Slashdot Mirror


'G20 Geek' Byron Sonne Cleared of Explosives Charges

New submitter davegravy writes "Byron Sonne, the Toronto-based security consultant, chemistry hobbyist, and geek who was arrested leading up to the Toronto G-20 for alleged plans to bomb the event, has been found not guilty of all charges. Sonne was held in prison for 11 months without receiving bail, and the ruling comes two years after his arrest. Sonne is considered by many in the Toronto security community as a champion of civil rights and a sharp critic of security theatre."

39 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Unfair by Terry+Pearson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those who oppose security theater are often it's first victims.

    1. Re:Unfair by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I want to know is, where is /. user "Americano" now?

      He was all over the original story of the arrest, stating that Sonne must have done something wrong, because the police don't arrest people for no reason.

      Choice quotes include:

      Think of the black eye to Canada (and especially their law enforcement), if this were shown to be trumped up charges over a guy with a cell phone, a can of gas in his garage, and a couple walkie talkies? They'd be laughed at as a bunch of Keystone Kops for years over this.

      and

      Your scenario, where it's just a bunch of crooked cops looking to railroad some guy for a crime he didn't commit, while no doubt appealing to the "IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot!" crowd, simply doesn't pass the test of logic. It would require dozens, perhaps hundreds, of law enforcement and judiciary personnel to be corrupt to the point of downright evil in order for that to happen. Is it *possible*? Sure, just about anything is. But it's not *likely* that that many people would wake up and, in the midst of Canada being in an international press spotlight, decide to ruin someone's life just for the fun of it.

      I guess he's not here, because he doesn't want to be laughed at like a bunch of Keystone Kops......

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    2. Re:Unfair by avgjoe62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would require dozens, perhaps hundreds, of law enforcement and judiciary personnel to be corrupt to the point of downright evil in order for that to happen.

      Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    3. Re:Unfair by Americano · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Awww, apparently I hurt somebody's feelings! I'd apologize, but then, I'm not sorry. I stand by my original statements: the police didn't arrest him for no reason, these were NOT trumped up charges, this man was NOT railroaded into jail because police wanted an arrest. This was a case of a man deliberately setting out to probe the efficacy of security for the G-20 summit by purchasing chemicals used in bomb making, again - *in an attempt to prove that the security for the G-20 summit was ineffective.* In essence, he was betting that security wouldn't take notice of his activities... and he lost his bet.

      Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making. He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit. Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing). Those chemicals were purchased in sufficient quantities that, if combined, could have created several kilos worth of explosive material (as testified by an explosives expert during the case).

      And technically, I'm just one person - I wouldn't be laughed at "like a bunch of Keystone Kops" - I'd be laughed at "like a Keystone Kop." But I'm glad something I wrote here was memorable enough that you're this incensed about it 2 years later. You stay beautiful, and let's do this again in 2014, okay?

    4. Re:Unfair by lysdexia · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll wager ye three swine against your sister's maidenhead you'll still be wrong in 2014.

    5. Re:Unfair by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making.

      So what? Not illegal to purchase those components if you aren't making a bomb. In fact, it isn't even illegal to buy those things even if you're "thinking about" making a bomb. Possessing these things isn't a crime unless he actually builds a bomb. He didn't build a bomb, never had any intention of building a bomb, and the cops KNEW full-well he had no intention of building a bomb.

      So why the charges, if not to silence a critic?

      He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit.

      Not illegal. Ever heard of "Freedom of Speech?"

      Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing).

      More like they saw that a guy who'd been criticizing them publicly for ineffective security regimens and saw an opportunity to tarnish his reputation and chill his speech in the future by branding him a terrrorist. Even though he's been acquitted, the damage is done: In the narrow-minds of many this man is now a "terrorist" and damaged goods as a security analyst. ...All because he criticized the wrong person.

      And really, how anybody can claim it is anything else than that is beyond me: Almost every advanced nation factors a defendants INTENT to commit a crime into the equation of whether they're guilty or not. In no scenario can anybody claim this guy had intent to blow anything up: He's said he never intended to, and no investigator when pressed has EVER presented evidence he intended to build a bomb. This is a "wink-and-nod" between the cops involved to strike-back at somebody who is critical of their security-theater gravy-train--nothing more.

      --
      Who did what now?
    6. Re:Unfair by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What sort of response would you have the police make?

      You do realize it is possible to have an investigation and not file criminal charges, right? That there is no requirement to file criminal charges just because there has been an investigation, correct? That prosecutors aren't just "allowed" but are "expected" to not file charges in unwinnable cases because the defendant in question is somebody who has ridiculed them publicly for years. Don't you?

      That prosecutors and cops pressing an un-winnable case to the hilt, and just happen to be doing so against somebody who has been criticizing them publicly for years is a pretty large coincidence. But you're right, I'm sure his years-long criticism of Canadian anti-terrorism "security" theater had nothing to do with the reason he was used (correctly) to "send a message" to anybody else that might say the "wrong" things and "reveal our weaknesses" to "terrorists."

