Ethernet between two houses

[motorbiking]

Lots of questions in there, since you previously mentioned PACE, I thought you might be familiar with the detail of it..
The primary power is here : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/part/III sec 24.

To make a lawful arrest you need to have reasonable grounds to believe a crime is/has occurred. Then you have to have reasonable grounds as to who dun it. A good example is a burglary has occurred, you see some bloke running. You chase him down and ask him to account. You don't have a description of the burglar. The stopped person gives an account for why he is running (I'm jogging). You choose not to believe him, so arrest him. You have no grounds to suspect he is the burglar. Your arrest is unsafe.

In the case of the laptop (and I didn't conclude it was indecent images), you have (based on what has been shared)...

1. A crime - computer misuse
2. An IP address telling you where to look
3. A person whom you question
4. A device with some evidence of the crime that you can link to the person
5. arrest and interview under caution - exposing evidence that he is not your man

The arrest is unsafe if done before 4 is established. At 5, the person should be de-arrested. Any duty sol worth his onions would also seek to have the arrest record expunged as part the process of further assistance - that is a request usually declined by the Chief constable unless his/her team need your help. These records can cause problems for people occasionally.

In the case above something must have been found or shared during part 3 and 4 that suggested reasonable grounds to suspect involvement.

Asking someone to account/questioning them does not require arrest and can be done to establish grounds for arrest. Interviewing is normally done under caution and can be done with or without arrest. Its safer for the police to arrest at that point.

 

[JohnW2]

Lots of questions in there, since you previously mentioned PACE, I thought you might be familiar with the detail of it.. The primary power is here : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/part/III sec 24.

No, I am not familiar with any details - only some general idea of the concepts. I'll have a look.

To make a lawful arrest you need to have reasonable grounds to believe a crime is/has occurred. Then you have to have reasonable grounds as to who dun it.

That makes sense.

In the case of the laptop (and I didn't conclude it was indecent images), you have (based on what has been shared)...
1. A crime - computer misuse
2. An IP address telling you where to look
3. A person whom you question ....

Agreed.

4. A device with some evidence of the crime that you can link to the person

I thought we were being told that the device contained evidence of the fact that the crime was probably committed by someone (who 'hacked into' the laptop) other than the person who had been questioned?

The arrest is unsafe if done before 4 is established.

As above. We probably need clarification from SUNRAY as to exactly what was found in this laptop since, as I've said, what I thought we were being told was that what was found was evidence that the crime had probably been committed by someone other than him. In any event, as below, it seems that he was arrested prior to (4), so this is rather moot - in which case you appear to be saying that you believe the arrest was unsafe?

In the case above something must have been found or shared during part 3 and 4 that suggested reasonable grounds to suspect involvement.

Again if I'm understanding correctly, he was arrested prior to (4) - which would seem to mean that the arrest could only be 'safe' if he said something prior to the arrest which gave rise to 'reasonable suspicion' of his guilt - which, on the face of it, would seem unlikely.

Kind Regards, John

 

[motorbiking]

I don't think we should be asking for more info

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think we should be asking for more info

Maybe not (although his innocence doesn't seem to be in doubt), but it would probably be reasonable for him to tell us whether he believes that he said anything to them prior to his arrest which would have given them reasonable cause to suspect his guilt - since, if he's not aware of having said any such things, you seem to be saying that (given what we understand of the facts) you believe that the arrest was probably unsafe.

Kind Regards, John

 

[motorbiking]

I do, yes.

But I suspect the details will be very different and not something to share on a forum. Proximity is all that was needed.

 

[SUNRAY]

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?
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'!
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

I hadn't intended to go deeply into this but...
It was inspected at home during the search and was the only one inspected then. They found hacking evidence - I know not what. I was asked who had access to it, it was password protected to only me. The other PC's had no password and used by both of us, and visiting son & daughter. 2 of the non internet PC's contained only music, ~30K tracks for radio station use and used by a number of people. In view of the evidence found, I feel the procedures followed were inevitable, I'd certainly be surprised [even now] if I heard of a case where arrest didn't follow the discovery of similar evicence.
Wife was questioned but not arrested and not taken in for questioning.
A friend of mine takes 2 copies of weekly backups and posts one SSD to his son, other is stored in a firesafe, son does the same they keep a copy of previous week too. I think it's 10 SSD's used for this purpose.
I knew I had nothing to hide [albeit they informed me I'd used my Office s/ware more times than my license allowed] and had no reason not to co-operate, the solicitor did stop me answering several times though. After the initial event when it was blatantly obvious they were persuing others and not me I felt it was in my interest to co-operate and the solicitor also gave that advice. 'No commenting' would have served me no purpose and hindered their enquiries. The only bad outcome being I was banned from posting on the forum due to the percieved double identy [2 users from the same IP address].
I try to be good and keep my nose clean but I don't pretend I 'know the law'.

