Online Forum Speeding Boast Leads To Conviction

Meshach writes "In Canada, a nineteen-year-old man has lost his driving license for six months and is facing one year of probation after the police arrested him for dangerous driving as a result of a post on an online message board. The tip apparently came from an uninvolved American who called the Canadian authorities after he saw the post bragging about how fast the man went."

Comments

Without any evidence?

[tumutbound]

What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred? How could the police charge him without it?

Re:Without any evidence?

[Psaakyrn]

So, if I said I just caused world peace, does that mean I win myself the Nobel Peace Prize?

Re:Without any evidence?

[Xest]

The problem is there's no way to prove the physical connection between who typed that comment and posted the pictures and the person potentially breaking the law.

What if he had a falling out with his brother and his brother used the computer to try and frame him for example?

This is quite different to someone admitting in front of witnesses they have committed a crime, because there the witnesses have witnessed the perpetrator in question admitting the crime directly.

This is the fundamental problem with computer crimes, people are arrested and convicted on much lower standards of evidence than have come to be expected in real life. Say a computer is used for a crime online, and the police trace the IP back to the house, and they can somehow prove the IP has always been attached to that computer and only that computer and they search that computer and find evidence of the crime, then can they prove the owner of the computer committed it? Say they check for finger prints and DNA evidence on the keyboard even, can they prove someone didn't just plug in another keyboard for the purpose of carrying out the crime?

It's the fundamental disconnect between the system used to commit the crime and the person who used that system to commit it that is the problem, and short of someone making a mistake and incriminating themselves physically in real life or someone physically witnessing the crime being committed I'm not sure it's ever possible to conclusively prove people responsible for digital crimes, at best you can get a decent amount of evidence, but many cases of non-digital crimes upto and including the most serious have fallen flat on such low standards of evidence even where the person is guilty.

I'm not familiar with this case, but I hope he was convicted on the basis that he also admitted guilt in real life, in person, and not purely on an internet posting as that'd be a bad precedent, a green light for smart criminals to frame people for anything from this sort of crime through to child porn crimes to hacking crimes.

A crime being linked to an IP seems fair enough justification to investigate the system or systems behind that IP and their owners, but not enough in itself to fairly secure a conviction.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Trepidity]

I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence. Otherwise, there are fairly stringent tests for what makes something a legitimate confession that's admissible in court. People do sometimes brag about things they didn't actually do, especially in pseudo-anonymous environments, and that isn't a crime. It may be stupid, and it may cause you a lot of hassle as you try to convince police / a judge that you were just making empty boasts, but courts do still have to try to sort that out: if they determine the confession was indeed not a genuine confession, it isn't sufficient for conviction.

For things of this sort, I don't think police would normally pursue it even IRL unless there were more evidence (like the photos/video in this case). If someone in a high-school hallway tells their friend that they were going 90 last night, that's pretty weak evidence, since it's quite likely to just be bravado.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Psaakyrn]

Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person? Or say instead, I told a policeman that you just stabbed me in the face. Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that actually happened before he arrests you?

Re:Without any evidence?

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations.
          I pulled up that area in google maps (would have preferred openstreetmap.org, but, the blasted search still is too limited). It is a densely populated area, so I suspect it was hardly an hour's work for a couple of officers to canvass the street and find witnesses to the speeding car. It would be interesting to find out how many times there had been complaints from the area about dangerous driving.
          My bottom line here is that the kid is getting off easy, as there easily could have been a pedestrian stepping out into the road just in time to get smashed by his foolish act. If he wanted to put the pedal to the metal, perhaps he should have picked the Canadian equivalent of an Interstate highway to open it up.

Re:Snitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Speeding and then bragging about it is unacceptable. That's willfully risking the lives of other people. It is good that a young driver learns this lesson early, before he kills someone with that attitude. The road is not a race track.

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[SeaFox]

I'm actually rather impressed at the attitude of the other forum members. Most of them felt it was a bad choice and put pedestrians who might have been in the area at risk, suggesting the racer should go to a local track instead to wind up his wheels.

Re:Snitch

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, not speeding but bragging that you did so is typical human nature.

Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[hey!]

100 km/hr over the speed limit safe?

Not on public roads. 100 km/hr period is not safe on a residential street or any other roadway that gets significant pedestrian traffic crossing.

Part of driving safely is being predictable, and nobody expects somebody to overtake them from a quarter km back in under ten seconds. I had a friend who once pulled this stunt on me. We were on a relatively deserted stretch of interstate in his brand new sports car when he turned to me and said, "watch this." Then he punched it. It was like going to hyperspeed. We hit 155 mph (200 km/hr).

At 200km/hr the horizon comes up very fast. There was an underpass with a slight rise past it, and as we zoomed under it I thought, "what if there's a little econobox trying to pass a big rig up this grade?"

As important as control is to driving safety, it's a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. A machine that gives you plenty of control allows you to drive faster than is safe with the illusion of safety, until you discover you need inhumanly fast reflexes to avoid trouble. Furthermore, my friend was totally focused on what was in front of him (as was I). For all we knew we were leaving a dangerous trail of startled drivers behind us.

If I'd been a cop, I'd have arrested my friend on the spot, friend or not. If I'd been the judge, I'd have thrown him in jail. It was an incredibly stupid, inconsiderate, and unnecessary thing to do. Fortunately my friend got the message, and shortly thereafter he found a closed track and got the need for speed out of his system, becoming an exemplary driver after that.

Nobody's impressed by your ability to drive faster than most people would on a residential street. That doesn't take balls, it just takes a willingness to endanger other people who, by the way, don't get to share in the fun. Go to the track, where you can push yourself as far as you dare, and we'll see what you're made of.

Re:Snitch

[mdwh2]

What if such a person killed one of your family?

In that case there'd be other evidence. Plus, you're making a circular argument, by assuming we already know the person did it - here the question is whether he is guilty or not.

Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general. Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof. People may confess for a variety of reasons other than them being guilty (protecting someone, being intimidated; in this story, reasons might include thinking it's cool to claim you were going fast).

What if it was another crime - someone claiming they'd taken drugs, or drunk when they were under age, or describing their first sexual experience which was under age? Okay for the police to charge all of them, too?

Re:Snitch

[Rary]

Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general. Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof. People may confess for a variety of reasons other than them being guilty (protecting someone, being intimidated; in this story, reasons might include thinking it's cool to claim you were going fast).

The police don't need proof. The police need enough evidence to make an arrest.

The courts look for proof. If there's not enough evidence, he won't get convicted.

If he didn't do it, then the lesson is simple: don't confess to a crime you didn't commit, because, surprise surprise, you might just get charged with that crime.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[tehcyder]

Speed limits generally take into consideration road conditions and population density. They're not simply arbitrary.

Of course they're arbitrary. In the UK you have a speed limit of 60mph (max) for single lane roads, 70 mph for dual-carriageways motorways.

The single track road might be a congested winding country lane or an empty dead straight smooth A-road.

The motorway might be crawling like the M25 during rush hour orbe light on traffic with two clear lanes and excellent visibility.

There are plenty of times when you can get to 180 mph (talking about bikes) and not be dangerous. The middle of a city is *obviously* not one of them.

I can't believe the number of posts on this thread which on any other subject would have attracted a derisory "but think of the children" flood of sneers.