jackjones

Field reports, feedback and the new laws

24 posts in this topic

I am not a fan of field reports (too open to abuse) and the feedback system on the other site seems entirely unreliable. Having said that, my question for the legally-minded is if a punter submits a field report/feedback and the police subsequently bring a charge against another punter under the new laws in relation to the girl who was subject to the review, will it be open to the police to go against the previous punter(s) on the basis that the field reports/feedback were an admission of guilt. (It would be an easy matter for the police to penetrate the cloak of anomymity and identify the author(s))

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a chance.

The Police don't have the time,resources and inclination to do this.

It wouldn't be an easy matter for the Police to penetrate the cloak of anonymity. The other site is based in Belize (I believe). Punternet is US based. I can't see the Police getting Court Orders for the requisite information.

Also there's all the evidential problems. We all know that you can't believe half of what you read in the reports/ reviews. Admission of guilt? Not a chance.

This is a summary offence in the Magistrates Court with a maximum of a Level 3 fine ie. £1,000. My recollection is that this is the same as for driving a car with a defective handbrake.

Don't worry....it's not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going to give almost exactly the same response as Silverado just has. Time and inclination aren't available to trace the reviewer. Just aint going to happen without some VERY outstanding circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No magistrate in US would permit a search warrant for that investigation. Not plausible.

If an issue of national security, not a problem. Done before asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it ever happens, just tell them you were boasting to your mates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a chance.

...

It wouldn't be an easy matter for the Police to penetrate the cloak of anonymity. The other site is based in Belize (I believe). Punternet is US based. I can't see the Police getting Court Orders for the requisite information.

...

I don't see the need to get anything from Belize or the US.

As I understand it, every character to and from your PC is recorded by your ISP, for the Forces of Darkness to examine when they choose (just in case you're a terrorist).

Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the need to get anything from Belize or the US.

As I understand it, every character to and from your PC is recorded by your ISP, for the Forces of Darkness to examine when they choose (just in case you're a terrorist).

Or am I missing something?

If the girl has a FR from Barry Cade and the Police suspect that she is subject to exploitative conduct, how are they to know that it's your computer? How are they to link Barry Cade on Punternet to your real identity?

They would need to get that information from Punternet surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be an easy matter for the Police to penetrate the cloak of anonymity. The other site is based in Belize (I believe). Punternet is US based. I can't see the Police getting Court Orders for the requisite information.

I think that's just a mail forwarding office used by loads of companies.

I'm sure they'll still comply, as the other site's privacy policy states:

We may disclose Your Data to the police, regulatory bodies or legal advisers in connection with any alleged criminal offence or suspected breach of the Terms and Conditions of Use and (where appropriate) Membership Terms and Conditions by You or otherwise where required by law.

In an attempt to prevent fraudulent or abusive use of this website we do store the date and time of your visit and what IP Address you were accessing the site from along with the browser you were using.

I can confirm the last bit, they log your user-agent too.

Not sure exactly where they're based, I work in online adult and I've heard they're based in Brighton. They're using a Gibraltar postal address for billing enquiries, which is probably because you need a EU entity to process card payments with European aquiring banks (as per card association rules, e.g. Mastercard/Visa).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the girl has a FR from Barry Cade and the Police suspect that she is subject to exploitative conduct, how are they to know that it's your computer? How are they to link Barry Cade on Punternet to your real identity?

They would need to get that information from Punternet surely?

Everything you type into punternet is sent in clear text via your ISP over to the punternet servers in the US... so if your ISP is keeping a log of every byte sent/received over your internet connection they could trace you back to your Silverado identity with a record of everything you have said (assuming you are the only user of your internet connection).

I doubt however that they log the content of what is sent/received, as that would be a logistical nightmare. It's much more likely that they log only a datetime and URL, which probably isn't enough to trace you to Silvarado without the server side logs as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression field reports could be argued as inadmissable because they could be classified as hearsay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything you type into punternet is sent in clear text via your ISP over to the punternet servers in the US... so if your ISP is keeping a log of every byte sent/received over your internet connection they could trace you back to your Silverado identity with a record of everything you have said (assuming you are the only user of your internet connection).

I doubt however that they log the content of what is sent/received, as that would be a logistical nightmare. It's much more likely that they log only a datetime and URL, which probably isn't enough to trace you to Silvarado without the server side logs as well.

OK, I understand that.

The Police suspect that a girl is being coerced.

There is one Punternet FR from a poster called Silverado six months ago.

