experts don't work in LE, and if SWIY's case was actually important enough to hire an expensive outside consultant, it still wouldn't matter because the encryption would remain inviolate.

So next time they ask SWIY for his passphrase, he should have a good laugh and tell them that keeping passphrases a secret is "only doing his job."

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Felonious Skunk

Don't fall for the ruse that their "experts will crack the encryption."

They can't, because if they could they wouldn't be asking for passphrases. And in the US at least, their "experts" often know less than the average 14-year-old computer geek because the salaries offered for the work simply aren't attractive to the people who can really do it well.

Which is to say that people who really are encryption experts don't work in LE, and if SWIY's case was actually important enough to hire an expensive outside consultant, it still wouldn't matter because the encryption would remain inviolate.

"Encription experts" dont work as Police Officers. Most of us know enough to check email and use Word. When we do need work done we farm it out. If the local computer nerd can't take care of the job, we still have many other options...such as calling the mfg of the program, and sending the computer to a forensic computer nerd.

And yes its a pain in the ass to do all of that. But, if we want into the computer, we will get in.
Remember, we're the gov't, the guys with black helicopters, g-men.

Now, to me not giving the passwords up dosent necessarily make sense. The case is prolonged, and you are without your property that much longer. Plus, the prosecutor may make you pay for the expenses in the form of fines.

[Bikelbees]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Plus, the prosecutor may make you pay for the expenses in the form of fines.

The prosecutor is on the same footing as the police, he cannot make you pay for anything - that is the job of the courts if they consider it appropriate.

Police should be wary about saying things that encourage suspects to waive their constitutional rights, I'm talking about things such as not having to be a witness in their own prosecution.

I started this thread suggesting that the police were to some extent exonerated from the oppressive things that they do, as they are merely following the law and government diktat (I did this partly in response to another thread which was bordering on a manual as to how to lynch police officers). PO would have us believe that the police ARE the law.

[Mona Lisa]

It seems to me that the law will always win in the end. The main thing is to be discreet and not get caught. If SWIY's caught, they're fucked, simple as that. Common sense tells SWIM that there will be a major crackdown on the legals industry and that probably all the hallucineogenic entheogens such as Salvia, Morning Glory, San Pedro, HBWR seeds, etc. will be fully scheduled. Just give them time...

If SWIY is going to take these things, they should take the same precautions in terms of not getting found out, as if they'd bought an illegal drug. Not worth the hassle with the authorities; they will always have the upper hand. Even if they can't actually charge SWIY, they will make life Hell enough to make them regret they ever wanted to indulge. The bottom line is that these things are not socially acceptable in countries like America or Britain. The moral majority will always be outraged by them. It's a moral issue with most people, the way that sex for pleasure was in Victorian times...

Reputation Comments on this post:

Kick the wisdom girlie!

[Evil GIR]

You sound just like the police over here in the uk, "we will get in."

No offence but what is the point in encryption if its that easy to get in ?
There is also this new law I have posted about, if things where that easy then there would be no point in the law.

I believe it could be broken eventually 5, 10, or 25 years but but would they even bother to spend lots of ££££ of using there big computer networks to try and break into something, which may only secure at worse a fine.

It dose bother swim that there is a chance it could happen but my passwords`s are long. They are no passwords stored on the computer, even in encrypted form, there is no backdoors, its hard to brute force.

As for getting a bill, i doubt it but we shall know what happens soon.

[Pondlife]

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

No offence but what is the point in encryption if its that easy to get in? There is also this new law I have posted about, if things where that easy then there would be no point in the law.

I believe it could be broken eventually 5, 10, or 25 years but but would they even bother to spend lots of ££££ of using there big computer networks to try and break into something, which may only secure at worse a fine.

I know quite a bit about this, and the fact is that any properly implemented strong encryption algorithm is effectively unbreakable. All of the algorithms used by decent encryption software use at least a 128-bit symmetric key and have no known attack method that is better than brute force. A brute-force attack against a 128-bit symmetric key would need to try on average (2^128) /2 potential keys. Even if we assume that we can do a billion attempts a second on a single machine, and we have a billion machines running in parallel, then it would still take more than five thousand billion years. And if you can find an attack better than brute force for an established algorithm, you'll be famous.

