Okay great. Does London have 700000 cyber-criminals?
They can seize the device (forensically linked earlier)
Except you can just change your IP and MAC, so now anything the police wants to see is linked to whatever crime gives them the most leeway.
Still 5.2 million too many. Though the UK is probably one of the more Israel-friendly countries after Germany, so maybe they’re hurting worse everywhere else.
It was. I’ve known about this for weeks, so any anglophone journalist probably has as well. They don’t want to report on it.
What does it matter what real people can or can’t do? The article and topic is about police abusing innocent people by spying on them. The fact that they aren’t able to do the things you’re justifying them getting accused of only makes it worse, to the degree it’s relevant at all.
The total number of offences in London for 2024 was 951803. Do you find it reasonable if 70% of those have an anonymous online component to them that is still clearly linked to the same crime?
What about the 106 times they did it to “specifically identify journalists’ sources”? Did someone make a report for each of the 93527 LycaMobile users, which the article pretty convincingly suggests were targeted because they’re largely migrant workers?
Even if it was all legitimate, why does police need the power to search people’s communication without evidence? Why don’t they need warrants for communications data? Why don’t “intelligence and security spies” need warrants for communications content? Why are they allowed to do cavity searches for communication equipment without evidence of a crime?
You’re loading the question with the assumption that no investigation can be done without reading the communications of 700000 Londoners, and that the rights of innocents should be at my discretion if I’ve been victimised in any way.