Slashdot Mirror
NZ Judge Bans Online Publishing of Accuseds' Names
The Master Moose writes "A judge in New Zealand has banned the press from reporting online the names of two men accused of murder. The names of the men will be allowed to be reported in print as well as through Television and Radio broadcast. It would seem he has taken this step to prevent someone 'googling' these peoples names in the future and finding them linked to a crime if found innocent."
Ok, so the judge banned the press from doing this. But it's impossible to stop some random person (probably not even in New Zealand) from posting this information online. Sounds like maybe this judge needs to think a little harder about how the Internet works.
Catch telemarketers
the internet is scary.
In the small part of Europe I live in, it's common practice (even written in a non-binding "codex") not to publish the pictures or names of accused. It's obvious that the "This guy raped a child" headline will stick while "Trial ends, accused absolved" will sometimes not even be published.
Yes, it should be voluntary, but it's the right thing to do.
Fleur de Sel
It is a very hackish solution to the "problem" defined by the judge. Obviously there will be people blogging about it and newspapers outside the country carrying their names online because of the attention this case will receive now (ironically because of the judge's actions). If anything the accused will be even more "famous"...
Until people such as employers, potential girl/boy-friends realise that:
1.) there are more than one person with each name
2.) almost nothing on the internet is corroborated, valdated or authenticated, it's mostly rumour - so far as individuals go
3.) old information never dies and bad new travels much faster than good news
Then it's a hopelessly unreliable medium for information to make judgements about someone.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
there should be a link "click here to print out names"
onLoad="window.print()"
judges order!
Folks might be crying censorship. Of course it's a band-aid to the sensationalism - but got any better ideas? The accusations will be on front pages of tabloids since MURDER SELLS. If these guys get cleared as not guilty, it will be on page 10 as a tiny note, if even that. Guess which one Google catches?
Other option might be that everyone who makes news about the accusations should make similar headlines of the end of trial regardless of whether they were convicted or not...
I've always thought withholding names of the accused was a damn good idea. An innocent person should not have his life, reputation, or finances ruined, and the fact of the matter is, an accusation (even if false) can be damning for life.
However, this runs counter to the "openness" requirement of democracies: that the public should be able to discover what their public officials are doing. In this case, court cases must be a matter of public record so that transparency of the judicial branch can be maintained. You wouldn't want the judges/DA's/police doing secret prosecutions.
So, does some happy medium exist? Can we withhold the names of the accused in print/internet and maintain judicial transparency? This could fall under defamation or slander laws if the person is later found innocent. There are mechanisms in place to recover costs for innocent people, but none to recover the damage done to reputations.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
So, who were these two guys? Surely someone out on Slashdot knows?
Sullied reputations are a problem even with the old print journalism. It's a good job that a knowledgeable judge has raised this problem in this way. He probably knows that their names will leak out on the internet anyway.
Actually what's particularly interesting about this case is that the judge also teaches Information Technology and has written a text-book on cyber law in New Zealand, and he's made a submission to the NZ government about spam legislation which I haven't read, but you could probably look at if you want some guideline idea of his IT competence.
One of New Zealand's media commentators with a lot of IT experience (Russell Brown, for whom I have a lot of respect) threw in a few comments over here, and wasn't immediately condemning of the actions of the judge. Brown commented that he thinks this judge probably has more technical knowledge of the Internet than any other judge in the country, and coming from him it's either quite compelling or very detrimental to every other judge.
New Zealand's had problems in the past with courts trying to suppress names, particularly in cases when there's been international interest in the case, because the suppression orders only apply in New Zealand. I don't understand what he expects to achieve except possibly hoping that jurors won't be able to hide at home and google the names as easily during critical points in the trial, especially since the details of this trial are unlikely to gather much interest outside NZ. I think Brown's theory that this is an experimental act from the judge to see what happens sounds fairly feasible.
Common sense, alas is not all that common. In fact *anything* that you get from a third party is hearsay, and should be treated with caution.
MP3 Search Engine
This is just going to make them even more famous via the Streisand effect. Censorship is, and should be, completely futile. Either keep a secret at-will or deal with the consequences of everybody talking about it. The internet provides anonymous absolute free speech, and resistance is futile.
Check out my women's designer clothing store.
