some geeks have overly complicated passwords to show off how geeky they are
however, if he refused to give it up repeatedly, even at the risk of going to prison then chances are he has something on there that would be worse than 16 weeks in prison.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:35, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

This is my thinking.
I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but he's not giving himself a chance to be proven innocent.
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:36, Reply)

I wonder if you can be convicted for something on your hard drive
that's illegal but not related to the original charge.
So he doesn't have child porn but does run some botnets or something.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:39, Reply)

I'd assume so.
If they raided someone's house on suspicion of supplying Class A drugs and found laundered money and guns as well, they'd charge them with the whole lot.

Didn't get my tickets yet by the way, my debit card keeps bouncing or some shite. That train is £8 more expensive than the one before it, so Kitty better bring some goddamn cakes.
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:41, Reply)

Dunno.
In the US (at least according to Law & Order) search warrants are quite specific, you can't use something unrelated that you find to charge someone with a new crime.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:43, Reply)

*shrugs*
I run a taxi desk, I ain't no high flyin' law type.
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:44, Reply)

Duh-DUM
(Law and Order sound effect)
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:45, Reply)

Haha, I love that sound.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:11, Reply)

in England once they're in there for whatever reason
they can go to town on you for anything and everything.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:47, Reply)

Not strictly true
If I was looking for fraudulent documents, for example, and claimed I found some extreme porn pics, it'd look awkward explaining to people why I was trawling through the suspect's porn stash when i should have been looking at documents.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:50, Reply)

How about my example?
www.b3ta.com/questions/offtopic/post896686
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:51, Reply)

In that case you should wait and see if there are any other discount promotions before booking the tickets.

(Cave Duck, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:54, Reply)

Tart.

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:56, Reply)

There'd definitely seize the lot and bring new charges against them
As the warrant would no doubt allow a thorough searching of the entire property, and the stuff you mentioned would be contraband. Searching the entire house is part of 'looking for evidence of X', wherein finding evidence of Y is allowable.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:55, Reply)

So you're authorised to look for, say, CAI, but nothing else?
You can only "look in one room" but not the whole house?
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:57, Reply)

I can look wherever in the hard disk drive
But I guess an example would be a copper raiding a house looking for stolen TVs but finds a bag of cocaine stuffed in the toilet cistern. You could argue why he was looking for a TV in the loo.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:07, Reply)

Aye.

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:10, Reply)

Yeah but the US are fucking retards on that stuff
If they find a body in your car, unless they had a reason to stop you then you can't be charged in relation to it. Fucking twats.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:47, Reply)

seriously?
that's so stupid
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:49, Reply)

On the other hand, they can follow you around forever until you open the boot or it starts to smell,
at which point they're allowed to search. It's to stop the police harrassing people they don't like, given that damn near everyone is likely to have something illegal somewhere in their house.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:52, Reply)

really? not in every state surely?

( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:50, Reply)

Police can't pull you over if they know you are drunk
unless you commit another offence, like hitting something else or having a broken taillight.

But if they watch you leave a pub and get in your car they have to watch you do something illegal before they can stop you.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:52, Reply)

bloody hell that is retarded.
What if they had pc to search for heroin but found cannabis? would a search warrant cover anything illegal they find?
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:53, Reply)

They're not worded quite that specifically - it'd be a warrant for illegal drugs, I'd imagine.

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:54, Reply)

I will bring cakes, I promise.

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:46, Reply)

I might still book the slightly cheaper train and meet you at Euston instead.
£8 is a lot at the mo.
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:47, Reply)

Fair enough,
it's probably £8 more because it's Virgin, that saving will almost buy you a pint in London.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:49, Reply)

And me.
Fear not, Noel, your cake needs will be met.
(berk, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:47, Reply)

You make good cakes.

