Ethernet between two houses

[motorbiking]

Understood, but thats not how it works..
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

Having the bits and bytes flowing through your network infrastructure isn't an element of the relevant offences.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

The main danger that the original customer runs is having his service discontinued.

 

[plugwash]

Yep - but optically-isolated copper would probably be almost as good

The problem with optically isolated copper, especially for longer links is that you need power on both sides of the isolation barrier, that means you only get one isolation in your run and it complicates designing systems for bi-directional operation. Afaict most optocouplers are 3KV, so about twice as good isolation as an Ethernet transformer.

An optical fiber link will provide orders of magnitude better isolation than anything that will fit on a PCB.

The question is how often do conditions get bad enough that this will matter? lightning related surges as the main things that spring to mind.

 

[bernardgreen]

for longer links is that you need power on both sides of the isolation barrier,

using an isolated DC to DC converter can provide power from the local equipment to the "other" side of the isolation. .

https://docs.rs-online.com/374b/0900766b8172eff5.pdf

 

[JohnW2]

Understood, but thats not how it works..... Having the bits and bytes flowing through your network infrastructure isn't an element of the relevant offences.

I though I was clear in what I wrote, but maybe not ...

... I was not suggesting that the person through whose network infrastructure "unlawful bits and bytes" flowed to someone else (who had committed a criminal offence) would be guilty of any offence (unless, I suppose, they had knowing allowed their network to be used for that purpose).

However, if such illicit bits and bytes are detected passing to/from a certain IP address, the police will knock on the door of the person whose contracted internet connection it is. They will hopefully eventually find the true criminal but probably not before they have interviewed the 'innocent person', and maybe his/her family members, and quite possibly have taken away all sorts of IT equipment from his/her house - after all, "weren't me, occifer, it must have been someone else using my network" is undoubtedly one that they have 'heard before'

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Understood, but thats not how it works..
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

Having the bits and bytes flowing through your network infrastructure isn't an element of the relevant offences.

It's note quite as simple as that, if a criminal act is committed on an internet connexion and detected, the authorities come knocking. The first port of call is the registered address of the service and the warrant will only [instantly] cover that address. After that the search will continue to the other property but it may not be then and the magistrate may [or may not] be required to sign another warrant but in the meantime other factors will be investigated, including the exporting of the service to an unregistered address or user.

Edit: Started writing reply before Johns post.

 

[motorbiking]

Yes there is a slim chance. But they normally gather more than just the IP address, they usually go after people knowing a fair bit about them.

 

[SUNRAY]

Yes there is a slim chance. But they normally gather more than just the IP address, they usually go after people knowing a fair bit about them.

I have a little insight on IT offences having been arrested at 06:00 on a Sunday morning due to a hacker using my PC. He posed as a woman on a forum and its chat room I used to use but he was also hacking into elsewhere via mine. I'll say the Police were brilliant and supplied a SH hard drive for my then laptop with all of my legitimate files and software. Nearly 2 years later I sat at court for 3 days as a witness but never called to give evidence as he changed his plea.

Initially it was only the IP address they had to go on.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes there is a slim chance. But they normally gather more than just the IP address, they usually go after people knowing a fair bit about them.

They can't set about "knowing a fair bit about them" until they know who they are and, in most cases, all they will initially know is the IP address. The most apparently unlikely people are often responsible for these crimes, so the absence of any 'history' proves little. In any event, I'm not sure how, initially, they could "get to know a fair bit" about the 'owner' of the IP address without any interaction with that person and/or their family/friends/whoever.

I have a little insight on IT offences having been arrested at 06:00 on a Sunday morning due to a hacker using my PC. .... Initially it was only the IP address they had to go on.

As above, I imagine that this is, initially (i.e. not with 'repeat offenders'), how it nearly always happens - at a time when the police will rarely know anything more than just the IP address.

I find it very hard to believe that the police would fail to at least interview the person (and maybe those around them) and also examine their IT equipment if illicit traffic to/from their IP address had been detected, even if they knew absolutely nothing else about the person involved (as, I presume, was the case with you).

