Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Arrested Over Plans to Test G20 Security

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-that's-forward-thinking dept.

Canada 392

epiphani writes "Byron Sonne, of Toronto, was arrested today by a task force of around 50 police officers associated with the G20 summit taking place this week. An independent contractor, IT security specialist and private investigator, he had notable ties to the Toronto technology and security communities. According to friends and associates, he had been purchasing goods online and speaking with security groups about building devices to collect unencrypted police broadcasts and relay them through Twitter, as well as other activities designed to test the security of the G20 summit. By all accounts, it would appear that Mr. Sonne had no actual malicious intent. In Canada, the summit has been garnering significant press for the cost and invasive nature of the security measures taken." "By all accounts" may not be quite right; the charges against Sonne, exaggerated or not, involve weapons, explosives, and intimidation.

cancel ×

392 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hey... (-1, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682178)

...leave him alone, eh? After all, if people can be sued because someone else downloaded torrents using their unsecured Wi-Fi connections...

Re:Hey... (5, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682416)

It's pretty ridiculous, I know.

"By all accounts" may not be quite right; the charges against Sonne, exaggerated or not, involve weapons, explosives and intimidation.

Can't you be charged with just about anything a police officer deems necessary to bring you into the station, but you aren't guilty of any of them until proven so? I thought that's how it worked but clearly I'm mistaken.

Though, I mean, the question of Malicious intent does bring up some good points. If I fire a weapon to shoot an Apple off someones head and I miss and end up murdering them, despite how un-malicious my intent is, do I still have to pay for the crime?

I had a G20 once. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682554)

Really a great car.

Re:Hey... (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682560)

i suppose it would depend on if they signed a waiver, and how good your lawyer is.

Re:Hey... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682564)

"By all accounts" may not be quite right; the charges against Sonne, exaggerated or not, involve weapons, explosives and intimidation.

Can't you be charged with just about anything a police officer deems necessary to bring you into the station, but you aren't guilty of any of them until proven so? I thought that's how it worked but clearly I'm mistaken.

No, it doesn't work like that. That only applies to sentencing someone of a crime. But someone says "By all accounts, he is a saint!" you can say "Not by all accounts, as some claim that he has committed a crime" even if he hasn't been proven guilty yet. It's actually quite a simple concept to grasp.

Though, I mean, the question of Malicious intent does bring up some good points. If I fire a weapon to shoot an Apple off someones head and I miss and end up murdering them, despite how un-malicious my intent is, do I still have to pay for the crime?

Depends. You don't have to pay for murder. Now, you might have committed other crime (such as gross negligence or the like) and need to pay for that. It is kinda like with drunken driving: The act of knowingly risking the lives of others due to selfish reasons is in itself crime.

Re:Hey... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682766)

It's actually quite a simple concept to grasp.

Well yes, when you put it in the literal sense like that, but perhaps we have different ideas of the words "Accounts", because I imagine someone who has an "account" on it has some evidence to support their claim. I mean, by the logic you're implying I could say "You are not by all accounts innocent of raping and murdering a 14 year old girl." Perhaps you've heard that line before and see where I'm going with it, you can say it right back and thus we've completed invalidated any use of the word account.

Basically what I'm boiling down to is I'd need to see the evidence of the charges before really taking them into consideration on whether they have any grounds at all. I've dealt with few enough police officers to know that they don't all interpret/enforce the law the same way.

Re:Hey... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682566)

That would be manslaughter.

Re:Hey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682596)

I think the real lesson to be learned here is that the security on the G20 summit is pretty good.

Re:Hey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682602)

You'll pay for a crime all right, but intent does matter a great deal in terms of what you would be charged with and whether you would be found guilty. It's the difference between manslaughter [wikipedia.org] and 1st-degree murder, for example.

The intent of this guy will certainly matter, but if he actually did have explosives at his house and any hint of an intent to use them somehow, well, he's hosed. And rightfully so.

Re:Hey... (2, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682636)

Can't you be charged with just about anything a police officer deems necessary to bring you into the station,

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, just making stuff up so you can be hauled in can get the police charged with False Arrest.

Re:Hey... (2, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682740)

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, just making stuff up so you can be hauled in can get the police charged with False Arrest.

Can or will? There's a little bit of a difference there...

