Man imprisoned for not giving police password.

[Tefal]

A written constitution controls the actions of the state, not the thoughts of individuals.

He has remained innocent until proven guilty, that's why he's been jailed for breaking the law requiring disclosure of passwords, and not for possession of kiddie porn.

No he was jailed for refusing to prove himself guilty of Cp or other crimes.

The threat of jail for refusing to provide the password, proves coercion and as such comes under the 5th amendment style protection in a county with such a constitution.

 

[markweatherill]

But if the safecracker can't open it, the Police wouldn't put you in prison for not helping them open it.

Depends what they think is in there, based on whatever evidence they have which leads them to want to get in there.

 

[[TW]Fox]

what if someone has a vid of their wife doing naughty things with them...would you hand over the encryption key and let the coppers have a look or take a 16 week hit ?

Give over, you'd rather take 16 weeks in jail, get a criminal record and lose your job than have a police officer view a video of you having sex with your wife? Sure its embarrasing and in an ideal world I'd hate it but its got to beat ruining the rest of your life, right?

Unless you murdered the wife in the video, obviously?

You could be right. But, if it turned out that he was harbouring pics of a 17 year old girl friend, the Police would not hesitate to charge him with child pornography offences.

Don't be so ridiculous.

 

[Tefal]

Give over, you'd rather take 16 weeks in jail, get a criminal record and lose your job than have a police officer view a video of you having sex with your wife? Sure its embarrasing and in an ideal world I'd hate it but its got to beat ruining the rest of your life, right?

Unless you murdered the wife in the video, obviously?



Don't be so ridiculous.

But again we come down to what you can prove.


Would you expect 16 weeks jail for not giving the police your front door keys.

The very fact the person is 100% guaranteed jail time for not handing over the key, proves that there is deliberate coercion to incriminate oneself.

Are you honestly telling me fox you wan tto live in a country where forced self incrimination is legal?

Where does it end fox?

Jail?

Jail while being called a paedophile and all the horrible consequences that come with it?

pleading innocent when found guilty (regardless of guilt or innocence) resulting in a far harsher sentence?


or any number of ends this disgustingly slippery slope ends in?

 

[Evilsod]

Don't be so ridiculous.

I find that skeptical... after all its already been shown they can and will prosecute teenagers for sending and holding naked pictures of each other purely because its underage. If they've gone through all that trouble and found nothing they'd sure as hell go for a 17yo image regardless of the circumstances just to avoid looking like a bunch of morons.

 

[Dolph]

No he was jailed for refusing to prove himself guilty of Cp or other crimes.

no, he wasn't. Requiring the unencryption of the files is not requiring him to incriminate himself. Those files, as you keep saying, could contain anything.

The threat of jail for refusing to provide the password, proves coercion and as such comes under the 5th amendment style protection in a county with such a constitution.

That's still under debate, because it's not been to the supreme court yet and historical decision isn't on the side of that in the USA.

 

[Tefal]

Don't be so ridiculous.

Sory missed the last bit, you are aware fox that the uk police/cps prosecuted a bunch of gay men for well lest say rather extreme BDSM despite the "victims" saying they consented and wanted it?

 

[Tysonator]

OK, how do you get a 50-character encryption password for your PC ! ?

 

[Demon]

I'd like to think I wouldn't offer up the password either.

As people have said, the Police could get a warrant to search your house, and during the search they find a big safe. So they get a safecracker in to open it, thats fine, that's the law. But if the safecracker can't open it, then what, the Police wouldn't put you in prison for not helping them open it would they?

I could have a laptop HDD, which might contain personal family photos, pics of the missus in the buff, financial documents and records, it could also have my work related stuff which is often confidential proprietry data for clients (and sometimes carries a secret clearance). Responsible people these days are expected and encouraged to safeguard their data, in the age of online identity theft and electronic fraud. I have all my stuff encrypted, I also put all paper copy bills/letters etc through the shredder too.

Sorry but I'm not going to offer up the password, if they want to take the PC away and get their 'safecracker' in then that's fine, just don't expect me to help.

And that's all assuming I'm not guilty of anything, I just value my privacy and that of my family and work clients. If I was guilty of something, I expect I'd be even less keen to help.

You have every right to withold it, but you also have every right to be treat harshly for obstructing the course of justice, or whatever the charge amounts to, whether you 'like' it or not..