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:49, Reply)

Not special ones this time I'm afraid
I don't much fancy carting a boxful of dope brownies through London! Oh, and cheers :) my normal brownies are even nicer.
(berk, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:51, Reply)

You're making a mistake here. Bring dope ones please.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:58, Reply)

and send some to me

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:02, Reply)

I fear they would not meet your exacting standards
the only weed I have is rather old and stale.
(berk, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:07, Reply)

Yes
If, in the course of my investigation, I find evidence of other criminal acts, I flag them up and it's up to the police to determine whether or not they'll press ahead with the new charges.
This can be fairly common, I'll be looking for CAI and come across some bestiality pics, which is a separate offence.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:45, Reply)

"come across " eh?

(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:46, Reply)

I knew someone would pick up on that.

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:46, Reply)

You should clean up after yourself.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:48, Reply)

that's true
maybe he's got loads of illegally downloaded music and stuff and panicked.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:45, Reply)

Panicked that he might get a fine and thus went to prison?
If so the stupid twat deserves the shower-bumming he will undoubtedly receive.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:49, Reply)

that's what makes me think that if he is guilty of something
it's something that will get him more than a few weeks in prison.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:08, Reply)

but the music industry would happily bankrupt him
several grand for each infringing track might make prison seem the better option.
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:23, Reply)

of course
they'd just bring a new charge
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:50, Reply)

But that's the point - he should not have to be proven innocent.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:40, Reply)

I agree with you to a point.
But repeatedly denying access to your harddrive when you've been accused of something as serious as child sexual exploitation doesn't make me very sympathetic to him.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:44, Reply)

Well, I know there's nothing illegal
on my laptop, but if the police busted me I would refuse to give them my password out of sheer bloodymindedness, because I'm innocent and they're wrong. Mind you, I suspect they would find mine considerably more easy to crack, what with it not being a 50 character encryption key.
(berk, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:46, Reply)

And it being "Password1"

(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:47, Reply)

You'd willingly break the law?
You might not agree with it, but it's still a law.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:48, Reply)

It's a fucking appalling law.
I'd probably break it.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:49, Reply)

I agree with you, I don't like the law
But it's still a law. Either work to get it overturned, or shut up and conform ;)
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:51, Reply)

I don't think I would. I might be really pissed off that they had invaded my privacy like that
but I still think an innocent person's privacy invasion is worth the hundreds of convictions they get for people actually doing wrong.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:52, Reply)

Slippery slope.

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:56, Reply)

yeah I agree with that
there's a fine line between justice and abusing police power. I guess I've never been on the wrong side of it though.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:09, Reply)

No, that is totally the wrong attitude
If you start of saying it's okay to trample a right occasionally as long as it's for "The greater good" you lose all rights.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:56, Reply)

well no, like Wookiee said, it's a slippery slope
I don't think you should give up all rights, especially the ones to do with your physical safety and wellbeing, but in this case I think he was silly not to give up his password.

And please don't tell me my attitude is 'totally wrong' because you disagree with it.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:11, Reply)

how about a "that's how the Nazis started" ?

( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:25, Reply)

He's right - you are wrong.
The fact he has a 50 character encryption shows he's up to something dodgy. He's clearly either a pervert or a scammer.

However, the police have to prove wrongdoing and do not have the right to expect someone to incriminate themselves. It's the same as the right to silence. People have the right to make the police prove something against them.

I know that this means the odd person will get off scot-free when they're guilty (like me, last time I got nicked. I went no comment, and they had nothing substantial enough to lay a charge) but if you remove this right, the police can apply pressure, and fit people up as used to happen.

This guy will get what's coming to him, if he's guilty. I know it's 50 characters, but it's breakable. He'll not get his machine back, and he will eventually be busted. Crooks that are persistent get caught.

Better ten guilty go free than one innocent gets convicted.
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Wed 6 Oct 2010, 13:14, Reply)

Meh there's no need.
You can get encryption software that has dual partitions and two passwords. 1 nice and legal 1 running a criminal empire.
Give the legal one to the police and your criminal records just look like disk fragments.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:52, Reply)

Exactly

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:57, Reply)

This is the shitest attitude in the world
and is the reason the Daily Mail makes so much money by repeating it all the time.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:48, Reply)

It's not the shittist attitude in the world Al,
it's perfectly legitimate and just because some stupid people can comprehend it doesn't make it wrong.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:50, Reply)

It is shite
it's saying that principles are great unless they get in the way of what I want you to do, in which case you should abandon them.

If I want to keep something a secret it doesn't matter what the reason is, it's my right to have a secret, if it upsets or inconveniences you then that is just your tough shit. He shouldn't have to give up his password regardless of what he's accused of.

If the police can't find any other evidence to convict him other than his hard drive, then they clearly have a crap case.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:54, Reply)

^This.
and I hate myself for agreeing.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:58, Reply)

you've got to ignore the particulars of the case
Al is right, regardless of what the guy is accused of.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:00, Reply)

it's not the case I'm worried about
it's agreeing with Al. He is 100% right in what he says unfortunately.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:02, Reply)

you will discover that at some point, most people on here are right
you won't like it, but you have to come to terms with it
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:06, Reply)

I'm on here, so would I be the exception that proves the rule?

( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:07, Reply)

there may be a fleeting moment when you are correct
I did say 'most' though
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:14, Reply)

Not if you keep using the expression "the exception that proves the rule" incorrectly
they may never find all your body parts.
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:39, Reply)

I don't know, I think I would be really pissed off
if people weren't being convicted because the police weren't allowed into their computers. Criminals seems to get off lightly enough already.

I also hate people who hide behind the ECHR, obviously I don't agree with torture and stuff like that, but you can't have a strong justice system when the ECHR is used by every petty criminal the way it is at the moment.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:59, Reply)

Don't be so stupidly naive
The ECHR is not used by every petty criminal, the tabloids just like to portray it that way.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:05, Reply)

I work in criminal defence law, I see it used like that every bloody day!
Also, again with insulting me because you disagree, pack it in.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:11, Reply)

Principles aren't so black and white al.
It's your right to kidnap someone and then refuse to tell anyone where they are?
He's been accused of a non specific sex crime against minors. He's allowed to make a choice and he did, now he has to accept the consequences.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:00, Reply)

Sorry Chompers but priniciples are black and white.
subject to change but fundamentally black and white. How can they not be?
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:07, Reply)

because circumstances change day to day
like the whole stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family argument. You could argue that's not as bad as stealing a games console because you want to play L4D but can't be arsed getting a job.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:20, Reply)

right I see what you mean but your principles are your values, ones moral code if you will.
If they are subject to change on a daily basis then what's the point of them? Principles guide you on key decisions and life choices. Yes they may change over time, like this kid who is refusing to play ball with the police may have a change of heart after this but it will have taken a huge event to do so. Your principles should be unmoving unless YOU have a revelation leading you to consider alternatives.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:24, Reply)

Ok I see what you mean
but I don't think anyone's principles or opinions should be set in stone, anyone and everyone can be wrong. You say they can change over time, well that means that they must be open to influence.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:26, Reply)

I think we are making the same point but I'm using an aga and you're microwaving stuff x

( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:27, Reply)

He hasn't been convicted of a crime
therefore he is innocent and should be afforded all the rights of any other innocent person i.e. The police shouldn't be able to force him to disclose his password.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:07, Reply)

He has been convicted of a crime
He was in contravention of the RIPA.
I agree with you that the police shouldn't be able to force him to disclose his password, it IS an infringement on their privacy, but RIPA has been established.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:10, Reply)

A hard drive isn't evidence
It's referred to as an exhibit, but it's more a scene of crime.

If the investigator has found absolutely nothing other than an encrypted container file, then they can either get the password, crack it, or give up. They would have had intel of some sort to get a warrant to seize the computer, so finding absolutely nothing other than this file would call the validity of that intel into question.

Obviously I don't know what the Investigator has found, for all we know the hard drive could be riddled with tons of 'clues' (without boring you with technical stuff) all pointing to this file.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:02, Reply)

Do you get the police officers to look under the keyboards for post-its with the password on?