Kind Regards, John

 

[motorbiking]

@SUNRAY - Sounds horrific, I very much hope you were de-arrested quickly and took legal advice. I do take on board what you were told. This scenario doesn't really increase that risk. Remote P2P hacking is far more common as a result of people being tricked in to downloading software. There is a difference between being in possession of a computer which has been used/contains etc vs. having someone use your network. its right to point out the risk. in earlier parts of this thread there were arguments being put forward that you could be committing an offence if someone used the wifi for criminal acts. That is what I wanted to be clear on.

 

[SUNRAY]

I find it very hard to believe that the police would fail to at least interview the person (and maybe those around them) and also examine their IT equipment if illicit traffic to/from their IP address had been detected, even if they knew absolutely nothing else about the person involved (as, I presume, was the case with you).

Kind Regards, John

@SUNRAY - Sounds horrific, I very much hope you were de-arrested quickly and took legal advice. I do take on board what you were told. This scenario doesn't really increase that risk. Remote P2P hacking is far more common as a result of people being tricked in to downloading software. There is a difference between being in possession of a computer which has been used/contains etc vs. having someone use your network. its right to point out the risk. in earlier parts of this thread there were arguments being put forward that you could be committing an offence if someone used the wifi for criminal acts. That is what I wanted to be clear on.

I have to say the Police were incredible, yes I was arrested and yes they took all of my computers and associated kit. As it happens one of their number asked which PC I generally used for internet use and she did some initial IT investigation on that one prior to the arrest [to clarrify the initial knock on the door with a warrant was 06:00, the arrest was around 2 hours later before I was taken away]. By the start of the first interview in the presence of an appointed solicitor they had inspected all of the kit and established 4 of the computers had never been on the internet, 2 laptops had no sign of cookies or software relevant to the hacking [the reason for the investigation]. The 3rd laptop contained all of the evidence, [this is the only time I have ever been gratefull for cookies as they proved to be a valuable asset.

They found software which allowed the hacker to control my PC and established how it had been installed [via dropbox or similar] and that it had been used to hack into some big sites.

I was interviewed 3 times and released on Police bail that day to return the following afternoon when I was promptly de-arrested. By the end of the week I had everything back except the original hard drive from the laptop but with all due credit they did rebuild the PC with a spare HDD with my legitimate files and software [and it suddenly performed a lot better than I was used to - bonus]

There were another half a dozen or so interviews over a period of about 3 months but as a witness.

Yes it was horrible but I have to repeat the Police were brilliant with how quickly they changed their questioning and how quickly they returned irrelevant kit etc. My initial kneejerk thought was to go for wrongful arrest but the appointed solicitor convinced me that was a dead end due to the initial evidence and the rapid change of tack. 15 years on the incident has basically faded into insignificance.

The guy was out of prison in 7 years and had the nerve to re-introduce himself [under the female name] by email and on the forum.

 

[JohnW2]

I have to say the Police were incredible, yes I was arrested and yes they took all of my computers and associated kit. As it happens one of their number asked which PC I generally used for internet use and she did some initial IT investigation on that one prior to the arrest .... I was interviewed 3 times and released on Police bail that day to return the following afternoon when I was promptly de-arrested.

As I said, and despite what motorbiking suggested, I can't see that they had any choice. Even if (as I imagine is usually the case) all they had was an IP address, I think they would have been guilty of dereliction of their responsibilities/duties if they had not immediately investigated members of the household associated with that IP address, and their IT equipment.

... which leads me to a question. Do you live in a one-man household? If not, then was it only you who was arrested and interviewed - and, if so, I wonder why. Did they just 'presume', on the basis of your age and gender etc', that you were the most likely culprit, or what?

By the end of the week I had everything back except the original hard drive from the laptop but with all due credit they did rebuild the PC with a spare HDD with my legitimate files and software ...

Probably because your very unfortunate experience is not the first similar story I have heard, this is something I have sometimes 'had nightmares' about. If I were to lose all my IT kit for even a few days, I would be totally unable to work - and it's even the case with some of my work that my ability to do it in a timely fashion is sometimes crucial to the safety of others. My contingency plan is in the form of off-site backups (most importantly, HDD images) (which the police would have no reason to know anything about ) which could be restored onto other hardware - even though that would mean that I would have to purchase that hardware.