For a twist on this story, recall the recent story about the effort by convicted sex offenders to expunge or not list their names and crimes on the Internet? It seems reasonable not to list the names of the merely accused, but conviction records are public record. I can see how there may be some discussion on how and what detail may be required, such as requiring the listing of the actual crimes found guilty of, but banning the publication of convicted criminals doesn't sit right with me. I'm thinking of the sicko 25yo who rapes a young boy or girl, as opposed to the 18yo who got caught with his 16yo girlfriend. As long as some of the details of the crime are included, I don't see a reason at all to withhold names of people actually convicted of crimes. It may also be appropriate to note whether they were convicted by a jury of their peers, or cop'd a plea and confessed to a lesser crime, which some claim they were not even guilty of, to avoid the hassle.
The ad underneath your post is for more flexible screwing
Granted, its for the flexible shaft ratcheting screwdriver, but still...
"...finding them linked to a crime if found innocent."
Shouldn't that be "if not found guilty?"
and pictures of you from the cristmas party, are most likely, just that.
...is not to publish a single word about it when it happens.
The WTC thing should have been banned from TV instead broadcasting of years of endless replays for the terrorists to be proud of.
Without our sensationalist press, they probably wouldn't bother. What would be the point?
No sig today...
The decision is goofy rather than somehow as clever as the judge might think. It's surely fatuous to think the names will somehow be geographically limited by old-line media printing or reporting them. This speaks more of a Chinese-Net fixated mindset than clear-thinking.
As far as it goes in countries where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty: They are innocent.
And as such, the court cannot find them innocent because they already are. However, the court might later find them not-guilty (status quo) or guilty (new status).
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It's the attitude the media (press) has. We see court cases all the time, profiling the defendant. If they get convicted, they put even more coverage on - but if they don't, they just drop the story, it never gets advertised that the person was innocent.
Not only that, but the way the press (or at least, the BBC and newspapers I see) seem to broadcast without the innocent until proven guilty attitude. I mean, they don't ever say the defendant is guilty, but they do seem to gloss over the fact they could be innocent too.
Everyone presumes that where there is smoke, there is fire, and a truly feel sorry for an innocent man who is tried and found innocent for rape or child abuse or something - I've seen the attitudes people hold, even against someone who has been proven innocent - most of the time just because they didn't know that they had been proven innocent.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
No it won't stop somebody from blogging about it
Yes it is still easy to find out who they are.
However: If somebody's name is in an online newspaper article it is MUCH easier to find through search engine's like google. Newspapers are also vastly more likely to still have their pages up and running in 10 years time, they are more likely to be referenced again by other articles etc... Thus while this certainly does not prevent peopel from fidning the identity of the accused, it drastically reduces the probability that a false accusation will come back and haunt them in 10 years time. To be honest I've always thought it should be standard policy for newspapers to keep those accused of crimes anonymous unless they are already famous for some other reason ( i.e MPs , leaders of national organisations etc ... ).
This article has made me curious - what are the full names of the accused? Slashdot, and any non-NZ posters are not bound by any such orders, and the names presumable are available on press, so I kindly ask of anyone who has seen the names to post them here on Slashdot. Just to make a point.
Here, in Florida, in Hillsborough County, the sheriff's office has on their website an arrest inquiry page, which lists all people who've been arrested along with their photo. Now, my brother has been arrested, and never convicted of anything, and in spite of this, it's now nearly impossible for him to get a low-wage job. People, employers, they equate being arrested for something with guilt, not with a false accusation or an amateur cop. It doesn't really matter if other people post the info online, its the official record employers will look at. Arrest and charge records OUGHT NOT be public, they harm the innocent and have no effect on the guilty (because their conviction record would be there anyway). Our system is ruined.
old information never dies and bad new travels much faster than good news
In fact, you can propel a rather large spaceship with bad news; it will make it travel faster than light, but won't be welcome anywhere. How infinitely improbable is that, huh? ;)
So you want to post just to make a point ?
Occasionally you have to way up the freedoms to ensure the greater freedom of a fair trial wins out.
Accused can represent a person or persons. So therefore shouldn't the plural possessive be "Accused's" and not "Accuseds'"?
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
You can not enforce interdictions to publish information on internet. Interdictions will be violated either by ignorance or by malicious or by others countries that do not have to comply to your local laws.
Internet DOES NOT WORK like this. It is not an entity to whom you can ask something. Google is an entity. You can ask google to not reference sites that contain prohibited information, (but if I was google, I would ask money for this).