      You're right, nothing to see here: Big Brother always knows whats best, and ours is not to reason why.

      --
      Who did what now?
  2. Could have been worse... by mindwhip · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At least he got a trial.

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
    1. Re:Could have been worse... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At least he got a trial.

      Yeah. In Canada. Meanwhile, next door...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Could have been worse... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, don't worry - even the guys in Gitmo get trials. If they're found guilty, they're either executed or locked up forever. If they're found not guilty, they go back into prison until the prosecution finds something else to charge them with. It's completely fair!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Could have been worse... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Either they're civilians or they're POWs either way there are rules that we need to be following. This "they're enemy combatants" is basically a way of saying "they have no rights, not even the ones what we all got together and agreed that everyone has. We will do whatever we want with them; torture, endless imprisonment, sexual and religious humiliation, it doesn't matter because we have declared that the rules don't apply to them. It's bullshit. It's the kind of thing that America (home of the free) is supposed to be better than and it makes me personally ashamed of how my nation is treating human beings.

    4. Re:Could have been worse... by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Prisoners of War (soldiers) get released at the end of the war, not these guys. Civilians get charged in a civilian court with civilian rules and lawyers, not these guys. If you want to criticize China and Iran for this sort of horror you should avoid doing it yourself.

    5. Re:Could have been worse... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone has human rights. That's why they are called human rights, all humans have them.

      You can call them "unlawful combatants" but they are either civilian criminals or POWs. Not giving them any rights, torturing and treating them as sub human just shames yourselves.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Could have been worse... by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what is he supposed to do?

      Transform gitmo into something worthy of human habitation and at least stop treating those who would be released as prisoners.

      It's funny how the US set up gitmo, breaking go knows how many laws, international treaties and human rights, but when it comes to dismantling the place, all of a sudden they can't because of the rules. Actually it's not funny at all.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    7. Re:Could have been worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      “Unlawful combatants” is political speak, an attempt to create a new category that does not exist, so that the government can say that these people have no rights.

      The Geneva Conventions have many different categories: enemy soldiers, enemy civilians, enemy civilians who have taken up weapons, enemy spies, criminals. The categories may not be mutually exclusive, but they are exhaustive. And all of them have rights. Their treatment will vary depending upon their category. But none of them are to be tortured. None of them are to be starved. None of them are to be treated unfairly. All are to receive appropriate medical care. And once the war is over (remember “Mission Accomplished”?), they are not to be detained indefinitely.

      Your own Declaration of Independence affirms that these people have rights, because all people have rights:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

      Emphasis mine. Your Declaration of Independence, and your Constitution, apply not just to US citizens, but to all people, everywhere. Go read your country’s founding documents. They are things of beauty. It is a shame that people like you do not understand the noble ideals that your country was founded upon, and that US citizens do not force their government to uphold those ideals.

    8. Re:Could have been worse... by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because many of them were grabbed on the say-so of a warlord who they dared to stand up against.

      We established bounties, then took the people accused with no evidence except for the say so of someone that is actually a problem for us, payed a bounty, and took them to gitmo.

      Perhaps I am being bold when i say a satirical article offering 1,000,000 afghan dinars (is that what they use?) for the assassination of Clinton does not make one a terrorist, and yet, the writer of the article ended up in gitmo (it was in response to Clinton's bounty on Osama, and not really much money). This was a man who was trouble for those taking power in the absence of the taliban, and an ally to a democratic afghanistan.

      Many if not most of the people in gitmo are farmers who dared to make an honest living and not submit to warlords, as we deported them indefinitely we paid the warlords for the tip.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    9. Re:Could have been worse... by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. In reality, lawful combatants who are captured become POWs and are entitled to one set of rights. Unlawful combatants (aka civilians with guns) who are captured are not entitled to the rights of a POW, but ARE entitled to the rights of a civilian. There is no category that is not entitled to any rights.

      The fact that the U.S. government chooses to ignore those rights brings a mark of shame that will take quite a while to fade.

  3. Retaliation by davegravy · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Retaliation by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good, he needs to sue them for BILLIONS and give them reason to never repeat this mistake again.

      We need something more creative for the malfeasance of public servants because any monetary awards will just nickle-and-dime the taxpayer who won't notice it and won't have the influence to fix the problems anyway.

      I propose indentured servitude. Anyone with significant involvement in pursuing this ridiculous case owes Sonne just as many hours of unpaid labor as they forced him to waste defending himself. Lets see that vindictive prosecutor made to personally mow Sonne's lawn every week for the next decade.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  4. Re:How does it work in this case? by sgrover · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Worse yet. They destroyed his life as he knew it. He lost his house, job, and wife on top of 2 years of unfounded persecution. Yes, persecution.

    If you read the reports of the court proceedings (https://github.com/colah/ByronTrialNotes) it is very alarming how technologically inept the authorities were in this case and how they ignored Occam's Razor to nail this guy. And these are the people that judge and impose laws on us techies. EXTREMELY worrying.

