Man imprisoned for not giving police password.

Delvis said:
And? I'm not going to sit there and type out everything for everyone.

Well I do, as I know how encryption in that manner works, so hey, upto you what conclusion you make :)

init
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Because you keep posting things like 'there are ways' in an unnecessarily cryptic manner. You could even just refer to these fabricated 'decryption methods' loosely, or making a passing reference to the way the system works, but instead you choose to say nothing apart from 'seriously guys, trust me, there ARE WAYS'.

Only available conclusion - you are absolutely chock-full of hot air. Nobody believes a word you are saying.

As for the kid who's gone to prison rather than show police his illegal copy of Adobe Photoshop, of course he's got something to hide. He's unlikely to be the sort of character who is acting on some kind of privacy crusade on behalf of the human race.
 
Janesy B said:
if you are suspected of something and they request the password, if you are innocent you would be a complete moron not to comply and clear your name with the most ease.
Click to expand...

Or you are just an idealist who believes that others should not be allowed access to your personal data without permission under any circumstances?


I don't want to try to draw any epic parallels between a freedom fighter and a guy who most likely didn't want to be convicted of having child porn, but just to illustrate the point with a well known example: The guy who stood in front of the tank at Tiananmen square. He knew that he was doing something "illegal", and that he would almost immediately be arrested by the Chinese authorities, tortured and executed. But he did it anyway, because of a principle. Now, given the case in point; the police want access to my computer and I know full well that I don't have any child porn on it, I would like to think that I would still refuse to co-operate, out of principle. In reality I don't know whether or not I would cave in, just to make life easier on myself, but I like to think that I would stand my ground.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Proven beyond reasonable doubt is all it needs. If 10 out of 12 jurors think you've done something wrong, you're convicted.
Click to expand...

Yes... Though the jurors will be given very specific instructions on what evidence they can and cannot consider. Evidence which is heresay and assumption will not be allowed into the courtroom.

Thankfully we don't just give jurors a copy of a daily mail article and say "go make your decision" :p
 
[TW]Fox;17526863 said:
I doubt they'd even take it any further, especially if it came up when they were really after something else anyway. It wouldnt really be in the public interest.
Click to expand...

But what if those 17 yo pics are exactly what they're looking for? As far as I'm aware 17 or 12 doesn't make a difference to the offence as they both involve minors.

Ultimately you're also basing it on your own faith and belief in the system. What if this guy doesn't share this, remembering there are those in this thread who have a far from positive outlook on the system. If you held the belief they would still prosecute for 17 yo pics would you really give the password up knowing the result?

At the end of the day I'm just pointing out that being guilty of an offence isn't necessarily as bad as it seems.
 
Duff-Man said:
I don't want to try to draw any epic parallels between a freedom fighter and a guy who most likely didn't want to be convicted of having child porn, but just to illustrate the point
Click to expand...

Well if you're not drawing any parallels then it doesn't illustrate the point. No part of that tank guy's behaviour was suspicious, just annoying or heroic depending on what side you're on.
 
Duff-Man said:
Or you are just an idealist who believes that others should not be allowed access to your personal data without permission under any circumstances?
Click to expand...

I'm just not stubborn. If there's any risk of prosecution I shall avoid this by clearing my name. Would you refuse to provide a sample if you were suspected of drink driving yet you knew you were under the limit?
 
Robbie G said:
Well if you're not drawing any parallels then it doesn't illustrate the point. No part of that tank guy's behaviour was suspicious, just annoying or heroic depending on what side you're on.
Click to expand...

It was simply a well known example to illustrate someone doing something they knew would result in "bad things" happening to them personally, in support of the principles they believe in.

I'd like to think that if I personally was accused of something, and the police wanted access to my computer in order prove it, then I would not assist them whether I was guilty or not. I like to think that the threat of jail time punishment, or being branded a paedo, would not sway my principles. But in practice who knows...
 