If the 9 year old boy wants to publish your hot chat, he can do it (and also in newspaper), he can prove that this is not defamation.
Despite the famous Streisand effect, the ban does appear to have some effectiveness - it's currently pretty difficult to find out the names on Google. For su
Interesting story here about Judge Harvey: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=149638
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
That will keep Kira from killing them. Unless he quits wussing out and makes the eye trade.
It seems to me that one of the big problems is that news web sites consider their past articles and issues to be semi-sacred. They have a real phobia sometimes about changing old web sites (never mind the fact that it's frequently just not feasible) On the other hand, when new information comes out on a story, each new article links back to the old articles on the subject, which just as frequently do not link back.
The result is two-fold. With more links to the original "So-and-so accused of murder" page, that's going to come up earlier when searching on that person's name. First impressions, and all that, particularly for really heinous crimes. Second, those initial pages will often not contain information on the outcome or links to articles on the outcome. This means that you have to care enough to sift through the rest of the results to find out whether the guy was actually guilty. How many people would bother, and how many would just file the name away under "murderer" and go on with their other browsing?
He'll find his ass in jail - that is the point. Sick vigilantes gotta learn their place is locked up forever.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Obviously controversial, but I agree in the main. The judge clearly _does_ understand one thing about the internet that distinguishes it from other media.
Personal Story:
Lady friend of mine and I went to the bar. We had drinks, but I know my stuff and was just chilling with one, while she was getting hammered.
We drove back home, and right as we pulled out from the bar, cops pulled us over. The car smelled of alcohol, she was smashed drunk. I told the cop that I had a drink about 3 hours ago, that was enough for him to make me walk the line. I dont walk the line because it is higly subjective, so he arrested me. I took blood test, and I was vindicated, as I was way below drunk driving limit. But guess what, some cock sucking newspaper printed MY name and PRINTED that I was arrested for "suspicion of Drunk Driving". What the fuck is that shit? Where is now paper that prints "He was falsy help by incompetent cops, and acquitted of all charges?" There is none, there is no correction, there is no follow up, so now people can google up my name, and see "Drunk Driving" and at work people asked me about it few times.
Why they do this stuff here? They should not report "suspicion" and instead they should wait until "CONVICTION." Even then, why?
*rolls eyes*
I agree that identities should not be reported if it isn't a slam dunk case. Just ask Richard Jewell or the Ramsey family, who weren't ever charged or convicted of murder yet were drug through the mud by the press. This goes double for rape cases, where there is a huge double standard right now. Alleged rape victims have their identity protected, while anything goes for alleged perpetrators. Because those who are innocent - like the Duke lacrosse players - will be stigmatized for the rest of their lives.
I've never understood why it is allowed to publish the names of the accused in the first place, until it is established if they are guilty or innocent.
In the U.K. (my homeland) as in many countries in the world the press are allowed to report the names of those accused but not charged with a crime. In Sweden (the country where am I living right now) this is not allowed, which means that when the press report on high profile cases going through the courts they generally make up their own "nicknames" for the accused. Right now they are reporting on the "Arboga Murderer" and a couple of years ago in a famous case here in Sweden involving a murder by members of a religious sect there was a female accused that the press called "The Bride of Christ". The press are only allowed to publish the names if the accused are found guilty, otherwise they slip back into the anonimity they had before the whole court case started.
I think this is a better system but obviously there are differing views.
I'm interested to know, why do you think it's important for the press to be allowed to publish the names of people accused of crimes before they have been found innocent or guilty?
I was unjustly arrested on a gun charge in Los Angeles fifteen years ago, and I would be just fine with having that information on the web for anyone to Google. Why? Because if it ever comes up as an issue in the future, I can use the same technology to instantly prove my innocence.
The reason such information is public is so that both sides have equal access to the truth. If knowledge that someone has been arrested and charged with a crime becomes secret information, then that will lead to secret prosecutions. That's exactly the sort of thing our founders wanted to avoid.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
A MAC address on a random wireless connection in a carpark is probably worthless. A MAC address at an organization running a "real" DHCP server (ISC et al) gets you the PC's Windows hostname out of the DHCP log files, and it gets you a current IP address and a switch CAM table trace if the MAC ever comes back.
