Timeline for What stops you from invoking §19.6 if a police officer attempts to seize your mobile phone?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7 at 22:26 | answer | added | user5623335 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 24, 2022 at 20:02 | comment | added | user5623335 | Sorry to grave dig, but having read through various pieces of case law in England and Wales, it appears that section 19 (6) is a valid defence even if s49 RIPA notice is used. However, the court can reword the order to exclude legally privileged materials. The end result is it makes the process longer, and might not keep the police out forever. | |
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 27, 2019 at 2:34 | vote | accept | Danny Beckett | ||
| Sep 11, 2015 at 1:28 | answer | added | gracey209 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 19:23 | comment | added | Chad | @JasonAller - I did not others did. My point was is that it is not covered by privilege in the first place (even if there is legal work product on it) since the contents of the phone are already available to a third party. so... What stops you from invoking §19.6 if a police officer attempts to seize your mobile phone? - Your phone contents can not be protected since they are already open to a third party. | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 18:17 | comment | added | Jason Aller | @Chad you've taken this in a direction that veers away from the question being asked. The question is about asserting a protection in the field to prevent a phone from being seized, not about what might happen to it after it has been seized. | |
| Jul 22, 2015 at 22:18 | comment | added | Matthew Read | @Chad SIM/ESN locks and backdoors are completely orthogonal concepts. | |
| May 29, 2015 at 19:40 | comment | added | o0'. | @Chad citation needed | |
| May 29, 2015 at 19:37 | comment | added | Chad | @Lohoris - The carriers rely on your belief in that but most subsidized phones are locked and most phones purchased are subsidized. | |
| May 29, 2015 at 13:27 | comment | added | o0'. | @Chad I strongly doubt that "The majority of the android phones on the market are carrier locked". | |
| May 27, 2015 at 17:54 | comment | added | Chad | @DannyBeckett - Yes and officers know that it does not hold up so have no reason to fear that clause. | |
| May 27, 2015 at 17:52 | comment | added | Danny Beckett | @Chad This is irrelevant though. You're talking about after the phone is seized, by a court order. The question is about preventing the seizure in the first place, on the street with a police officer. | |
| May 27, 2015 at 17:48 | comment | added | Chad | @DannyBeckett - The majority of the android phones on the market are carrier locked. They are compromised, besides google can access them as well. | |
| May 27, 2015 at 17:46 | comment | added | Danny Beckett | @Chad You missed out the OS with 82% of the market share... Android! So maybe the NSA has a backdoor in it, but this is outside the spectrum of 'legal', especially since the question pertains to the UK. Regardless, Google has said before that a pattern lock is impossible for them to crack. They've had subpoenas for it in the past and have denied them. | |
| May 27, 2015 at 16:39 | comment | added | Chad | @Flup Most contracts include a clause that allows the carrier to access the phone to diagnose problems including those that may be being caused on their network. So they have access, even if they rarely use it. If you have an Apple phone it is compromised to apple and your carrier. If you have a windows phone... ok so like no one has them, but if anyone did then it is compromised by M$ | |
| May 27, 2015 at 15:21 | answer | added | chapka | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 27, 2015 at 8:47 | comment | added | Flup | @CodesInChaos is right: the carrier doesn't have direct access to things stored on a phone just by virtue of them being your carrier. | |
| May 27, 2015 at 7:00 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | @Chad Why would the carrier have access to a phone? The device manufacturer and OS supplier might technically have access (e.g. by deploying a malicious update), but I'm not sure that'd count as having access in a legal context. | |
| May 27, 2015 at 3:11 | comment | added | Chad | Anything on the phone is retrievable by your carrier so its always going to fail the 3rd party test. Besides its probably going to fail the reasonable grounds for believing test anyway. | |
| May 27, 2015 at 0:25 | comment | added | Chad | In most cases your mobile phone is going be fail the third party test. Since anything on your mobile is accessible to your carrier, it is available to a third party and thus not protected by privilege. | |
| May 27, 2015 at 0:10 | history | edited | Danny Beckett | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 321 characters in body
|
| May 26, 2015 at 23:58 | history | asked | Danny Beckett | CC BY-SA 3.0 |