Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Forum Speeding Boast Leads To Conviction

Posted by Soulskill on from the life-in-the-fast-lane dept.

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."

23 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. Without any evidence? by tumutbound · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Without any evidence? by odies · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      He admitted it himself. Admitting your crimes on the internet are no different than admitting them in real life. There also were pictures and videos of his crime.

      Same laws apply to Internet as real life. It would be pretty stupid to go tell police that. Well, they can read the internet too.

    2. Re:Without any evidence? by Psaakyrn · · Score: 4, Funny

      (Then again, that's what Obama did)

    3. Re:Without any evidence? by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Without any evidence? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    5. Re:Without any evidence? by Psaakyrn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:Without any evidence? by jimicus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person?

      You are not the first to have made that mistake. All that has to be proven is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any shadow of a doubt. While hard proof of a dead person (such as identifiable remains) would obviously give you "beyond any shadow of a doubt", it's quite possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt without such proof, as Hans Reiser's trial demonstrated.

      IOW, the police only need good reason to believe that there's a dead person.

    7. Re:Without any evidence? by teh+kurisu · · Score: 5, Informative

      You wouldn't automatically be charged, but you'd probably be arrested or at the very least invited to the police station for questioning. The police would probably examine your claim, compare it with missing persons reports, and decide whether you're telling the truth or just being a nuisance (in which case, you might get a warning or be charged with wasting police time).

      (and you can't prove otherwise)

      The article has a link to the actual forum post, which is worth a read if you're under the impression that the only proof the police had was a confession. In fact, the driver mentions the location and date of his crime, plus the fact that there were witnesses. There's more than enough information there for the police to conduct an investigation.

      In the end, the guy pleaded guilty not just on the internet but in a court of law.

    8. Re:Without any evidence? by El+Lobo · · Score: 5, Informative
      The CBC story is missing some details. The conviction was only secured against the man because of eye-witness statements that confirmed a 2006 BMW M5S was travelling at a very high rate of speed on the street in question.

      His bragging alone would not have secured a conviction. There was also evidence that on the same car forum the man was claiming that he was smoking pot and driving on a different occasion. This however, could not be confirmed and charges were not pursued.

      Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/08/10/facebook-speeding-conviction658.html#ixzz0wIDKdH3a

      --
      It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
  2. Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1 by captain_dope_pants · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heisenberg got pulled over for speeding. The cop says "Do you know how fast you were going?" And Heisenberg sayd "No, but I know exactly where I am."

    --
    while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
  3. I broke the Universial Speed Limit! by feedayeen · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am here telling you guys that my car was traveling at 299,792,459 m/s along the I80 free way, it only took me 1/10,000th of a second to reach my destination though so nobody else saw.

    1. Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit! by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Too bad that in your 1/10,000th of a second, the rest of the world aged 1,000 years, so nobody you knew was around to brag to.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  4. Re:Snitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Of course, why bother to link to the forum? by HonestButCurious · · Score: 5, Informative

    There you go

  6. Re:Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1 by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In this season's last episode of Top Gear there was a review of iirc a Ferrari where the same screen was used for the satnav and the digital speedometer, so one can have either one or the other, but not at the same time. The perfect car for Heisenberg. :)

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  7. Re:Snitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. Re:Snitch by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  10. Re:Snitch by Rary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  11. Re:Snitch by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    Do bear in mind the following, tiny fact:

    A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving

    Doesn't matter if they had "evidence" or not, if the judge accepted the plea, the case is closed.

  12. Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  13. Re:Snitch by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, since the summary was somewhat lacking:

    “Just looking at forums is obviously not enough, so an investigation was launched,” said Const. Serguei Barmakov.

    He said police canvassed the neighbourhood and found a person who had witnessed the speeding incident and was willing to give a statement. Soon after, they found Rigenco.

    Ref: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/845967--speeding-boast-online-costs-19-year-old-his-licence

  14. Re:Snitch by Americano · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ah, I see you believe the urban legend that speed in and of itself is dangerous. Speed in itself is no more dangerous than a fork is on it's own.

    You are wrong. "A car" in itself is no more dangerous than a fork on its own.

    The "danger" of speed increases in proportion to the increase in speed. How, you say?
    1) Less reaction time when something unexpected happens - blow a tire, new pothole, sudden curve, animal in the road, child in the road, broken down car in the road...
    2) F=ma. When your car, traveling at a given velocity, suddenly and rapid decelerates due to impacting something, that Force is transmitted into you, the fame of your car, and the object you've hit. The higher your speed (velocity), the higher your deceleration (negative acceleration) when you come to a stop due to slamming into something. Therefore, the force involved in the crash is directly proportional to the speed at which you strike an object. More speed = more force, given the same car.
    3) Increased braking distance - meaning the time it takes you to *safely* stop and not kill yourself or someone else is greater the faster you are going.

    Speed, in and of itself, is dangerous. There are conditions where "60m/h" is a generally safe speed. There are conditions were "20m/h" is generally a safe speed. But no matter how you look at that, the higher speed is "more dangerous" in a given circumstance than the lower speed.