We do this all the time (after first searching logs for IP -> MAC) to try to locate and notify impacted users when processing DMCA takedown notices, which typically come with an (alleged) offense date some time in the past.
Unfortunately, for me to decide not to believe the internet, doesn't make employers, GFs, etc. not believe it.
So, what we as geeks need to do to speed up the process you describe, is a full-on directory googlebomb. Make it so that the top results for each and every name (or as many as possible) have horrible allegations about them as the first results.
Oh, you found bad stuff about me on the internet? Let's google YOUR name and see what turns up, shall we?
That *may* make Google useless for learning about someone, but we can keep the intensity low enough so that private individuals are buried, but people who try to be prominent appear above the googlebomb results.
Thoughts?
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
I don't see what legitimate basis exists for publishing the names or other identifying info of people who are merely accused. There are real costs to being publicly accused, without justification that the person is necessarily guilty.
Public accusation of a crime should be equal to slander unless there's proof that the accused is actually guilty. Therefore publishing it in print should be libel.
Publish the names of those found guilty. That's a fact. But until then, slamming everyone who's accused just puts a weapon into any accuser's hands, wreaking havoc on plenty of people who never did anything but draw the attention of a liar, or just someone reckless with the truth.
--
make install -not war
And this kids is why if you're filesharing on your uni wireless then take the step of scanning for other PC's on the network then change your MAC to match theirs, sure there might be some noise but this works remarkably well on wireless where it gives on of those silly web page password prompts after you connect.
Publishing the names of the accused has value beyond letting you know who (allegedly) is commiting crimes. It also serves as a check on the state's ability to lock up whoever they want for whatever reason they conceive. The public has no ability to judge the propriety of "a 26-year-old white male" getting arrested, or to come forward with information that might be relevant to the investigation. It's a lot easier if you know who they are, and it's vital to the fight against the police state.
I respectfully disagree. While I can understand your point of view, here is an alternative vision:
I pay taxes, and I want to know what the police are doing with those tax dollars. When they make an arrest I want to know who they arrested and why. It is important because we need to keep tabs on the police to ensure they do not over-reach boundaries we feel comfortable with. Unfortunately ever since 9/11 we as a people are much more tolerant of false arrests and investigations. What we should not tolerate is having these things go on without our knowledge. Now, posting the details of an arrest on a web site may not be the right approach, but we need to have a system in place that is a balance to the power of the police. Local and state government used to be able to keep these organizations in check. Since that does not appear to be having any effect these days, we need a new way. The only way we can get there is if enough of us start to care to create a majority. And that I don't see happening any time soon. We can't agree on anything. I hardly talk to my neighbors, and I don't want to. United we stand, divided we fall. I am not sure there has ever been a time in this nation where everyone felt so disconnected with their community. I am part of a global community, I could really care less about my local community. I am totally apathetic about it, and so are most of the people I know. That will only change when the cops ram my door down some morning and haul me off.... and there is no record of it anywhere.
... hire your brother, and I will post a list of all the places your brother should sue.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
There is a thinking that the public has a right to know all "facts". That someone was arrested is a "fact". That someone is accused in court is a "fact".
The problem here is not the facts, but how people (the masses) misbehave with this kind of information. Ask someone (chosen at random) how they would react when meeting a person who was arrested for and accused of multiple rape and murder of several children, who was subsequently found innocent by the court. Ask if they would hire them for a job as a teacher in their school. If they say no, then point out to that person that their flawed logic is a major reason why this information needs to be restricted. Of course they may argue "we can't take any chances". Argue back "would your rather the state pay them a comfortable income for the remainder of their life?". You might get a "yes" answer to that (especially in Sweden). Now what about where they get to live? Would that person you ask be willing to rent them an apartment in a building and area with families? Ask that person how they would return themselves to normal life if they get falsely accused and later proven innocent. Then ask them how if instead of being proven innocent, the police just drop the charges and say there was not enough evidence.
Actually, there are many "facts" the public is not given a right to know. Maybe this "fact" of who the police investigate, accuse, and arrest, should be among them. One difficulty is that this is hard to enforce and also have an open court system.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Expression on the Internet should be no less free than for other media. This judge's order unfairly targets the Internet while other media are allowed greater freedom in disclosing the details of a criminal case.
I share people's concerns that publishing the names of the accused may lead to an assumption of guilt by employers and individuals, but I don't think it should be the media's responsibility to ensure that these people remain anonymous.
