BBC 'vague' reporting again!

[Charles Lindsey]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:55:26 -0000, Richard Clayton  
<richard@highwayman.com> wrote:

> In article <op.uljrt7vq6hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
> <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> But that supposes that, having seized X's thin computer, they know the
>> necessary passwords/whatever to penetrate the firewalls in Kendal, and
>> moreover it supposes that the company in Kendal, having become aware of
>> X's arrest, have not already removed his privileges to breach their
>> firewall.
>
> yes ... but you're back in the realm of what Ian Batten helpfully called
> "law abiding criminals".  Many searches of company computers are carried
> out with the help and assistance of the company and/or their sysadmins

But in that case they don't need to use X's computer (more likely a clone  
of it) in order to access the files in Kendal, since Kendal can give them  
direct access (or as direct as they choose to).

But more intersting, if they have seized X's computer, they can presumably  
run any software found upon it (again, using a clone of course) in order  
to ascertain the precise nefariousness of X's activities. If it turns out  
that some of that software "phones home", whether to Kendal, Kircaldy, or  
Katmandu, and if the passwords needed for same are conveniently cached  
within said computer, are they then entitled to examine whatever  
information thus becomes visible to them (possibly separate asnwers  
required for the cases of Kendal, Kircaldy and Katmandu)?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5