(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:05, Reply)

If they're clever they do this anyway.
Sometimes we get them sent with the computers.
Also most of the time the cops ask them in interview if there are any passwords, and let us know if there are.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:11, Reply)

if I were to put together a team to commit a high-tech heist of some kind
how useful would you be?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:16, Reply)

In assisting you? Probably not very
I can't code or remote hack.
I would be better use as a consultant of sorts.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:19, Reply)

I will bear that in mind

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:29, Reply)

Gaz me and Catface,
*secretive heist wink*
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:35, Reply)

I can.
How much are we stealing?
( Peej, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 13:29, Reply)

"If I want to keep something a secret it doesn't matter what the reason is"
That is simply untrue.
(Cave Duck, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:09, Reply)

devil's advocate number 3: what about "for the greater good" argument?
so if i don't give you my password because i want to blow up chanel for not giving me enough free stuff and it's all hidden on my computer, and so you have to let me go and give it back, and i then kill 15 people and injure 150 more, are my rights to privacy more important than their life and limb?

i can see it both ways, but i do think fundamentally if you have nothing to hide, you'd make less of a fuss.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:21, Reply)

No, no you don't
You don't have any right to keep a secret if that secret is a crime. If the police have to find out a non-criminal secret trying to find a crime then that is unfortunate but a price that has to be paid for a criminal justice system.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:28, Reply)

Repost from higher
The fact he has a 50 character encryption shows he's up to something dodgy. He's clearly either a pervert or a scammer.

However, the police have to prove wrongdoing and do not have the right to expect someone to incriminate themselves. It's the same as the right to silence. People have the right to make the police prove something against them.

I know that this means the odd person will get off scot-free when they're guilty (like me, last time I got nicked. I went no comment, and they had nothing substantial enough to lay a charge) but if you remove this right, the police can apply pressure, and fit people up as used to happen.

This guy will get what's coming to him, if he's guilty. I know it's 50 characters, but it's breakable. He'll not get his machine back, and he will eventually be busted. Crooks that are persistent get caught.

Better ten guilty go free than one innocent gets convicted.
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Wed 6 Oct 2010, 13:46, Reply)

Maybe not,
but it's still an erosion of the right to remain silent, so I'm siding with him.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:48, Reply)

^this

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:50, Reply)

I do think that the penalty is pretty strong
which suggests that the evidence that they did have to begin the investigation is quite strong also. I don't think enough detail has been reported about the case for me to decide whether or not it's a breach of his rights or not.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:55, Reply)

NO NO NO NO NO.
Whether he's been noncing it up all over the shop or not, it's either a breach of his (and everyone's) rights or it's not. The circumstances are irrelevant.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:57, Reply)

You're just saying that because you're a nonce.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:08, Reply)

I do all my noncing OFFLINE so it's not a problem.
I just don't want to go to jail for refusing to out myself as having illegally downloaded SATC2.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:20, Reply)

I'm not going to be able to explain myself without everyone going all 1984 about it
so I'll just say I think he was stupid to not give up his password. His stint in prison, innocent or not, will fuck up his entire future unless he's extremely lucky.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:24, Reply)

dude have you seen him?
he only has a future as an organ donor anyway (not sperm though, noone would want that)
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:25, Reply)

haha
This is well stressing me out, I hate arguing with people. I would make a rubbish troll.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:27, Reply)

but they must have had a bit of evidence in the first place to investigate
so then I think it is up to him to do everything he can to prove his innocence, otherwise more and more people would get away with crimes if there was no punishment for just staying quiet. It's the same as answering no comment in interviews, you don't have to say anything, but the fact that you refuse to say anything does create inference. That's why they have penalties for refusing to provide a breath specimen if you get stopped for drink driving, otherwise anyone who was leathered could just refuse to give the sample and get away with it.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:51, Reply)

But the system in this country is
that you do not have to prove your innocence. Your innocence is assumed and someone else has to prove you guilty.
(berk, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:52, Reply)

Well they proved he was guilty of breaking the law about encryption.
They haven't tried him as a sex offender.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:54, Reply)

The should hang the sick bastard.

(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:59, Reply)

That's a good point
But equally, he should have the right to say nothing and make the police prove the case against him.

