Previously I wrote about the transparency report by Facebook and questioned the investigation methods of the Mauritius Police. The latter had no recourse to Facebook data as evidence in court in the recent years. It prompts me to believe that the majority of cybercrime cases involving Facebook must include confessions, forced confessions, duped confessions or the complainant convinced to retract ? ...

Yesterday Google updated their transparency report which adds requests made by governments of the world during the period of July to December 2015. I had a look at the report and without any surprise no request was made from Mauritius.

Google publishes transparency report

Once again, I contemplate on the methods adopted by the investigators of the Cybercrime Branch of the Mauritius Police and the only conclusion is that they rely heavily on confessions; rather than gathering evidence ⚖ ...

The only request made by Mauritius to Google dates back to 2013 and that amounts to one request in a period spanning 5 years. Meanwhile just for the second quarter of 2015, Maldives made five requests.

When the mistakes or blunders committed by police officers are brought to light, officers from the higher ranks often come to rescue. We've heard the Commissioner of Police condoning the acts of his officers even though their gaffes can't be overlooked. Such unhealthy statements can only push the common man to question the recruitment, training and possibilities of external influence; maybe political, on the day-to-day running of police investigations.

Recently someone told me about a complaint that was made at the Cybercrime Branch of the Central Criminal Investigation Division (CCID) with evidence including phone logs, Facebook messages etc, against an individual. Police took no action saying such cases are not easy. However, the same Cybercrime Unit promptly arrested and detained two individuals earlier this year following a complaint lodged by a minister. Should we still believe Police acts fairly? ?