How are they going to trace me from that?

They don't know my ISP or have my computer to check my hard drive.

Surely they can't trace me without the co-operation of Galahad and/or Punternet's ISP in California :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I understand that.

The Police suspect that a girl is being coerced.

There is one Punternet FR from a poster called Silverado six months ago.

How are they going to trace me from that?

They don't know my ISP or have my computer to check my hard drive.

Surely they can't trace me without the co-operation of Galahad and/or Punternet's ISP in California :D.

I didn't think of it like that. You are correct, they would have to know it's you first to be able to pull the correct records from your ISP, which probably don't even exist anyway and would be of no use because they already know it's you.

Hypothetically they would need to have a database of all UK ISPs' traffic (including the sent/received content) that they could search through, but that is a logistical impossibility that could only exist in an episode of 24 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was under the impression field reports could be argued as inadmissable because they could be classified as hearsay

In your case that is correct.

Presumably they have been taken down. Even if the Police have copies they are inadmissable without the authors.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you. Please let us know how you get on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that's just a mail forwarding office used by loads of companies.

I'm sure they'll still comply, as the other site's privacy policy states:

I can confirm the last bit, they log your user-agent too.

Not sure exactly where they're based, I work in online adult and I've heard they're based in Brighton. They're using a Gibraltar postal address for billing enquiries, which is probably because you need a EU entity to process card payments with European aquiring banks (as per card association rules, e.g. Mastercard/Visa).

Adam, you know a lot more about IT and the other site than I do but I think that the domain name is registered to a registrant in Belize City.

The privacy policy is standard boiler plate and just protects them from legal action by a member should they choose to hand over information without a valid Court Order. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will readily disclose the information to the authorities.

I don't know whether they would or not. I suppose it depends on how traceable and anonymous they are. They would also have to consider the effect on their business.

In the case of the media, as you are aware the usual policy is "not without a Court Order" and that included taped footage of the poll tax riots and the murder of the 2 soldiers by the IRA at the funeral in Northern Ireland.

I presumed that having the domain name registered in Belize (or indeed the US) makes it difficult for the UK authorities to get a court order for any information. If they have a "base" in E &W as you suggest then it might be slightly easier.

Still can't see it happening though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In your case that is correct.

Presumably they have been taken down. Even if the Police have copies they are inadmissable without the authors.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you. Please let us know how you get on.

Thanks, I certainly will do. In my case rather interestingly they havent used punternet reports. They have one that was cut and past into an email and forwarded on as someone couldnt access punternet from work and requested it but they dont have any of the others. They have however had to download and print a definition of terms from punterlink many of which I didnt even know.

It will be interesting to see what the CPS chose to charge me with, much of thier evidence could also be used as a defence in the case of brothel keeping so without wanting to sound distastfull to my own situation it will be an interesting case to follow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically they would need to have a database of all UK ISPs' traffic (including the sent/received content) that they could search through, but that is a logistical impossibility that could only exist in an episode of 24 :D

GCHQ can and do intercept what ever they want to.

In fact having typed GCHQ, their sophisticated internet word/phrase alert system will pick up and flag this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No magistrate in US would permit a search warrant for that investigation. Not plausible.

If an issue of national security, not a problem. Done before asked.

Thought we had reciprocal agreements. If someone was breaking the law in the UK, (a sex offence), and the evidence of the IP address was in the logs on a server in the US, then why would a judge not force Galahad to provide the information.

Once the IP address was know, or associated email address, thencan be traced back through the ISP, and the connection at the time. I assume of the IP address changes, the ISP would have records of the physical connection.

OK now id you were using AOL, or a mobile phone operator you would be going through a proxy server, and masses of people would be using the same IP address, so how would the trace back the ip address to the phone, physical connection. Ah they would look at the logs at that time, and see who was connecting to Punternet.

Of course you could be devious and use one of those proxy server companies and hide you IP address, and the ISP would only see you connecting to the proxy server, so the proxy server company would have to hand over its records as well. Good idea to use a proxy server in a country that takes provacy seriously, or someone who destroys their logs.

Now it could be Galahad destroys all his logs, so they are not available. Google do this for Mobile Phone Location Data in the US where you have a GPS. You drive along a road with you GPS transmitting you location. This information is aggregated with others, and the information is passed back to show where the roads are congested. Google removes all the information that identifies the person, including the destinations, and they do not keep it. This is to ensure the courts cannot subpoena this information. If you don't have the information then you can't pass it back to the courts.