 

[SUNRAY]

4. A device with some evidence of the crime that you can link to the person
5. arrest and interview under caution - exposing evidence that he is not your man

The arrest is unsafe if done before 4 is established. At 5, the person should be de-arrested. Any duty sol worth his onions would also seek to have the arrest record expunged as part the process of further assistance - that is a request usually declined by the Chief constable unless his/her team need your help. These records can cause problems for people occasionally.

In the case above something must have been found or shared during part 3 and 4 that suggested reasonable grounds to suspect involvement

I thought we were being told that the device contained evidence of the fact that the crime was probably committed by someone (who 'hacked into' the laptop) other than the person who had been questioned?
As above. We probably need clarification from SUNRAY as to exactly what was found in this laptop since, as I've said, what I thought we were being told was that what was found was evidence that the crime had probably been committed by someone other than him.
Kind Regards, John

Hopefully I can describe the sequence clearly. ingoring points which get in the way
They asked for all IT kit.
They asked which items were used for internet access and who uses them.
'My' laptop was probably the most visible and they started looking at it, asked for my log on which I freely gave.
They found some evidence of hacking, at that time I don't know whether they discovered the means or the actual hacked data but it was enough for them to arrest me.
I feel point 4 appeared to be validated...
The following day I was de-arrested.

I have never been aware of details of what was found, I do know some of the major and sensitive companies/sites involved but there will not be any disclosures but no there were no indecent images.

FWIW I have done 3 days work a year at one of the Police properties for the last 8 years for which I have to have a Police check, to date it's not caused any issues and now at the age of 65 I'm pretty much retired [except that my boss's keep phoning for help] so I rather hope any chances of problems have abated.

As for replacing a hard drive with a rebuilt one - thats a dream (not saying it didnt happen to sunray).

The IT guy was lovely and I suspect saddened [for want of a better word] by how I got caught up in the actions of another. They had taken several HDD's, one had previously come from that machine when upgraded and basically ready to drop back in. He installed any missing s/ware and files from the other HDD and made sure the updates were current. He also suggested the AVG hadn't done its job and hinted at Eset as a replacement.

It's amazing what had slipped my mind until now.

 

[SimonH2]

It's illegal but then you probably don't care about that.

As pointed out, no it's not.

Whhoooooaaaa OK. Was not expecting all those replies

Thanks all who mention it's illegal, it's not. *If* the ISP does not know about it then it is against terms of service. Fact is, in this instance it is a property not served by an independant provider that offers gigabit fibre because this house has no duct having been built in a garden. So, we are looking at delivering it in an outbuilding and then running a cable to his house. This will almost certainly be done with the providers blessing however at worst it will be purchased by the home owner and refunded by the neighbour. Worst case and they share, it will be the business service and we'll vlan the traffic and outbound NAT giving each household their own public IP. For those offering advice on how to route the traffic or what router to use, we're cool and have that covered thanks.

So my question remains I think, with a direct ethernet connection do we need to think about earthing? <EDIT> Thanks to BernardGreen for answering! <>

Of course, the other option which is probably going to be my way to go is we'll use armoured fibre NOT copper and that removes that issue completely but I am intrigued anyway.
...

Sounds like you know what you are doing. I'd suggest fibre if there's the budget. Outdoor grade Cat5e or Cat6 (it has a PE sheath instead of PVC) would be an option if the budget doesn't run to fibre. Personally I'd not be too concerned about using copper ethernet over that distance - I've seen worse transients within a building at one place I worked (we had loads of RS232 serial links back then, and after one incident, a lot of fried equipment), and all on one supply from one transformer !

So who would you use to run a single pair from one house to another house across the road. ?

As long as it's high enough to meet standards, anyone who's competent to do it and who has PL insurance. With one previous client, we looked into options, and we did get a quote for drilling under the road. Apparently the rules allow that without a permit etc as you're not disturbing either the road surface or substrate, and not requiring any traffic management.

IT Consultant here, though not a network engineer.

General practice is to never ever link two buildings with separate power supplies using Cat5/6/etc. It's not good outside at the best of times anyway, and it's not great over distance.

Yeah, it's not best practice (as discussed to death already), but is unlikely to result in any problems in a situation like this.

In short - best practice is to use a fibre connection which completely absolves are practical and theoretical issues of linking two buildings like this. ... It's not expensive as you may initially think - you can use something called a "Media Converter" to simply and passively convert between normal BaseT (Twisted Pair Cable) to Fibre.

I would strongly recommend using switches with fibre ports (typically mini-GBIC ports these days). The cost really has come down over the last few years, and it removes a lot of points of failure. In particular, with switch -- media converter -- fibre cable -- media converter -- switch it can be a right PITA troubleshooting a failure.