Surely they have the ability to break these encryption keys eventually?
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Wed 6 Oct 2010, 13:48, Reply)

Depends entirely on the encryption used
Plus the method of cracking. I find the quote of "50 character password" dubious at best, the only way to find that out would be if the suspect told them.
A brute force attack on a fairly standard 128 bit encryption would mean going through 2¹²⁸ permutations. Using a standard computer, the maximum amount of time it would take exceeds the estimated lifespan of our planet.
However, there are ways of trimming that time down, by using specialised computers/networks, or by using a dictionary attack.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 13:58, Reply)

It's incredibly complicated really isn't it
I think that he's probably up to something really dubious, or he's a geek who thinks he'll get respect for "standing up to the man"
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Wed 6 Oct 2010, 14:02, Reply)

But innocence is the default state.
It's guilt that has to be proven.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:53, Reply)

History might disagree.

(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:59, Reply)

But if he burnt all the files relating to a fraud case, what would be your stance on that?

(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:03, Reply)

They should have got to him before he did it
It's a shame no-one was convicted over Enron, but that's the way it happens sometimes. There is no perfect justice system, but assuming innocence unless you can prove guilt is the best option.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:10, Reply)

Why?

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:12, Reply)

because the other way round is horrific.

( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:15, Reply)

Why?

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:17, Reply)

I can see where this is going, you forget I work with kids!
I feel that if you are accusing someone of a crime it is on you to prove that that particular person committed that particular crime. If you can't get enough evidence to do it. They go free. Otherwise you will have cases bought to court that are bollocks and have no grounds, costing more money and wasting more time. Like the Geordie said, no system is perfect but the one we have is better than others.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:21, Reply)

Oh yeah, I know all that, I was being shit.

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:25, Reply)

This is nothing to do with that (oops, accidental /ac)
The reason it's annoying people is some assumed sanctity of a computer or virtual data over other possessions. People wouldn't be debating this if it was (say) the Fritzl case, and the police had gone into the house and come across a locked door they couldn't open, that Josef had the key for, would they?

"we have reason to suspect you have someone locked in there" ..

"well, that's as maybe, but I'm not going to let you see" ...

"ah, fair cop. We can't touch you then. Away you go and on with your day"
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:24, Reply)

I was under the impression the kid had been jailed for not cooperating .
A seperate charge than which was originally levelled at him? They knew Fritzl was a mental when they got him didn't they?
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:26, Reply)

Right. And "knowing someone is a mental"
is proof of guilt, now, is it?

My point stands absolutely. This is only an issue because people regard electronic data differently to other possessions. A warrant to access a laptop, or a house, or a safe, or a cellar full of bodies. No difference. It's the warrant that matters and the failure to comply with it that is the crime.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:31, Reply)

would the warrant mean that they would be allowed access to documents in a locked safe for example?
if so, then the same applies to the electronic data.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:36, Reply)

It means they're allowed access,
it doesn't mean you have to tell them the combination. Although if you don't, your safe will probably end up fucked.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:37, Reply)

would they be within their powers to lock you up for not giving them the combination?

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:37, Reply)

I don't believe that's covered by that specific part of RIPA
But there may be other clauses or acts relating to safes.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:40, Reply)

I'm just trying to get a better physical example
than having your whole inbred family locked up in the basement.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:41, Reply)

I understand ;)
But that RIPA section only covers encrypted data.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:43, Reply)

Course they could.
obstruction of justice and failure to comply with a warrant. If the warrant says "inside the safe" and you can let them "inside the safe" but you choose not to, you're guilty. This is exactly what I've been saying.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:43, Reply)

that's what I thought
just trying to make it clearer.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:45, Reply)

which you have, sir.
the safe example is a good one.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:47, Reply)

thanks :-)

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:54, Reply)

Again, no no no no no.
You don't have to assist a search warrant. If the police come knocking at the door and ask "where are you keeping the drugs" you don't go to prison for saying "ooh sorry constable, I'm afraid I've forgotten, you're just going to have to have a look yourself".
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:36, Reply)