Robbie G said:
As for the kid who's gone to prison rather than show police his illegal copy of Adobe Photoshop, of course he's got something to hide. He's unlikely to be the sort of character who is acting on some kind of privacy crusade on behalf of the human race.
Click to expand...

maybe he is one of those people that like to protest / cause trouble / get into the media.?
 
Once the threat of having the paedo pack on you materialises, I would do anything to avoid it! Even if I had sick hardcore porn on my PC like Janesy B!
 
When you give a urine sample you are well aware of what they can do with it. They can test it for drugs and alcohol and if you are quite sure you have neither in your system then it makes no difference, they can't pull someones DNA off it and prove you it was you that committed necrophilia last tuesday night or something.
But there is a lot on a computer, be it personal or private and seemingly innocent things can quite easily become a law suit purely because they didn't find what they were looking for.
 
Duff-Man said:
Yes... Though the jurors will be given very specific instructions on what evidence they can and cannot consider. Evidence which is heresay and assumption will not be allowed into the courtroom.

Thankfully we don't just give jurors a copy of a daily mail article and say "go make your decision" :p
Click to expand...

True, but his refusal to reveal the password most definitely would make it into the court room - should it have gone there. :)
 
Janesy B said:
I'm just not stubborn. If there's any risk of prosecution I shall avoid this by clearing my name. Would you refuse to provide a sample if you were suspected of drink driving yet you knew you were under the limit?
Click to expand...

A little different... Those are the laws of the road that you agree to abide by when you start driving. If you don't like them, you have the choice of not using a car. There is no invasion of privacy in taking a breathalyser.

I don't ever remember agreeing to give a police officer access to my personal things, or the data on my computer...

But I do see what you're getting at anyway :p There are some rather fine lines involved.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
True, but his refusal to reveal the password most definitely would make it into the court room - should it have gone there. :)
Click to expand...

How can that be anything but assumption?

His refusal to give his password is certainly evidence of his refusal to give a password which got him 16 weeks in prison.
But his refusal to give his password cannot be used to say that he factually must have child porn on it. That is merely an assumption.
 
So after re-reading much of the off topic/idiological idiotic stuff, it still boils down the guy being a a monumental idiot or guilty as hell,

Some people think he should be protected from being a monumental idiot, some don't..

Does that sum it up?
 
Robbie G said:
Once the threat of having the paedo pack on you materialises, I would do anything to avoid it! Even if I had sick hardcore porn on my PC like Janesy B!
Click to expand...

I didn't intentionally download it if that counts, I just haven't gotten around to deleting it ;)

Duff-Man said:
But I do see what you're getting at anyway :p There are some rather fine lines involved.
Click to expand...

I think there's a fine line between maintaining your principals and cutting your nose to spite your face. I think in some cases it's just easier for you to cooperate and get it over and done with.
 
[TW]Fox;17526789 said:
There is absolutely no way a court in this country would send a guy to prison for having webcam pics of his 17 year old girlfriend.
Click to expand...

So, you are categorically able to guarantee that a court of law would not send down a male, aged 19 caught with an underage female's nude photos on his computer?

Sorry dude, but if it reaches the stage where he is in court with under age photos on his PC (17 year old or less), the guy IMO, is going to get a sentence.
 
Evilsod said:
How can that be anything but assumption?

His refusal to give his password is certainly evidence of his refusal to give a password which got him 16 weeks in prison.
But his refusal to give his password cannot be used to say that he factually must have child porn on it. That is merely an assumption.
Click to expand...

Juries are made of human beings, who assume things. The fact that he hid his password would certainly have come out in court, and therefore the Jury would very likely jumped to the conclusion of child pornography.
 
platypus said:
Juries are made of human beings, who assume things. The fact that he hid his password would certainly have come out in court, and therefore the Jury would very likely jumped to the conclusion of child pornography.
Click to expand...

I wonder about that actually, as juries aren't supposed to know about past offences, are they?

Interesting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom