<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;confiscated&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:38:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Police Allowed To Hang Onto Seized Computers For Anti-Piracy Group, Despite No Gov't Prosecution</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/1428196903.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/1428196903.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were just noting that the IFPI thinks it's going to start <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091109/0932206853.shtml">seizing computers</a> directly to get evidence of unauthorized file sharing, and wondering how that would work.  At least in the UK, they may have just received some legal support.  Over the summer, we wondered why an anti-piracy group in the UK was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/1713445461.shtml">given access to</a> and allowed to keep computers from a <i>criminal</i> investigation into an online service, called Surfthechannel, accused of unauthorized file sharing.  The police seized the computers, but decided not to pursue criminal charges.  It never made much sense that private, industry-backed anti-piracy group FACT was a major part of the criminal investigation, as they're quite the biased party.  They were given seized computers as a part of this investigation -- and once the police decided not to pursue criminal charges, FACT kept the machines, saying it was considering a civil suit.  However, the lawyers for Surfthechannel noted that the police and FACT had no right to keep the seized machines after the decision was made not to pursue criminal charges.
<br><br>
Apparently (and unfortunately) a judge disagrees.  A <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20091111/0140386886#c69">reader</a> alerts us (via comments on a totally separate story, rather than a submission -- not sure why) to the news that the judge in the case has said that <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6911108.ece" target="_blank">police have every right to retain seized computers</a>, even after they've decided not to pursue criminal charges.  The judges noted that the law allows police the retain anything seized "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances" and then ruled that the potential of a civil suit from FACT was one of those "circumstances" that qualified.  It's difficult to see how that makes any sense, but so ruled the court.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/1428196903.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/1428196903.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/1428196903.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-bad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091111/1428196903</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:42:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Use A Command Line At Boston College... Have Your Computer Equipment Confiscated</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090414/1837144515.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090414/1837144515.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have submitted various versions of a story in Boston, involving Boston College police being granted a warrant which they used to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10218460-38.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-5" target="_new">confiscate the computers of a student</a> as part of an investigation over an email sent to a mailing list.  The troubling part is that the warrant was given without any real reason.  In fact, part of the warrant application focused on the scary fact that the student in question <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/boston-college-prompt-commands-are-suspicious" target="_new">used a command line</a> on his computer:
<blockquote><i>
Mr. Calixte uses two different operating systems to hide his illegal activities.  One is the regular B.C. operating system and the other is a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on.
</i></blockquote>
There are other accusations in the filing, but reading through it, it seems clear that this is a pure fishing expedition by the police, rather than any real probable cause.  Luckily, the EFF is now representing the student, pointing out how this appears to be a pretty significant violation of the student's rights.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090414/1837144515.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090414/1837144515.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090414/1837144515.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-doesn't-seem-right</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090414/1837144515</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Prisoner Sues Because Prison Confiscated And Destroyed His Contraband Mobile Phone</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0153114319.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0153114319.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen plenty of stories over the past few years about prisoners getting contraband mobile phones -- even to the point that many prisons have been asking for exemptions against mobile phone jammers.  However, here's a new one: a former prisoner in the UK is <a href="http://www.cellular-news.com/story/36736.php?source=rss" target="_new">suing the prison system for destroying the contraband phone</a> they discovered he had.  He claims that the phone should have been just taken and kept in storage, but instead, it was used to train dogs, who chewed it up.  Perhaps the rules governing the UK prison system are a bit different, but it's difficult to see how any prison system should be expected to hang onto contraband for the prisoners until after they're released.  No word on how he got the phone in the first place, but perhaps it was <a href="http://www.cellular-news.com/story/36789.php?source=rss" target="_new">specially trained carrier pigeons</a> (or not).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0153114319.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0153114319.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0153114319.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-luck-with-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090331/0153114319</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>