The days of encryption products using trivially breakable encryption like XOR or viginere are thankfully over, as are (mostly) backdoors left by vendors. So that's not an option either.

What the computer forensics people do is to try to guess the passphrase that was used to generate the encryption key. They will try dictionary words, permutations of dictionary words, and brute-force searches with likely character sets up to a given maximum length. If the passphrase is strong, then this will not succeed and they will give up. In my experience, passphrases are either cracked quite quickly or not at all. If a passphrase is more than 8 characters long is not a dictionary word or permutation of one, and uses a reasonably rich character set, then it's effectively uncrackable.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Valuable and reassuring information

[Pondlife]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

But, if we want into the computer, we will get in. Remember, we're the gov't, the guys with black helicopters, g-men.

Sorry, but that's simply not true.

I know quite a bit about both the theoretical side of cryptography and also computer forensics. As I mentioned earlier, assuming a decent encryption product there is no way to crack the encryption through brute-force and the manufacturer will not have left any back-doors. What the forensics people will do is to try to guess the passphrase that was used, and if that is strong they won't be able to.

It doesn't matter what resources you have because the number of combinations multiplies up so quickly that you cannot just pour in more resources to crack it.

And that's why the UK Government has passed part III the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act, which enables the police to demand the encryption key and allows the victim^H^H^H^H^H^offender to be punished if he does not comply. Why would they need that if they could crack the crypto? This is what is known as "rubber hose cryptanalysis".

[Felonious Skunk]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

...And yes its a pain in the ass to do all of that. But, if we want into the computer, we will get in.
Remember, we're the gov't, the guys with black helicopters, g-men.

You don't understand. We're not talking about a geeky user password to get into Windows or a Mac. This is software that was once considered "munitions" by the Clinton administration (he could do this because he didn't inhale). These are state-of-the-art encryption algorithms that can't be broken by computer technology as we know it now or as it may evolve in the forseeable future. It's a simple mathematical reality--it would take millions of years (or more) of computer "brute-force" attacks on the passphrase to finally crack it.

You can get into the computer, but all you will find is "containers" of encrypted information. Without the long and carefully considered passphrase (mine is only 21 characters--a veritable security risk!), which resides safely in the mind of the owner of the information, nobody can "open" these containers. The encryption software used to defeat the g-men and black helicopters is open source, there is no backdoor because it is free and owned by the citizens of the global community.

There is only one way to get in--the passphrase. Which brings us to the next subject:

Originally Posted by Police Officer

...Now, to me not giving the passwords up dosent necessarily make sense. The case is prolonged, and you are without your property that much longer. Plus, the prosecutor may make you pay for the expenses in the form of fines.

If the information inside an encrypted container is of the type a prosecutor could use as evidence to send its owner away for 20+ years, it makes absolute sense to take the contempt rap and do 2 at the most.

The original case isn't really prolonged, it's dismissed, because if they're busting your balls for the passphrase--which is a really good sign--that means the case depends on getting inside. In which case the passphrase is:

fuck_yourselves_case_dismissed_now_where_am_I_serv ing_my_two_years

Evil GIR, they're not getting in. If they could they would be in by now and SWIY's butt would be in the clink.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

I started this thread suggesting that the police were to some extent exonerated from the oppressive things that they do, as they are merely following the law and government diktat (I did this partly in response to another thread which was bordering on a manual as to how to lynch police officers). PO would have us believe that the police ARE the law.

I certainly didnt mean to insinuate this at all. I was sincerely trying to suggest a different approach to the computer issue. I appreciate the alternate, very rare, and accurate point of view.

On a side note, are you a lawyer?

[Bikelbees]

Yes, and its soul-destroying to have your hands tied with what can(not) be achieved with so many drugs (and other) cases. I know whatever we say in Court, the guidelines are there to enforce heavyweight punishment. Prison ruins the lives of convicts and their families and I hate to see people go down. If I could free 99% of prisoners I would.

Sometimes I am glad that you guys taken out one or two nutters that I have represented, but I am never happy with what invariably happens after that (the secure hospitals and the shitty inhumane prisons) which is why I couldn't do your job PO.