You do have to grant them access to everywhere stated in the warrant, otherwise you're obstructing the officers
You don't have to tell them where the illegal stuff is, obviously, but the two things are separate.
However, it is far easier to batter down a locked door than it is to break encryption, hence that RIPA part was brought in.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:39, Reply)

I think it's fair then

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:42, Reply)

you can't obstruct either.
That's what he's done.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:41, Reply)

This is nothing to do with assumptions of guilt or innocence.
well, except in how the retard press have reported it. He has gone to prison for the crime of (either, I haven't checked the court records) failure to comply with a search warrant or obstruction of justice. He is absolutely, 100%, guilty of those. Innocence or guilt in a previous investigation is moot right now.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:17, Reply)

this is what I wanted to say
but I'm well cack-handed and ended up sounding all Orwellian.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:29, Reply)

And they have a warrant to search his computer.
it's the same as any other search. And he's obstructed that. Which is a criminal offence. Which he is cast iron guilty of. So he's gone to prison. Problem is?

Or. let me put it another way. The police are trying to prove him guilty. he broke another, different law to stop them. It's not difficult to understand, surely?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:04, Reply)

I understand it fine.
I don't like it.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:08, Reply)

would you not like it if it was a house search?

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:11, Reply)

He doesn't have to open the front door to the police in a house search.
They can break it down using force.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:25, Reply)

What if the house had a bank vault in it which was within the terms of the search
but only he had the code for?

The fact that they "can" get in other ways doesn't make him failing to comply with the terms of a warrant any less of a crime.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:37, Reply)

It's the principle against self incrimination

(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:12, Reply)

Bollocks is it.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:13, Reply)

Top dialogue there.

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:16, Reply)

I'm on lightning form today.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:18, Reply)

Al's right
You're talking rubbish.

The police cannot expect someone to incriminate themselves - it opens the door to corruption and fit-ups.

The police have to prove guilt, not guess someone's crooked and then ask him to show them in which way he is!
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Wed 6 Oct 2010, 13:49, Reply)

The Americans have a constitution prohibiting self incrimination
I may be wrong, but we do not.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:15, Reply)

So that "right to remain silent" bit is just something they put in The Bill because it sounds good?

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:21, Reply)

That's a right to remain silent, different to the American 5th amendment

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:25, Reply)

But "you have the right to remain silent, except when we ask for your passwords" is a clear erosion of this right,
is it not?
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:30, Reply)

It's got fuck all to do with the right to silence.
It's failure to comply with the terms of a warrant.

Incidentally, while remaining silent can no longer be taken as an admission of guilt, it's a fairly fucking stupid defence, do you not think?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:34, Reply)

It's not a defence. It's refusing to assist the police in their enquiries.
Hence the "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" bit.

I'll need to do some more research on the warrant thing.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:42, Reply)

However, if the enquires are related to a crime you may or may not have committed
it's still going to end up as your defence. Anyway, off the point. Vipros's safe example up there is the best direct comparison. The bloke's a) guilty and b) a tit, to boot, if he's doing it to make a point.

and with that ... lunch.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:46, Reply)

Hah!
"Innocent until proven guilty" .... "proven innocent"

No. One or the other please.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:41, Reply)

Yeah, I know.
But doesn't it seem absurd that he'd rather do 16 weeks inside than give up his hard drive?
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:43, Reply)

Not really, if it's for the principle of the thing.
19's about the right age for grand gestures of that sort.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:44, Reply)

I guess so.

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:45, Reply)

He might have pictures of him and the judges wife.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 11:45, Reply)

He's been done for a different crime, strictly. It's not either/or
He'll do 16 weeks inside. Then, when they eventually crack it, which they will, he'll then do time again for whatever was on there he was trying to hide. Which, if it was nothing, he's going to look like an almighty prick for. Especially when he can't get a job for the next 10 years.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:11, Reply)

Next time he should double encrypt it so one key wipes the lot
and the other opens it up. That way he can give the police the one that turns the data into lolcats pictures.
( Peej, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 13:38, Reply)

That won't work in the slightest
Despite what CSI show you, we don't just boot up the suspect's machine and trawl through it.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 13:41, Reply)