Re:Hey... (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682940)

can.
It almost* never happens.
-nB

* almost qualifier: never say never (though in this case I've never seen it).

Re:Hey... (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682772)

Nah, they'll just tack on a "resisting arrest" charge and then drop the original charge. Tadah, they're holding you for a legit reason, even if they had to bounce you off a wall to get you to start resisting.

Re:Hey... (1)

Faluzeer (583626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682830)

Hmmm

I wish it was the same over here in the UK, alas in reality, it tends to be that the police will arrest people for non arrestable offences (eg taking photos of uniformed police officers on duty) and then will make something up if they cannot find a legitimate reason to press charges, usually it involves "resisting arrest"...

Re:Hey... (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682786)

In the US, that is manslaughter, and possibly reckless endangerment, the first a misdemeanor.

Re:Hey... (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682800)

Though, I mean, the question of Malicious intent does bring up some good points. If I fire a weapon to shoot an Apple off someones head and I miss and end up murdering them, despite how un-malicious my intent is, do I still have to pay for the crime?

Depends on how the statute is written. Murder requires 'malice aforethought', which is missing in an accident. Manslaughter generally doesn't depend on malice (or aforethought), although negligence is often taken into account.

I think this is like trespassing: it only matters if you intended to be there (or were unreasonably negligent), not if you intended to cause harm. Intending to cause harm would simply be an additional charge, yet the trespassing charge would still stick regardless of malice.

Re:Hey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682824)

Your example shows the difference between murder and manslaughter. If you really were good enough to shoot an apple off of someone's head, but still managed to miss, you would be hard-pressed to explain to a jury how it was an accident.

weapons, explosives and intimidation? (5, Funny)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682182)

Here in Canada that translates to a rusty fork, vinegar and baking soda, and not saying 'please'.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (5, Informative)

Jabrwock (985861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682234)

People mark this as funny, but it's true. /. needs a "funny yet true" mod.

If you have a butter knife or stapler on you (or in your car when they pull you over), and they arrest you for anything, then you can get charged with "possession of a weapon"...

FRAUD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682328)

The had to spend their $1,000,000,000 somewhere. Might as well arrest someone!! That's more money than hiring the entire Canadian Army and ALL the police forces in the country for 3 days!

Hell, they've spent over $100 MILLION on office space for 3 days. That's enough money to build a fucking office tower! Over $10 MILLION ON FOOD FFS!!! Are they eating golden nuggets of unicorns?

People need to be arrested over the fraud that has happened. Some of these people are providing the "so called" security.

Re:FRAUD! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682470)

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/summit-survivor/2010/05/26/833-million-security-bill-for-g20-and-g8-called-insane/
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/12/17/12184191-sun.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/11/summit-traffic.html

So, Toronto police gets $12,000 bonus per each 6000 staff for 3 days work - works out to $170/h if they work 72h shift (not possible), $350/h for 12h shifts.

Where is the remaining $800 million? Who knows?

"There are 5,567 officers and 2,056 civilian employees. Salaries and premium pay total $848 million. "

Works out to $111,242 per person for *3 day* meeting... I'd love to get paid $1500-$3000/h from your tax dollars too!

Re:FRAUD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682510)

I'm as sure as you are that people are being overpaid but organizing a meeting like this take way more than three days of work, you know.

Re:FRAUD! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682750)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_G-20_London_Summit#Security_operation

"The security operation, Operation Glencoe headed by Commander Bob Broadhurst, was projected to cost £7.2 million. Six police forces were used during the operation: the Metropolitan Police, the City of London Police, British Transport Police and the forces of Essex Police, Sussex Police and Bedfordshire Police. Furthermore some units from the Ministry of Defence Police have been used. It is the highest security expenditure in British history"

Enough said.

There is overpayment, there is waste (see $2 billion spent over *10 YEARS* for the long gun registry), and there is outright fraud. This is definitely the latter.

IF the toronto police force paid their 6000 people $12,000 bonuses+salary for this, that's a "small chunk" of money. That leaves 1000 people with $800,000 - $1 million *each*. WTF???

Canada's waste and corruption scandals are dwarfed by this. This is beyond unacceptable.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (5, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682338)

If you have a butter knife or stapler on you (or in your car when they pull you over), and they arrest you for anything, then you can get charged with "possession of a weapon"...

Dude, a stapler?? Are you kidding me? That will get you Tasered to death [wikipedia.org] in Canada.

I wish I was joking. :(

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (4, Informative)

Jabrwock (985861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682536)

Fortunately, the inquiry on THAT particular incident tore the RCMP a new one over their over-reaction.

RCMP wrong to use Taser on Dziekanski: report [www.cbc.ca]

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682600)

Fortunately, the inquiry on THAT particular incident tore the RCMP a new one over their over-reaction.

And yet, none of them will ever be disciplined over it.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (2, Interesting)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682844)

And the relationship with Poland will never be the same as Canadian politicians blocked Polish attempts to exercise an agreement allowing independent investigation of incidents involving Polish Nationals in Canada.

Being Canada I hope someone named some farm animals after the politicians involved.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (3, Informative)

unhooked (21010) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682864)

Even better, one of those fine officers drunk-drove someone to death, left the scene, drank more, came back and is still walking around free.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682876)

Even better, one of those fine officers drunk-drove someone to death, left the scene, drank more, came back and is still walking around free.

Fuck.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682718)

When I just read that my heart kind of sank. Is there anything more tragic then a group of people in supposed authority harming another man? Sigh.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682860)

When I just read that my heart kind of sank. Is there anything more tragic then a group of people in supposed authority harming another man? Sigh.

Oh, lying about it. Covering it up. Denying it happened until the video surfaced. Discrediting the poor sod they killed and the guy who took the only video that proved it happened. Confiscating the video and refusing to give it back. Using Taser's BS "excited delirium" argument to say that it wasn't the Taser that killed him, but his own body. Avoiding all criminal responsibility. Still being active police officers.

The bottom is a long way down, and the tragedy runs pretty deep on this one. They didn't even try to resolve this peacefully, they just went straight to over-use of force.

Absolutely every aspect of that is completely appalling and fubar.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682948)

    But, he didn't have a stapler.

    By the accounts on the link, he was belligerent, and aggressive towards law enforcement. Still, it's no excuse for what happened, but it is a reason that he would need to be restrained.

    I didn't see in there what the reason was for detaining him, other than they wanted to.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (2, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682822)

    I've heard of people being arrested in the US for possession of burglary tools. Well, tools for the commission of a crime. That can simply be a hammer, screwdriver, and pry bar. The hammer and screwdriver could simply have been in a toolbox, and the "pry bar" can frequently be found as standard equipment in the vehicle with the jack, if it had hubcaps.

    These two counts caught my eye:

Intimidation of a justice system participant by threat.
Intimidation of a justice system participant by watch and beset.

    It sounds like this wasn't only involved with his other plans, but I'd guess "justice systems participant" could be law enforcement. I'm not that familiar with Canadian law, so it's just a guess. If he made direct threats of some sort, then that changes the whole ballgame.

    These two could be easily explained:

Possession of explosives for an unlawful purpose.
Possession of dangerous weapons.

    That can of gasoline you have in the garage for your lawnmower could be an explosive. It "could" be used for unlawful purposes, and if it were to be used for an unlawful purpose, could be a dangerous weapon. Likewise, a propane tank for your grill could be an explosive, if handled incorrectly. It's an easy claim to make, but would be laughed out of court. Usually the bomb squad wouldn't be called out for a gas can or propane tank, so that leads me to believe there was more to those items. It could simply be misidentification of unusual hardware.

    A while back I had made a electrolysis cell, to provide hydrogen gas to supplement the gasoline in a car. My prototype was very unusual, with lots of custom components. It had carbon rods in a grid, and wires attached to provide DC power. I showed it to a few people who didn't know what it was, and they came up with all kinds of wild, and dangerous, assumptions of what it could be. The best guess was a prototype nuclear reactor. :) When you have a grid of 100 equally spaced carbon rods in a lexan case, that can make your imagination run. At very least, it would look like something you'd see in a scifi movie.

    BTW, it didn't work as well as it should, even over several generations of modifications. The power consumption to make a significant enough volume of hydrogen simply made it not feasible. I'd need something like 20A at 120VAC, rectified to 120VDC, and I hadn't even gotten to the live filtering (to remove particulate carbon), explosion protection (on low water level or flashback from the engine), and automatic refilling capabilities.

  I'd suspect there was more to it than these simple examples, but that puts the LEO's on dangerous ground, where they will have the case dropped, and could be severely reprimanded (drop in rank, period of suspension without pay, etc).

    We don't have all the facts, so this is all just speculation. I'd be interested to see where it goes.

   

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682272)

Here in Canada that translates to a rusty fork, vinegar and baking soda, and not saying 'please'.

Ya gotta be careful, those Canadian hosers are crafty. Once, a Canadian got my dead battery goin' by mixin' bird feces and spit, cause there's like acids in it.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (2, Insightful)

hodet (620484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682386)

"building devices to collect unencrypted police broadcasts and relay them through twitter".

He's building a common police scanner? Anything of interest will be encrypted. Regular Toronto Police Service is analog though but hardly anything that can be pickup up from them will be sensitive. I suspect the explosives on hand had way more to do with it. He may be smart but that was a dumbass move.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682462)

That and being charged with stalking and threatening a justice official. This guy has crossed some lines here. While I agree there should be tests of security systems, you don't do it without the approval of law enforcement in this type of situation. Can't say I have a lot of sympathy for him.

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682576)

The "stalking and threatening" is just as vague as the weapons charges. Those could cover the "listening to the police broadcasts"...

Re: weapons, explosives and intimidation? (2, Informative)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682712)

"building devices to collect unencrypted police broadcasts and relay them through twitter".

He's building a common police scanner? Anything of interest will be encrypted.

It will be interesting what is unencrypted!

I suspect the explosives on hand had way more to do with it. He may be smart but that was a dumbass move.

I heard the "explosives" were a handful of gas cans (dunno whether full or not). If that is an explosive, so is almost every car.

loose lips sink ships (1)

electron sponge (1758814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682184)

His biggest mistake was telling people beforehand.

Re:loose lips sink ships (2, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682370)

Also, not updating his facebook with a better, less sullen and crazy looking photo. Before I ever do something like that, I'm going to get a photo of me like playing with kittens or something. Let 'em run that on the news. Not "American Gothic minus the Daughter..."

Re:loose lips sink ships (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682898)

Telling people beforehand is supposed to be insurance when you are not committing an illegal act. Imagine being caught with surveillance equipment at the G20 without having public disclosure to fall back upon.

Anyhow, this is beginning to smell like a festering mess of Godwinity.

It's been awhile... (5, Informative)

falzer (224563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682202)

It's been awhile since I got my Canadian Ham license, but I seem to remember learning that it was illegal to rebroadcast, (or talk about, publish, whatever) anything that you heard on the airwaves. I.e. cop, fire, air control, taxi, etc chatter.

Re:It's been awhile... (1)

peteinok (1825618) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682278)

so take his license. If he was barking up the guns, chem weapons, etc. trail then fry him. (AKA send him to Northwest Territories to live...)

Re:It's been awhile... (5, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682310)

It's been awhile since I got my Canadian Ham license

You need a license for that up there? Dang. That's harsh. Here in the US you can get Canadian Ham by just walking into a McDonalds and ordering an Egg McMuffin. Except we call it "Canadian Bacon".

Re:It's been awhile... (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682382)

You need a license for that up there? Dang. That's harsh. Here in the US you can get Canadian Ham by just walking into a McDonalds and ordering an Egg McMuffin. Except we call it "Canadian Bacon".

Actually, the stuff you buy at McDonald's is Soylent Ham. We keep the good stuff domestic. ;-)

Re:It's been awhile... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682580)

You need a license for that up there? Dang. That's harsh. Here in the US you can get Canadian Ham by just walking into a McDonalds and ordering an Egg McMuffin. Except we call it "Canadian Bacon".

Actually, the stuff you buy at McDonald's is Soylent Ham. We keep the good stuff domestic. ;-)

Do you know how our stuff tastes? It varies from person to person.

Re:It's been awhile... (2, Informative)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682660)

It's been awhile since I got my Canadian Ham license, but I seem to remember learning that it was illegal to rebroadcast, (or talk about, publish, whatever) anything that you heard on the airwaves. I.e. cop, fire, air control, taxi, etc chatter.

