Parent's point, I suspect, is about this:

> “If information is identified from your device that suggests the commission of a separate criminal offense, other than the offense(s) under investigation, the relevant data may be retained and investigated by the police,” according to written statement to victims and witnesses that will accompany the consent form.

> Anything the police find, it says, will be handed over to prosecutors. And in some cases, devices might not be given back to their owners for weeks or even months.

That sounds a lot like "fishing expeditions".

Upon reflection, I recall that I've been ripped off in drug deals. Fortunately, I was never robbed outright, but that was always a possibility. And I knew that if I had been robbed, I couldn't file a police report. Even if I'd been injured.

But if my car had been stolen, or my house burglarized, there would have been no such constraint. Unless it was that someone had stolen my drugs, anyway.

Now, though, with so much personal data on devices, any interaction with police entails some risk of disclosure. But I guess that's part of what "outlaw" means. In breaking some laws, you give up protection by others. It's just that we used to have enough privacy to finesse it more.

The point being made by GP is that the rules are already too broad; simply writing them down does very little (if anything) to address the worry about data intrusion. If I were to do something horrible to another person, they wouldn't have much reassurance if I said "here's a list of what I can (and thus can't) do to you, and when (and thus when not) I can do it to you".

I'm a very data security conscious person. If something bad happened to me the last thing I'd want is for the police to say that they can't continue to work on my case unless I grant them access to my device(s) and then trust them to not be (deliberately or not) "incompetent" with what they're doing. If anything this should be part of a policy in which victims elect to volunteer information when asked if there's anything that could help the case. I can actually easily imagine a case in which I've been sexually assaulted (and this has happened to me) and I would not go to the police if they had a policy like this.

If the police are searching on my phone, what if I have something illegal I don't want them to see? Something they might think is 'concerning' that they can write down and decide to pursue later? What if I'm a sex worker and they can find out through looking at my phone, and even gather proof that fact? And before we say that we can trust them to be competent, what about the other story here?[0] What about the myriad of horrible laws that are passed in England and Wales which restrain even private possession of comics?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19785416

> the last thing I'd want is for the police to say that they can't continue to work on my case unless I grant them access to my device(s) ... If anything this should be part of a policy in which victims elect to volunteer information when asked if there's anything that could help the case

My understanding is that the police in the UK have always been required to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry, including those that might contradict the complainant's evidence. That means when investigating a crime they must consider the possibility that the victim is not telling the whole story (where it is reasonable to do so, eg. there is no way to corroborate the victim's account).

The new guidelines (which, unfortunately, I can't find the full text of) apparently tell the police when they should exercise the power they have always had: to tell victims "we don't have enough evidence to justify putting further effort into this investigation, unless you agree to hand over your phone to us, because that would increase our confidence that you are telling us the truth."

Police have competing priorities and it is inevitable that some crimes go unpunished because the witnesses are not believed by police, or refuse to voluntarily provide information which could affect their credibility. I am sure I would agree with the police doing this in some extreme cases, but as another data security conscious person, it's unlikely I would fully agree with the police interpretation of "necessary and appropriate." [1]

[1]: https://twitter.com/PoliceChiefs/status/1122757012859904002

> Fishing expeditions are not allowed.

That's exactly what a criminal investigation is. They keep fishing until they find probative evidence. The creative ways police investigate certain unsolved crimes puts most fishing expeditions to shame.

Unless of course you aren't interested in the truth but want to railroad people accused of very specific crimes for political reasons...

I think this national vs local police force thing needs a bit of explaining.

Years ago you could be speeding in one county, cross the county line (e.g. from Devon to Cornwall) and they wouldn't be able to catch you. The cop would have to back off at the 'border'. Or you could get a first offence caution, e.g. for drugs or shop-lifting in one county, then do the same offence in a different county and get another caution rather than be prosecuted properly.

Those days were over a long time ago, when computers arrived those gaps in the system went.

More recently the local stations have been closed with these local districts getting merged. The nearest cells might be in the big town twenty miles away rather than the local police station down the road. That might only have admin staff.

Then the police are now expected to follow everything up themselves using some tablet computer things they have been given. In the olden days someone back at the station would do all the follow up work contacting the victims of crime etc. Nowadays the constable who happens to be on the scene has to follow the incident up through to the end with a tablet computer instead of a team effort.

The government have chosen to make many cuts to the police force which is a little bit silly. The police are important for staying in power and any government needs them on their side. Cutting their pensions, making them work a not so local 'local' area with 'them and us' merger problems and undermining their effectiveness is just plain silly. If there was some type of Brexit related rebellion in the country then the police are no longer 'bought' enough to be guaranteed to always be on the side of government. It has got to that stage of pissing them off.

Anyway, the police are sadly quite underfunded and, as a consequence, there is nothing to fear from this new 'let's read your phone' ruling. The police have enough problems of their own.

There’s also been high profile cases where rape trials have collapsed because of evidence from phones which hasn’t been disclosed to the defence, for example the case of Liam Allan [1].

1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-trial-colla...