Perhaps it should be the government's own responsibility to anonymize police reports and court documents until guilt has been established?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
I would agree with this, except that they didn't expand the ban to the entire media, which is where they went wrong. Now I'm realistic, ultimately it's a tongue-in-cheek ban because they can't do anything about leaking to the international press, or some random New Zealander posting on the internet, but innocent peoples' lives are permanently destroyed when they're accused of a heinous crime and their name gets out. It's like they say, the accusation is on page 1, and the retraction is on page 36.
Now CONVICTED criminals, that's another story.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
So you claim, but you haven't proven that, so I don't believe your unauthenticated claim.
The problem is that arrest information is "news" and aquittials/releases are not. Therefore, the arrest is made public and the fact you are released later never appears anywhere.
It might be reasonable if both got the same level of attention and publication. But the simple fact is that the arrest is interesting and the release is only important to the person that it happened to. Nobody else cares. This means that every arrest will be forever available on the Internet and never, ever any information about it being bogus, dismissed or whatever.
Your entire so-called criminal history is then public without any redeeming information.
We shouldnt broadcast any names in print, web, audio or video until they are proved guilty. Media cover is so excessive and exaggerated that it creates a perception of guilt. In the US we are innocent until proiven guilty in a court of law. THe court of media needs to be closed down.
Unreliable, but convenient, and that is sufficient for someone who wants to destroy another person's reputation, like a swiftboater.
Regarding 1 & 2, there is always some evidence in meatspace to refute or corroborate something on the 'Net. If the person's much too lazy or intellectually dishonest to find that concrete evidence, well, I don't think his word alone should be trusted.
Regarding employers, those who trawl the web looking for rumors aren't companies you would want to work for anyway. Real companies check references and the public record, which isn't always found online.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
All it takes is the newspaper in the hands of a non-citizen of that country, or it reaching outside the ban territory.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I was baffled when on vacation in the US that suspected criminals are printed in the morning paper with their picture and full name.
Here in Holland even public court records do not contain the full name of suspects.
While the concern that produced this order is real, this amounts to Security Through Obscurity -- to the extent that you can call a print newspaper obscure.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
So, what happens when the print newspaper gets indexed by a library? How about by a data service like LexisNexis (which happens to allow access via HTTP, to its paying customers)?
This just isn't going to work, nice as that would be. But, perhaps it will start a debate that will get all such records comprehensively suppressed.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I was booked for a crime I didn't commit, and, in fact, nobody committed. The sheriffs at the jail soon realized this, dropped the charges and released me(I was out in less then an hour).
Several months later, while pursuing a job, I was perplexed by the fact that I was striking out badly in the job market. I was usually able to get a job after the first or second interview (Not to toot my own horn, but I'm good at what I do).
Trying to find an answer, I googled my own name.
What I found was highly distressing. The booking reports for the local jail are ALL posted to the web, REGARDLESS OF THE CASE OUTCOME. To make matters worse, the booking report was WRONG. It claimed I had been arrested for a far more serious crime.
After contacting the sheriffs office, I was informed that it is state law that all public records must be published to the web (apparently, accurate or not). What a crock. I was indignant with the sheriffs that had arrested me, made them look like fools (unintentionally, was just trying to get due process) and so they jerked me over knowing that whatever they wrote up would be published to the web.
I have no recourse, according to everyone I have spoken to about it.
So. No crime committed by me, and suddenly I can't get a job. I have no respect for the justice system of this country after all that. Idiot cops taking out petty revenge on an innocent person.
Needless to say, I think that an assumed gag-order should be in place for ALL criminal suspects until found GUILTY and ALL avenues of appeal have been addressed. Period.
There may be a silver lining here. I have since decided to work for myself, rather then have some employer turn around and fire me after he decides to google my name months after I am hired. Seriously considered having my name legally changed after this.
It's all over the non .NZ internet, Judge Harvey. Now it's on a medium that won't drop the post.
The names of the accused (and only accused) are:
Nathan Tuiti Reo Mutunga Williams, 23
Daniel Bobby Tumata, 22
Now, it's reached slashdot.
One source
On Google
Here as well
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That should read
"they were dragged through the mud by the press."
Please use correct English in stories relating to the Australian state of New Zealand.
Thank you.
That is all.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.