Wireless Point to Point can be okay, but in my (limited here) experience you tend to get what you pay for. I've only scan read, but for all day every day links you want Prosumer kit at the very least. Maybe something in the Unifi catalog:
https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/store/wifi-links/wifi-point-to-point-links/
Even then you're limited compared to modern Internet speeds. Bearing in mind you can knock 10% off the quoted speeds on the best days and latency tends to suffer.

Yes, Ubuquiti do some very nice stuff. With Airfiber you can have a full gigabit over that sort of distance - but it'll cost you a fair bit more than the cost of a fibre cable. If you go with WiFi type equipment, then you add quite a bit of latency to the connection. As you say, you get what yo pay for.

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'

Indeed. At least if they are doing their job right it will be the right house - there have been "a number" of cases of law enforcement getting the wrong premises, often due to timezone differences resulting in the IP being registered to one subscriber at "time of incident" in one timezone, but another subscriber at the same "time of incident" in a different timezone. You'd think that would be something basic they'd get right, but form the reports it's clear that it isn't.

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.

All I can say is that anecdotally it seems you were very lucky. Around the industry there are lots of reports of people having their kit taken away, and plod won't let then have any of it back because "it might contain nasty stuff" - i.e. they can't be certain that all illegal material will have been removed from the copy they return, so they won't return anything. Don't forget that some clever people could hide illegal material within seemingly innocuous files (e.g. using steganography to hide it within music files) so some plod will take the view that it's illegal unless proved otherwise.
Add to that the situation where some forensics facilities have a backlog measured in years, and you can see a distinct problem there. It probably varies considerably between forces.
Personally I'd be a bit up manure creek if they took my IT away for any length of time. Though I assume it would be accepted (with some reluctance) by HMRC as a valid excuse for late filing of tax returns or not being able to produce historical accounts on request.

Simon

 

[davelondon]

When I was a kid me and two friends along the street built ourselves a mini telephone network by running wires at the back of our gardens. It was a fun project.

Like others, I would be concerned about liability for content. You could ring fence it as a guest login to the router if it will allow that and also as said insist on a VPN which will slow it down a bit. The third party here is the neighbour who is liable.

 

[gbrown100]

Hi everyone, thanks for the input just enjoyed catching up! Well, the neighbour has now backed out lol. But to address where we got to:

Fibre link using pre terminated armoured fibre from comms express.
Someone said "use a switch not router to avoid double nat". A router routes... Nat is a different mechanism that some routers perform. ISP router in bridged mode, neighbour router providing nat, friend router using nat with each router wan port plugged into isp router, minimum 4 public ip addresses. Cheap TP-LINK fibre transceiver (or could have used Unifi USG pro with fibre gbic. Why do this? Each person gets their own router, allows them to be "in control" with no reliance on each other. Largely symbolic these days as most don't need to log into their router but get's over the layman's security fears.

That's it, nice and simple!

Oh, like I say, ISP won't install as no duct, whoever's said FTTP is available anywhere FTTC is available is wrong. FTTP is available where it's available, if theres a fibre node outside and no pole / duct you ain't getting FTTP. FTTPoD is available pretty much anywhere as long as you have 4k to 150k to pay for it. Imagine the cost for BT to do the civils to install a duct or put up a telegraph pole. It takes 10 of them and 3 visits just to nail a cable into wall if they send Kellys... a leased line becomes much more desirable.

Wifi... Just no. I have done installs from 10 metres to 2km with kit costing under £100 but you could pay 100 times that and you still won't get through a wet conifer.

Finally, legal responsibility. I may be a little naive in thinking that natting out each premises to it's own IP address is enough... This does answer the who's IP address did what conundrum so would give protection to the neighbour. I suppose there is the argument that someone could try to use the others IP but this would fail horribly with both plugged in or the friend would notice when his cable was unplugged. If the ISP router logs the arp table you would also get a clue unless the neigbour or friend started using randomiaes mac addresses!

 

[JohnW2]

.... Wifi... Just no. I have done installs from 10 metres to 2km with kit costing under £100 but you could pay 100 times that and you still won't get through a wet conifer.

True, but if there are no conifers (or whatever), not even juvenile ones, in the path at the time of installation, then it's likely that it would be at least a good few years before there was a confider (or whatever) in the path to get wet

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

That reminds me of a tale an old friend told me from when he worked in the broadcast industry in NZ.
The station had a ptp microwave link. Each year the signal would degrade in spring/summer and recover in autumn. And each year it got very slightly worse. They checked multiple times - clear line of sight.
Then someone realised that the trees on the hill along the path, whilst clear of the line of sight, were intruding into the fresnel zone - and each year they encroached a bit more as they grew.

He also told me a lot of other stories - almost all unsuitable for this forum. One involved a party, a padded bra, two closed loops of wire (shorted loop) - and "cuddling" in the field near the transmitter masts (strong radiated field strength). I'll leave you to fill in the blanks ...

EDIT: he also taught me how to coil long cables neatly