Same in the U.S., but it's not specific to having a ham license, it applies to anyone with a scanner or other equipment capable of receiving public service transmissions.

73, de KJ6BSO

This guy was a dork (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682222)

Innocent or malicious, the guy was an idiot. How would he ensure nobody with malicious intent took advantage of what he did?
I'm glad this prick was arrested.

I'd mod you up AC, but I want to talk too. (2, Insightful)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682398)

and since I'm a narcissistic American... I will.

That was what I felt too. It's like testing the security of your house by posting an add on craigslist telling people when I'm leaving, and when I'll be back. Not really a good idea, epsecially since every 100th craigslist reader has a brain, and that one guy might be a robber who would bring a pair of cable cutters to drop the phone / power lines.

Even if security WAS good enough, damage still occurs to the house. The "telcom integrity" gets degraded... the cost of repairing that can be high... lastly a bump key,a rock, or a swift kick, and a masked smash and grab is still possible w/or w/o security.

I think doing that to a major summit is not just irresponsible, there is no way someone in his field can claim they couldn't see the consequences, meaning it can only be formulated w/ malicious intenet. There is no good reason to "test" it's security unless you were hired to do so, and still you wouldn't do it this way.

Re:I'd mod you up AC, but I want to talk too. (5, Insightful)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682720)

How about knowing if we, the canadian public, had our 2 billions's worth of security theater, fake lake and Conservative propaganda?

I dont know this person, or if he had honest intent. But i can think of good reason for such auditing exercise.

Scanning is legal in Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682228)

He said Sonne talked about listening to police radio transmissions during the summit.

"But I didn't understand that there was anything illegal about that or that he was going to do anything sort of extraordinary in those measures," Clement said.

There isn't anything illegal about listening to any unencrypted broadcast of any type whatsoever in Canada. Period. Now, recording it, that can be illegal. But listening? Hell no. The only exception is that if you are involved in a crime and are listening to the police at the same time, then it becomes illegal. So don't use your scanner while speeding, for example. Not that they work that easily anymore, anyways...

Re:Scanning is legal in Canada (2, Informative)

exasperation (1378979) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682322)

No, recording is not illegal either. The law only makes an offence of intercepting communications that were intentionally obfuscated (even if the method was easily broken.)

Re:Scanning is legal in Canada (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682594)

Extraway argelay oubleday oubleday easeplay.

Doesn't Matter Anyway (5, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682252)

It doesn't matter if he had malicious intent or not. The police had no way of knowing for sure what his real goals were. He appeared to be gearing up to do something naughty, and they caught on and stopped him.

All they knew was that some lone wolf out there not associated with the government was trying to crack through G20 security, for *whatever* reason.

Oblig. car analogy: If I was arrested trying to break into someone's car, would the police let me go if I told them I was just moving it so the nice chap who owns it doesn't get towed for parking in a fire lane?

Re:Doesn't Matter Anyway (5, Informative)

epiphani (254981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682426)

Speaking of car analogies, this afternoon a 57 year old man was arrested for having gasoline, an axe handle, sticks, a baseball bat, and possibly a chainsaw in his car.

link [www.cbc.ca]

So the message can be construed as such: if you go camping and return to Toronto, you may be used as an example to justify 1.2 billion dollars of taxpayer money spent on security.

In Texas, though (2, Interesting)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682850)

In Texas, you can carry rifles while you protest outside a Republican state convention where Laura Bush is speaking and no one questions you.

Interesting contrast.

Here are a couple [virginia.edu] of links. [chron.com]

Re:Doesn't Matter Anyway (1)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682432)

Oblig. car analogy: If I was arrested trying to break into someone's car, would the police let me go if I told them I was just moving it so the nice chap who owns it doesn't get towed for parking in a fire lane?

The difference being that you'd definitely get convicted for that.

If you were just looking in the window of the car to make sure the person remembered to lock the door, they'd have nothing to convict you with (though they could still arrest you).

Re:Doesn't Matter Anyway (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682516)

Oblig. car analogy: If I was arrested trying to break into someone's car, would the police let me go if I told them I was just moving it so the nice chap who owns it doesn't get towed for parking in a fire lane?

You're doing it wrong. Your 'car analogy' was a crime analogy, involving a car.