I also don't respect the prosecutors role generally (and I am talking about my fellow professionals here), apart from having to apply laws I disagree with, they seem to think its a sport, they forget prosecutions should never happen when it is not in the public interest to do so, and seem to be looking for the best result (the most serious charge possible) like some two-bit salesperson looking to stitch someone up for a commission or a promotion. They say its because its an adversarial system, we both will do our best (and the worse for the truth) to arrive at a balance. I don't see it that way, the defence can do absolutely anything lawful for their clients, but the prosecutors need to be holier than Christ - individuals are just individuals, even the worst of them can only kill a few people - but the system - corrupt types arranging wars and appropriating resources are responsible for widespread human misery and genocide, these guys, your g-men included, those medal winning A-Bomb pilots hmm - I wouldn't defend them for "only following orders".

Anyway, what I am trying to say on this thread is; its bad enough that the law is banning so many drugs, but "hands off" our legal highs. Police should never act out of sour grapes; if the court says that they were wrong, even if they think they lost because it was some bleeding-heart liberal judge, they have to take it on the chin and get the hell off that guy's back.

Reputation Comments on this post:

A man of education and sense, so rare on these forums, mostly it's just standard dumbasses, "drugs are bad, no drug...

[Broshious]

One thing you'll never get the police to really talk about is all the innocent people they hurt. Be it from accidental shootings, raiding the wrong place, incarcerating harmless people, or from prosecuting the truly innocent, they would all rather pretend that that never happens. One innocent harmed in the name of doing good is at least as bad, if not worse, than a criminal doing the same thing. At least in the criminal's case he can be put in prison, the government just shrugs its shoulders and says "that's too bad".

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

those medal winning A-Bomb pilots hmm - I wouldn't defend them for "only following orders".

What would you prefer had been done?

[Bikelbees]

The A-Bombs? - I guess keep the US and British out of their imperialistic and racist forays to control the East in the first place.

I said it as an illustration of how a skewed monopoly on propaganda creates moralistic crusaders who can get excited about burning a bit of weed, but seem to think its OK to vapourise two cities without warning (and history if you look in the right places will tell you that there was not a shred of justification for it).

Please no more comments on that here - I don't want to open up a new can of worms in this forum..

[sergei77]

[KBLSD]

heres what the goverment needs to do not punish people using drugs if they are not harming anyone if they harm someone while using drugs or they could harm someone while using drugs like drivin under the influence then they should just make the punishment alot worst, and or if they harm someone in the process of selling, moving, or robbing someone for drugs

[Bikelbees]

I think if someone is caught driving in a dangerous way in any condition that they should have their keys confiscated and alternative transport arrangements made for them, I am for peer-pressure and responsibility in steering stoners out from behind the wheel. I don't like the sound of more punishment for any offence.

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

I think if someone is caught driving in a dangerous way in any condition that they should have their keys confiscated and alternative transport arrangements made for them, I am for peer-pressure and responsibility in steering stoners out from behind the wheel. I don't like the sound of more punishment for any offence.

I think I mostly agree with you on this. I don't quite understand the drunk driving hysteria. There are already laws about driving dangerously or injuring someone when you drive. We don't need special drug related ones as being very tired is equally as dangerous as being slightly above the legal limit for alcohol. What we need is for people to be responsible for their own actions. Even if drunk driving were made legal tomorrow I would never even consider doing it. It's just totally irresponsible and stupid. I would never risk the life of myself and others in that way.

[KBLSD]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

I think if someone is caught driving in a dangerous way in any condition that they should have their keys confiscated and alternative transport arrangements made for them, I am for peer-pressure and responsibility in steering stoners out from behind the wheel. I don't like the sound of more punishment for any offence.

swim is just sayin that if if they punished people more for driving under the influence alot more people would think twice about doing it swim knows here in the states if u good a decent lawyer there is hardly any punishment for ur first DUI and the punishment doesnt really get to bad bad till after the 3rd or 4th offense if they suspended ur license for a month or 2 after ur first offense swim would think many people would not never think about doing it again