@Kev

That proves for sure you didn’t read my post above, as I have actually addressed this point already! The police assurances are worthless, they say it will be very limited scope to get the principle in place, then they drive the wedge home and expand it to the max.

Again you fail to give an example of how it will prove someone innocent, you just state it can.

j_jza80
It is private for the most part at the minute unless the police go to the significant effort of monitoring your specific phone over a period of time, but they’ll need a warrant for that!

I rather thought it was the role of the Police to deter crime and to actively seek out and convict those guilty of criminal offences? Therefore it is clearly NOT the role of the Police to prove innocence.

I just said that, is there an echo in here? It also shows I was right to point out that there is no benefit for you, guilty or innocent, in the cops searching your phone.

I personally don’t understand why there is this outrage at these perceived invasions of privacy.

That’s because you don’t care about your rights, some of us do care about ours.

By the way ppp, I love your crap analogy, but unfortunately that’s all it is.

Calling someone’s position “crap”, so you’re a real intellectual heavyweight then eh? You either believe in privacy, or you don’t, and clearly you don’t.

I would imagine that all of us, were we to be the victims of a crime, would implore the Police to employ all and every resource available to them in their endeavours to prosecute and convict those who had committed a crime against us. This is just another weapon in the armoury of the Police.

Every resource? How about beating confessions out of prisoners?

But if it can prove someone guilty what’s the problem? My phone calls and texts would provide the Police with enough information to bore them to death rather than convict me of any wrong doing. If you’ve nothing to hide then what’s the worry?

Regards,

kev35

Who ever said there was a problem with the police gathering evidence to prove a specific offence? Not me! We’re not talking about a new power or anything here. No, the issue here is sweeping of phones, fishing for evidence in a quite indiscriminate manner. The problem is that it is an invasion of privacy. The fact that they have been arrested does not mean that they should be subjected to such searches that they might not otherwise have been subject to, were the new method not so quick and easy to do. I doubt it will stop here either, expect handheld scanners to be implemented soon!

“If you’ve nothing to hide then what’s the worry?”

Ahh that old classic line, but you are looking at it from the wrong way. The question should be “since you have nothing to hide, why should your phone be searched?”. These principles are primarily there for innocent people, not for criminals. My phone does not need to contain something worth hiding in order for me to defend mine and others right to privacy, just as my defence of freedom of speech does not mean I have something controversial to say, nor does my defence of freedom of assembly mean that I wish to associate with those committing criminal offences.

It’s also worth noting that having something to hide does not mean that the something is illegal. I am sure that you would object to a video of your every use of the toilet being available for viewing by other parties, and so in effect you are hiding your use of the toilet, yet we all know that you are not doing anything illegal by using the toilet.

I’ve not seen any examples of how it can prove someone innocent. Relying on the police to prove you innocent is never a good start anyway. Besides, if your phone could prove you not guilty theres plenty of opportunity to get your legal representative to present the evidence in court. The police can already have phones searched, but the process is suited to single phones, not as a routine process in custody. This is about, basically, mass phone data collection of most arrested subjects, due to the police and government desire to poke their nose into every aspect of peoples lives and deny them any privacy! Not before long they’ll be out on the streets with handheld readers for your phone too…

@Edgar Brooks

Those were most likely records from the network provider showing which cell towers he was near, and his location determined either through triangulation of the towers or proximity to a single tower. A phone wouldn’t keep such records. This idea is just ripping info off your phone, so your recently called numbers, all your text messages, photos, videos, audio/music files etc. I doubt any of that will help anyone to be found innocent. It might provide lots of easy convictions for having music that hasn’t been paid for though!

The highest answer being 4.2% which is surprisingly low (even if it is the correct answer); but who is this question trying to educate? :confused:

Where do you expect them to get the figures from? The census which is over 10 years old now? Even so, it wouldn’t include illegal immigrants.

@paul178

I passed.

FWIW I passed easily when I took the test a couple months ago when the story first surfaced, but that’s more due to me having an interest in politics and the like, rather than some absurd idea of me being “more British” than the other people in the thread.