Re:Doesn't Matter Anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682884)

Mein Herr, ze authorities thank you for being a completely responsible citizen. It is important that all citizens abjectly prostrate themselves before authority, and NEVER question authority.

G20 Security Appears to Fine... (5, Insightful)

johnlittledotorg (858326) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682284)

Listening to unencrypted public safety comms won't get you busted (in most places) but:

"Friends say Sonne had talked about sending messages with trigger words or buying up fertilizer during the summit to test security measures."

What a stupid thing to do but they got wind of it didn't they? I'd say he has his answer - security, at least the intelligence component of it, is pretty decent.

Re:G20 Security Appears to Fine... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682420)

Exactly. I work in an office across the street from where the G20 is meeting. If you look out the window you can see the snipers all over the rooftops scanning with their binoulars. Would it be a smart idea to sneak around the window with something that could be mistaken for a rifle, just to test security? Probably not.

umm... (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682302)

from TFA

Friends say Sonne had talked about sending messages with trigger words or buying up fertilizer during the summit to test security measures.

This is a meeting of some of the most powerful people in the world, bringing fertilizer to "test security. This isn't about scanning. It's about possibly building a fucking bomb.

Re:umm... (0, Redundant)

Conzar (1603461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682396)

Your making huge assumptions here. How do you know he had fertilizer? How do you know the supposed friend isn't a government agent? The answer is you don't and you are just bullshitting.

Re:umm... (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682438)

I'm making "huge" assumptions that when the article says "someone said he was buying fertilizer to test security" then the police might have been told "he was buying fertilizer to test security"? I don't really think that's as big of an assumption as you're implying.

Which is exactly the point. (5, Interesting)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682880)

This guy had a theory, that a person acting very suspiciously may not be noticed by government intelligence agencies in a timely manner during an international gathering of heads.

To test his theory, he began taking suspicious actions in an attempt to get noticed. One would assume that the longer his suspicious acts went unnoticed, the more suspicious acts he partook in.

Eventually, his actions were noticed and he was detained.

The conclusion of his test will be in the summary of what suspicious actions he managed to take BEFORE he was detained.

It sure seems like the goal all along was to get caught. The question was to determine the amount of suspicious actions he could take prior to being caught.

-Rick

Bizarre .... (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682312)

I heard about this guy on the news yesterday.

While I don't know the details on what all is is alleged to have done -- he did set a goal to deliberately try to see if they would detect his behavior. He was planning on sending emails with words that would get him flagged by any hypothetical electronic searches they were running, and generally trying to look suspicious to see if they've noticed him. All in the name of seeing what kind of security they had in place, and how well it works.

He may well be completely innocent, a crack-pot, or just some misguided hacker who thinks it's his job to "take on the man". But, it's kind of like trying to get the bull to chase you -- you might not like it when he does. I'm pretty sure they've made trying to identify/breach their security procedures illegal.

The geek and hacker in me applauds such a balsy move. The pragmatist in me thinks he might have tried just a little too hard to get noticed. I mean, antagonizing an already skittish security apparatus ... not the smartest move you can make. :-P

I'm looking to actually hearing more facts as they become available.

Re:Bizarre .... (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682450)

But, it's kind of like trying to get the bull to chase you -- you might not like it when he does.

On the bright side, you get to cut the bull's balls off and eat it if you win.

Re:Bizarre .... (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682578)

On the bright side, you get to cut the bull's balls off and eat it if you win.

If you consider that a perk, go ahead.

But, if you lose, you have to suck the bull's balls before he has his way with you. It's a dangerous game of chicken, and a little too risky in my opinion.

Re:Bizarre .... (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682618)

On the bright side, you get to cut the bull's balls off and eat it if you win.

I'm not sure you and I agree on what the words "bright side" and "win" mean...

Re:Bizarre .... (1)

atrain728 (1835698) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682468)

Generally speaking, "trying to act suspicious" or even "trying to not act suspicious" are the fastest ways to get you collared by security personnel. If that was his strategy for testing their defenses, he's doing it wrong.

Re:Bizarre .... (5, Funny)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682538)

Kudos to this guy for answering a curiosity of mine: I've always wondered what would actually happen if I sent a bunch of e-mails with phrases like "bomb the G20 summit", "death to the capitalist swine" and "one hundred pounds of nitrated fertilizer". I guess now we know.



