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, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

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)