Of course in the UK and ISP has to keep all this information for one year. Its not the content, but it is all email contact, and all web addresses, and all phone call numbers..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not a fan of field reports (too open to abuse) and the feedback system on the other site seems entirely unreliable. Having said that, my question for the legally-minded is if a punter submits a field report/feedback and the police subsequently bring a charge against another punter under the new laws in relation to the girl who was subject to the review, will it be open to the police to go against the previous punter(s) on the basis that the field reports/feedback were an admission of guilt. (It would be an easy matter for the police to penetrate the cloak of anomymity and identify the author(s))

Jack

I suppose it is theoretically possible, however it might depend on how this :-

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought we had reciprocal agreements. If someone was breaking the law in the UK, (a sex offence), and the evidence of the IP address was in the logs on a server in the US, then why would a judge not force Galahad to provide the information.

This is a summary offence with a maximum fine of £1,000. The equivalent minor offence in the US would be a misdemeanour.

It isn't an imprisonable offence let alone one involving national security or terrorism.

Arnie told HH to f**k off (figuratively speaking) when she asked for PN to be shut down in the US. The judge would do the same.

It just isn't going to happen.

....and neither are GCHQ/Bletchley Park going to use Enigma/Colossus or their Spectrum ZX81 or whatever to trace who did Field Report 987654 on Thelma of Thurrock last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to trace who did Field Report 987654 on Thelma of Thurrock last week.

I live in constant fear that such a lady might actually exist, still it would be nice to see her post on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even less incentive than that.

when finding wicked punters - there are no "proceeds of crime" to add to the coffers.

nicking the savings of women who are just getting by is much more their style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, every character to and from your PC is recorded by your ISP, for the Forces of Darkness to examine when they choose (just in case you're a terrorist).

Or am I missing something?

You understanding is wrong. A few years ago the UK authorities did float the idea of wide spread and prolonged retention of data and voice traffic, but it was shot down. It is not technically feasible to record everything, it is intact so infeasible as to be laughable to any IT/Coms expert.

At the time I was working for a UK PLC Telco/ISP at first we laughed at their stupidity/ignorance of the proposal. Then got down to preparing a formal response. My team did a data sizing exercise to estimate the amount of data storage required by just one commercial system/service in use by one division of that organisation. The system would have required 1.2% of the global hard disc production annually. The net result was the proposal was shot down by Telcos & ISPs and dropped.

Instead what happened was a voluntary code of practice by Telcos and ISP to keep basic traffic data. It is actually the same data they need to prepare bills and the practice is to make it available to the authorities under court ordered warrants. That data is the source and destination telephone numbers; date, time and duration; a few technical details such as IP or other identifier e.g. IEMA. Telephone traffic data is kept for 12 months, web traffic data is kept for a few days.

You can do a back of the envelope computation yourself. Take your broadband allowance/average usage and times it by the number of seconds in a year and compare the result to your hard disc capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GCHQ can and do intercept what ever they want to.

In fact having typed GCHQ, their sophisticated internet word/phrase alert system will pick up and flag this post.

While it is technically possible, it is not feasible to monitor/filter all traffic in real time. They would have to take a targeted approach and that targeting would likely be based on being a past suspect in something that is serious threat to national security like terrorism. You only have to look at their abysmal failure to detect Russian, PRC & Serbian hacking attacks to see they cannot be monitoring all traffic or even a significant proportion of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adam, you know a lot more about IT and the other site than I do but I think that the domain name is registered to a registrant in Belize City.

That's true, but I don't think it would be difficult to get a Belize Shell company and post office box. It's also trivially easy to inject false or cloaked details into domain registration.

The server is actually located in Eindhoven in the Netherlands.

The site apparently uses British English grammar & idioms.

I don't know whether they would or not. I suppose it depends on how traceable and anonymous they are. They would also have to consider the effect on their business.

I recall the Police found it difficult to contact the sites administrators for assistance during their investigation of the murder of the transsexual escort and appealed to the wider community for help to do so.

I presumed that having the domain name registered in Belize (or indeed the US) makes it difficult for the UK authorities to get a court order for any information. If they have a "base" in E &W as you suggest then it might be slightly easier.

Agreed Extraterritorial jurisdiction is huge obstacle in internet security and law enforcement when it comes to tracing things back. However if they UK based, and that becomes known to the Police. They could easily serve a warrant at source and avoid those obstacles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now