... oh shit.

Re:Bizarre .... (2, Insightful)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682722)

Kudos to this guy for answering a curiosity of mine: I've always wondered what would actually happen if I sent a bunch of e-mails with phrases like "bomb the G20 summit", "death to the capitalist swine" and "one hundred pounds of nitrated fertilizer". I guess now we know.

My understanding is that there's nothing illegal about your post.

If Sonne was arrested for doing what you just did (or similar), and gets convicted, it will be a sad day for Canada.

Re:Bizarre .... (1)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682540)

I'm pretty sure they've made trying to identify/breach their security procedures illegal.

Can they do that? If they did introduce such a law is it specific the G8/20? I didn't see it get passed.

Also, such a law sounds very vague and could be easily abused to trample people's rights.

Re:Bizarre .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682744)

Can they do that? If they did introduce such a law is it specific the G8/20? I didn't see it get passed.

Well, there's these [wikipedia.org] , but that's mostly for non-citizens.

I'm not seriously asserting there is a specific law ... but, it seems like someone always manages to dredge up some obscure law which can be construed to support such things.

Also, such a law sounds very vague and could be easily abused to trample people's rights.

Bingo! That seems to be SOP nowadays. Most western countries seem to have a "this is illegal but we're doing it anyway" provision or two they use.

*sigh* Maybe I'm jut a cynic. But with the full-court press they're putting into security for this damned thing ... this guys is at the very least going to get detained and harassed for a while. As to longer-term consequences ... who knows.

Re:Bizarre .... (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682574)

Hopefully he was smart and had a big bag of seeds sitting on top of the fertilizer, if that is what he did, so he could be like "mind the sunflowers, thanks" when the cops busted his door.

Testing security is well and good, but if you don't have an innocuous reason for tripping the system, you tend to be indistinguishable from a criminal and are likely to be convicted as such, despite protestations of "just testing".

Re:Bizarre .... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682816)

While I don't know the details on what all is is alleged to have done -- he did set a goal to deliberately try to see if they would detect his behavior. He was planning on sending emails with words that would get him flagged by any hypothetical electronic searches they were running, and generally trying to look suspicious to see if they've noticed him. All in the name of seeing what kind of security they had in place, and how well it works.

This is otherwise known as the Naked Man vs. Bear Gene Pool Strength Test.

--
BMO

In the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682336)

Cryptography is classified as munitions. Trying to export the wrong stuff without a license is like trying to export a tank or a missile.

Not sure if Canada has similar laws, but if so, maybe he was in possession of "munitions" or other "weapons" of that nature.

I Guess it costs a "Buck O' Five" there aswell.... (1)

BatGnat (1568391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682350)

I Guess it costs a "Buck O' Five" there aswell....

This story is closed to commenting. (3, Funny)

nubbie (454788) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682400)

Enough said!

*Dramatization* (5, Funny)

Muondecay (1841250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682448)

Hello sir/madame, are the owner of this establishment?

I must say this is a fine operation you run here. However, I believe your security seems to be lacking. What's to stop an armed man, such as myself carrying these concealed sidearms, from wreaking havoc on your customers and property? Hacking your wi-fi to access and broadcast transaction data to twitter was also a cake walk. Did you honestly think I couldn't get past such simple passwords? Also, I think you could of easily prevented me from rigging your exits with explosives, made from cheap fertilizer I bought and are set to blow should anyone try to escape.

Therefore, I would like to offer you my security consulting services. I think my demonstration speaks for itself but here are some references.

Need to use the phone? Oh I guess its just to call my references.

That's strange, I don't think any of them had numbers that start with 911...

*Scene*

"test the security of the G20 summit" (4, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682454)

Test passed, I guess.

friend of a friend... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682458)

He is a friend of a friend. I am told he is a white hat type and does this stuff as a hobby. Don't know much about the explosives bit, but all accounts are that the guy is harmless.

I assume they will hold him through the weekend and release him on Monday after the conference is over. I wish him luck in getting (most of?) the charges dropped afterward.

Only one question needs to be asked (5, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682472)

Did he have an agreement with the G20 meeting organizers to test their security? You don't get to "test" people's security against their will.