It's also the case that some of my computers contain some very sensitive personal data about other people, data which is very much controlled by GDPR - so, although I don't doubt that the police have the right to 'seize' my kit, I'm not sure what GDPR would have to say about the data getting into the hands of 'outsiders'!

... Yes it was horrible but I have to repeat the Police were brilliant with how quickly they changed their questioning and how quickly they returned irrelevant kit etc. My initial kneejerk thought was to go for wrongful arrest but the appointed solicitor convinced me that was a dead end due to the initial evidence and the rapid change of tack.

That's an interesting one. Much as I hope that I never need to put it into practice, the legal brains in my family have always advised that should I ever find myself in anything remotely like that situation, I should refuse to co-operate (i.e. answer questions) unless they arrested me (i.e. "arrest me or go away") - at least one of the reasons being that the possibility of pursuing 'wrongful arrest', if appropriate, then exists.

As I've said, I think that in the face of such 'initial evidence' (the IP address), one expects them to investigate, which would require interviewing person(s) associated with the IP - but, in common sense terms, that does not require the person to be arrested (and, whether arrested or not, "you are not obliged to say anything"). However, I suspect that the rules and regulations under which they work (particularly PACE) require them to 'caution' a person before interview, and such a caution seems to go hand-in-hand with arrest. I'll ask the family legal brains about this when I next have an opportunity to see her!

Anyway, I'm pleased to hear that your horrible experience resulted in the correct outcome and has largely faded into history.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mattylad]

Sounds horrific, however sounds like nothing I hear happens these days.

Once the plod have your IT you struggle to get it back - if at all - now I have heard this often, the opposite rarely.
As for replacing a hard drive with a rebuilt one - thats a dream (not saying it didnt happen to sunray).

 

[motorbiking]

@JohnW2 they risk an unsafe arrest if they cannot link the person to the evidence to satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement.

Lots of case law on this. It’s well trod.

In the above case they linked possession which was sufficient grounds for arrest. Questioning, caution and arrest do not follow if grounds for arrest aren’t there.

GDPR does not restrict the police in their ability.

 

[JohnW2]

@JohnW2 they risk an unsafe arrest if they cannot link the person to the evidence to satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement. Lots of case law on this. It’s well trod.

That's obviously what one would expect/hope, the question being what is necessary to satisfy that requirement - and I clearly don't know.

In the above case they linked possession which was sufficient grounds for arrest.

Youy are presumably interpreting SUNRAY's "The 3rd laptop contained all of the evidence" as meaning that they actually found illicit material on that machine - and, if that's what he meant, then I can see that would satisfy the "reasonable suspicion" requirement - and that presumably is what you are suggesting happened. However, I thought that he was saying that this machine only contained evidence of how his system had been used to "hack into" various sites - but perhaps I misunderstood.

However, he did say that he was arrested "before he was taken away" (for interview) and before his computers had been examined - so are you suggesting that this arrest was unsafe/unlawful at the time it happened? Indeed, are you suggesting that, even if his arrest had occurred after initial examination of his computers, that the arrest would only have been safe/lawful if he had been shown to be "in possession of" actual illicit material in his computers?

Questioning, caution and arrest do not follow if grounds for arrest aren’t there.

As I said, I do not understand the relationship between caution (probably required prior to a 'valid interview' by PACE) and arrest. I don't know, but I thought that it was possible to be cautioned without being arrested - for example, Tony Blair and other high-profile figures were 'questioned under caution' in relation to the Iraq war, but I doubt that they were arrested to facilitate this (am I wrong?). If 'questioning under caution' without arrest is an option, that would seem the obvious thing to do in the early stages when one is trying to determine whether or not there was enough "reasonable suspicion" to justify arrest, wouldn't it?

GDPR does not restrict the police in their ability.

As I said, that's what I assumed. I was just 'thinking aloud' and certainly have not looked into the chapter and verse. I imagine that GDPR is written such that passing personal data to the police does not constitute a data breach (even though, once one has parted with the data, there is no telling who might manage to gain access to it).

If it were regarded as a data breach, I think I would then be obliged to inform all the individuals whose data had been compromised of the breach - and that could be a horrendous task when thousands, or more, of individuals are concerned! However, I hope that GDPR has anticipated this sort of situation, such that there is no such problem!

Kind Regards, John