Same thing goes for refusing to give a sample when suspected of drink driving (or even if you are a passenger), you have every right to refuse, but they have every right to then convict you of failing to provide a specimen, and the sentence is often much worse then drink driving..

There is a real need to have some mechanism that strongly deters the obstruction of justice in this manner, as it's too easy a mechanism to be exploited otherwise, and why it quite rightly needs to be often treated as bad or worse then the crime itself.

It's interesting to see people giving scenario's that all involve hiding a crime, and feel they should be allowed to, even claiming it's some kind of game.. No wonder society is taking a nose dive..

Saying that, there aren't too many laws that cater for 'failing to provide' type things, so you are free to withold lots of other stuff, it's not all doom and gloom..

 

[Tefal]

That's still under debate, because it's not been to the supreme court yet and historical decision isn't on the side of that in the USA.

Ding.

Actually the whole of the Usa case depends on the fact the police could link him to the files before he revealed them a second time because he did once already at the border patrol.

That is not the case in this situation because they where never revealed in the first place.

And that Dolph is why you should read the pdf's rather than just wiki.

 

[Evilsod]

You have every right to withold it, but you also have every right to be treat harshly for obstructing the course of justice, or whatever the charge amounts to, whether you 'like' it or not..

Same thing goes for refusing to give a sample when suspected of drink driving (or even if you are a passenger), you have every right to refuse, but they have every right to then convict you of failing to provide a specimen, and the sentence is often much worse then drink driving..

There is a real need to have some mechanism that strongly deters the obstruction of justice in this manner, as it's too easy a mechanism to be exploited otherwise, and why it quite rightly needs to be often treated as bad or worse then the crime itself.

It's interesting to see people giving scenario's that all involve hiding a crime, and feel they should be allowed to, even claiming it's some kind of game.. No wonder society is taking a nose dive..

Its all down to interpretation. A urine sample when your suspected of drink driving is hardly invading your privacy. What exactly can you find out? The only real reason to refuse that is because you either ARE drunk or there will be something far worse in there. But then surely that would favor a breath test.

But there can be a lot of things on a hard drive that can be either illegal or construed to be illegal without being in any way. Who knows what they can charge you with once they get digging through because by that point if they can't find what they were looking for they'd get you with ANYTHING.

 

[Tefal]

You have every right to withold it, but you also have every right to be treat harshly for obstructing the course of justice, or whatever the charge amounts to, whether you 'like' it or not..

Same thing goes for refusing to give a sample when suspected of drink driving (or even if you are a passenger), you have every right to refuse, but they have every right to then convict you of failing to provide a specimen, and the sentence is often much worse then drink driving..

There is a real need to have some mechanism that strongly deters the obstruction of justice in this manner, as it's too easy a mechanism to be exploited otherwise, and why it quite rightly needs to be often treated as bad or worse then the crime itself.

It's interesting to see people giving scenario's that all involve hiding a crime, and feel they should be allowed to, even claiming it's some kind of game.. No wonder society is taking a nose dive..

Except daemon, if we assume the man is guilty then this amounts to coercion to a confession does it not?

Are you telling me you would not admit to practically any crime for fear of being sent to jail under the title "paedophile" ?


Do you want a justice system where people are forced to admit guilt (regardless of guilt) or be sentenced to the same or worse punishment anyway.

It has been proven time and time again the uk penal system is incapable of protecting those in it's custody, and as such it is better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be sentenced.

 

[Neil79]

Bit dodgy... nothing would stop me from telling police my password if I was accused of anything (especially paedophilia!). I'd rather they see all the extreme scat granny bestiality space porn than spend jailtime!

Hate to tell ya this but bestiality is now considered a jail crime and or atleast being put on the list , since late last year. Copper in the family ^

 

[MooMoo444]

I laughed at all the people with the "If he's got something to hide then clearly he's a pedo" attitude.

It's just ridiculous. Everyones entitled to some privacy into their personal life.

 

[markweatherill]

I laughed at all the people with the "If he's got something to hide then clearly he's a pedo" attitude.

It's just ridiculous. Everyones entitled to some privacy into their personal life.

That's right. As was Fred West. There are limits set by society for its own protection.

 

[Tefal]

That's right. As was Fred West. There are limits set by society for its own protection.

ok mark.