Re:Only one question needs to be asked (1)

CoffeeDog (1774202) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682726)

This makes me wonder at what point his "test" would have proven their security passed or failed if he wasn't expecting them to arrest him just for trying.

Re:Only one question needs to be asked (0)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682862)

What law makes that the case?

Re:Only one question needs to be asked (1)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682886)

Excatly this. If the cop brass didn't hire him explicitly to test their security measures then as far as the cops are concerned his self-proclaimed tests were suspicious behaviour at best and illegal at worst. The guy is an idiot for even attempting to do so. What exactly did he think was going to happen?

Re:Only one question needs to be asked (1)

AnAdventurer (1548515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682944)

You don't get to "test" people's security against their will.

Oh yes you do. It's often called breaking and entering or hacking. It's just usually illegal. ;/

Well: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682500)

I guess their security works

Well they have to arrest someone... (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682518)

...or else it will look like that $1B in security was wasted Can't have that.

Noise (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682530)

If he, and enough other people, did this there would be a lot of resources being tied up running down these "tests". This may allow a real threat to slip in and people be killed because all the resources are tied up. It is along the same line as to why it is illegal to call in a false fire report. The real fire across town burns while the truck is responding to the false call. Sorry but "I was just testing the response time" is not a valid excuse.

Re:Noise (1)

bynary (827120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682942)

If he...did this there would be a lot of resources being tied up...

That depends on the nature of the test. If it's just the capture and rebroadcasting of police broadcasts, there shouldn't be much if any disruption. If he's jumping turn-stiles or planting fake bombs, then sure that's a problem.

Using that logic though, by tying up the resources necessary to arrest this guy, a real threat may have slipped by unnoticed (assuming that this guy wasn't a real threat).

The real crime (0, Troll)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682608)

is the G20 itself.

half the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682672)

"By all accounts" may not be quite right; the charges against Sonne, exaggerated or not, involve weapons, explosives and intimidation.

and that's only what the cops were using!

"weapons and explosives" (3, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682770)

Googling his name and filtering out (as best I can) the plethora of reprints of this article, it looks like the "explosives" were deliberate acquisition of ingredients to see what it would take to provoke a response. I guess he found out.

As far as "weapons" was concerned, I don't know enough about Canadian law -- what is and is not classed as a "weapon" -- to speculate. But his linkedin says he's a licensed private investigator, and in many areas where it's otherwise impossible, a valid PI license sometimes allows a person to carry concealed. So, he could have legally owned a firearm.

I suspect that to a certain extent this is another example of the "kitchen sink" approach to high-profile arrests, and some of these charges will be dropped in plea negotiations.

Or, I dunno, he could really be a nut. But I don't think so. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

What if he is lying.. (4, Interesting)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682802)

He acts suspicious and gets caught, just as he did.

He convinces the police it was just a "test". They laugh and go away.

He continues and security ignores him as he is just "testing".

He does commit a terrorist attack which get through because the police were ignoring him since that was his objective in the first place.

Would you want to be the head of security to try to explain this?

Congrats! You passed! (2, Insightful)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682832)

So he wanted to test security and was caught. Sounds like his test worked great. He should be very please with himself. When he gets out he should test US government security by pulling a gun during on the POTUS during a speech.

Ever since the APEC summit in Australia... (2, Funny)

seyyah (986027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682900)

Ever since the APEC summit in Australia, police have been extra careful about Canadians trying to sneak in: The Chaser APEC pranks [wikipedia.org] .

They have to do something.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682910)

I wouldn't be surprised really. These cops have to do SOMETHING to whittle away the time.

I had to walk from one building to another ~5 min walk today. There are literally more police than civilians mulling about. Furthermore, as I was about to cross the street at a green, a police vehicle cut me off to turn right (on his red). The next car behind him then honked at a guy on his bike despite the fact that said bike had the same green I had and the vehicle was turning on a red. Not a big deal in either case, but it's like a mini-police state here, and I'm certainly not used to such an overwhelming display of authority.

There are literally crowds of police officers doing F all, just standing on corners/walking around in groups, and the downtown core is deserted by Toronto standards.

I'm pretty sure if you littered you'd have 50 officers on you at this point.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?