Devices Kent Police have extracted data from Jan 2017 – June 2018.
Between Jan 2017 and June 2018 Kent Police have extracted data from 4332 devices. The devices data has been extracted from are for example: memory chips, games consoles and vehicle infotainment systems, plus many more. Below we have set out the numbers and the exact types of device Kent Police have extracted data between Jan 2017 and June 2018.
No doubt some of you might say or think, so what, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. That argument is senseless in our opinion. For example, Poole Council used laws designed to track serious criminals to spy on a family for nearly three weeks to find out if they were lying about living in a school catchment area. Doreen Lawrence and her family were surveilled in attempts to smear them and undermine their fight for justice. Women being harassed need the safety of anonymity and privacy, to defend against abuse in their online spaces and aggression like swatting in their homes. Women stalked or tracked by abusive partners, which has become a problem so common that Women’s Aid has a clear and prominent guide to hiding your tracks online on its website.
Environmental campaigners have for many years been under direct surveillance, particularly women who were deceived into having relationships with police officers. MPs need privacy in particular for their constituency work, which involves meeting with people who share very personal stories and situations, and challenging the actions of the government. For example, recently MPs confidential calls with prison staff were recorded and monitored. Doctors, hospital workers and their patients expect to have confidentiality when discussing personal health. Disabled people are often scared of speaking out about mistreatment because they are can be put under direct surveillance by both government bodies, and neighbours, to try and ‘catch them out’ as ‘not really disabled’.
Perhaps you find yourself in this list, or know people who are.
Also consider it in relation to Otterpool Park, if Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC) have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear about releasing any data. The same goes for Princes Parade. But alas both Viability Assessments have been heavily redacted. So FHDC do have something to hide and possibly for good reason too.
Below are the types of device Kent Police have extracted data from between Jan 2017 and June 2018.
(Figures based on submissions through the Digital Forensics Department only)
The penultimate type of device Kent Police have extracted data from is Vehicle: Infotainment System.
The UK Metropolitan Polices’ “Digital Control Strategy” identifies infotainment systems in cars, which store this information, as a new forensic opportunity. It seems as though Kent Police also see it as a new forensic opportunity as well. Combine this information with a bit of open source intelligence, such as social media profiles, and you can track down individuals.
Back in Dec 2017 Privacy International ran an article on their website titled: Connected Cars: What Happens To Our Data On Rental Cars? When anyone in the UK rents a car, some people connect their phone to the car. Privacy International go onto say in their detailed report:
-
While both the rental companies and manufacturers put the onus on individuals to delete data held on infotainment systems, there is no agreement who is the data controller of the information which resides on these devices. This is concerning, particularly as infotainment systems become increasingly sophisticated and they attract the attention of law enforcement and potentially criminals.
Obfuscation is the only way to subvert surveillance.
Derren Brown and others are masters at it.
Those who do not understand magic tricks are always going to buy the story that being caught on camera, means you are bang to rights.
Everything is open to interpretation and subversion in the surveillance state.
Your privacy is in your own hands. Doesn’t matter how much they think they know about you.