What crime would you confess to to avoid 16 weeks in jail under the tile "paedophile".

Knowing of course that the prison system has repeatedly failed to protect such inmates from frankly brutal attacks.


Fraud?

Burglary

Assault?

Murder?

Rape?

just how far would you go to avoid the title of paedophile for the rest of you life assuming you survived your jail time?

 

[Demon]

Except daemon, if we assume the man is guilty then this amounts to coercion to a confession does it not?

Are you telling me you would not admit to practically any crime for fear of being sent to jail under the title "paedophile" ?


Do you want a justice system where people are forced to admit guilt (regardless of guilt) or be sentenced to the same or worse punishment anyway.

It has been proven time and time again the uk penal system is incapable of protecting those in it's custody, and as such it is better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be sentenced.

This is one of the problems, you aren't understanding it correctly, he isn't being charged or assumed guilty of Child Porn, he's actually sent to jail for what is effectively obstructing the course of Justice.

Same as with the suspected drink driver, he isn't accused/sentenced for drink driving if he doesn't provide a sample, he's done for the separate crime of 'failing to provide a specimen'.

It's funny you and others hold the UK Penal system in such contempt, because in the case of the big ol' world, it's actually one of the better ones..

At the end of the day, any 'system' only has so much resource, but a huge expectation, it is inevitable that some wrongful convictions occur, society is not tolerant of that either, which is why it has to always been as low as possible, but it'll never be zero, that's untenable.

On top of that, people seem to be confusing wrongful arrest (quite common) with wrongful conviction (quite rare, but it does happen).

If the goal was zero wrongful convictions, one of two things would occur
1. There'd be a huge increase in crime, believe it or not, criminals are quite sneaky and have a plethora of get out clauses that can conveniently be used
2. You'd have to pay a massive amount more in taxes, and give up some freedoms in order to maintain the crime rate conviction levels.

So which is it? There isn't some golden panacea that gives you zero wrongful convictions + low crime without some serious compromise..

 

[markweatherill]

ok mark.

What crime would you confess to to avoid 16 weeks in jail under the tile "paedophile".

None. I'd object to being asked to make a decision like that. It's a bit contrived.

 

[Evilsod]

This is one of the problems, you aren't understanding it correctly, he isn't being charged or assumed guilty of Child Porn, he's actually sent to jail for what is effectively obstructing the course of Justice.

Same as with the suspected drink driver, he isn't accused/sentenced for drink driving if he doesn't provide a sample, he's done for the separate crime of 'failing to provide a specimen'.

It's funny you and others hold the UK Penal system in such contempt, because in the case of the big ol' world, it's actually one of the better ones..

At the end of the day, any 'system' only has so much resource, but a huge expectation, it is inevitable that some wrongful convictions occur, society is not tolerant of that either, which is why it has to always been as low as possible, but it'll never be zero, that's untenable.

On top of that, people seem to be confusing wrongful arrest (quite common) with wrongful conviction (quite rare, but it does happen).

If the goal was zero wrongful convictions, one of two things would occur
1. There'd be a huge increase in crime
2. You'd have to pay a massive amount more in taxes, and give up some freedoms in order to maintain the crime rate conviction levels.

So which is it? There isn't some golden panacea that gives you zero wrongful convictions + low crime without some serious compromise..

We know he's not been imprisoned for being a pedo. The point is he's a SUSPECTED pedo which in the eyes of the media makes no difference because they will crucify him all the same. As has been said before the law may require you to proven guilty before they can treat you as one, the public require nothing of the sort, nor would the prison population.

It wouldn't matter if he was found innocent, he would have been suspected of it so clearly he is 1 the police just couldn't find the evidence.

 

[edscdk]

Give over, you'd rather take 16 weeks in jail, get a criminal record and lose your job than have a police officer view a video of you having sex with your wife? Sure its embarrasing and in an ideal world I'd hate it but its got to beat ruining the rest of your life, right?

Unless you murdered the wife in the video, obviously?

Don't be so ridiculous.

but if you forgot the password they will not believe you forgot it so you got to prison anyway...

(re my old usb drive in a draw example)

i'm not so concerned about knowing it and not giving it away, however the instances where for what ever reason you cannot provide the password concern me..

maybe jsut the stress of the whole thing made you forget the password?