  5. Re:How does it work in this case? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 5, Funny

    The court found he was not trying to bomb the government. After 11 months in jail for no reason, he certainly has the motive to do it now.

  6. Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. by DynamoJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He lost 11 months of freedom and overall two years of his life fighting bullshit charges. He had to move in with his parents, his girlfriend left him (she got arrested too), I presume he's no longer employed, and two years later he has nothing to show for it but a hollow victory in court. The government got what they wanted out of him: He's a warning to others of what they can do to you even if you've done nothing wrong.

    --
    bah.
    1. Re:Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And here's the unpopular-on-Slashdot, but common-everywhere-else view: Yes, he lost all that, but he provides us all an excellent object lesson in how not to be a stupid douchebag.

      When you are not a security contractor with an official relationship to the people organizing and/or securing the G-20 summit, don't fucking go on the internet talking about how you're going to 'test the security' of the G-20 summit.

      If they want your help, they'll ask for it. If you offer your help, and they refuse to accept it, then by all means, write to a politician to express your views. Write to the newspapers to talk about how the security of the summit is flawed, and needs to be tested in different ways than are being planned (a legitimate *journalist* would be interested in this sort of a story - find one). Even express your views that the government is using ineffective security precautions that amount to no more than theater, and explain why online, on a blog, etc. But do not - I repeat, do not - continue making plans to "test" the security and talk about your plans to "test" the security.

      If they've refused your offer of assistance to "test security," and you go ahead and publicly continue to make plans to "test security," don't be surprised when they show up, kick in your door, and fucking cart you off because you're behaving like a threat.

    2. Re:Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Didn't both of them leave him?

  7. Re:How does it work in this case? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The legal system is a street gang. They are allowed to run rampant, and when they "accidentally" do this to an innocent person they are not liable for anything at all.

    The Legal system should be required to pay for 2X the actual damages caused for every innocent person railroaded. Sat in jail for 3 years and lost your job? If you made $50K a year, you get $100K for every year you would have had that job. so call it a cool $20 million that is tax free and call it fair.

    On top of this, law enforcement found to have been overzealous lose their jobs and are personally liable. Cops need to be afraid of making a mistake.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. Re:Retaliation -- slim by redelm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Good luck to him -- even if he waits longer to get a jury trial, the judge will still set damages and cannot assess anything resembling punative damages under Canadian law. At most he will get actual, proveable damages, two years salary (should try for overtime:). And might actually get costs awarded against him if he rejects a higher "paid-into-court" settlement offer.

  9. Re:How does it work in this case? by Rakishi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The prosecutors weren't inept. They knew exactly what they were doing and have managed to pull it off brilliantly.

    They wanted to make an example of him and scare anyone else from even thinking about talking against the government.

    They didn't need to win, they just needed to drag things out and hurt the guy as much as possible. The more inept the acted the better off they could do that.

  10. Re:How does it work in this case? by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    it is very alarming how technologically inept the authorities were in this case and how they ignored Occam's Razor to nail this guy.

    Well, duh, Occam's Razor was banned along with nail clippers and shaving cream exceeding 100 ml.

    And these are the people that judge and impose laws on us techies.

    Hopefully those who impose laws and those who judge are two separate branches of government, even in Canada.

  11. Bomb Ingredients? by mhajicek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Crown alleged he had all the necessary ingredients to build a homemade bomb

    I don't know anyone that DOESN'T.

    1. Re:Bomb Ingredients? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Crown alleged he had all the necessary ingredients to build a homemade bomb

      I don't know anyone that DOESN'T.

      This, a million times over; there isn't a homeowner in North America who doesn't possess materials capable of being combined for explosive effect, most of which reside under our kitchen sinks (or wherever you stash your cleaning supplies).

      Claiming this as a valid rationale for prosecution is like claiming that owning bullets is intent to commit murder. It's not valid, it's just fucking stupid.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  12. Re:Retaliation -- slim by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Informative

    apparently while there's no law that would force unjust imprisonment to have a compensation by default in canada, the courts can find it appropriate and do it anyways.

    story at http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/04/14/17995011.html has a list of some large compensations.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  13. Re:How does it work in this case? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I sort of agree and sort of disagree.

    Should the police be afraid of making mistakes? Depends on the mistake.

    If they cause grievous harm to someone - yes, that they should be afraid of. Arresting someone who is innocent or is later found not guilty - no.

    The prosecutors, however, should be held to a much higher standard, as they are the ones who are ultimately responsible. I.e. if they don't feel a case is strong enough, they'll have to release the suspect.

    And in cases like this, where someone is found not guilty after having spent 11 months in jail, I wouldn't mind seeing the prosecutor responsible spend, say half that time behind bars for contempt of court or something. No regular income etc. (i.e. they don't get to simply sit in a cell and collect an income from the state).

    Not in every single case, but if it could be codified in a reasonable way, it would certainly make railroading a lot less interesting for the prosecution. I mean - it's one thing to lose a case, but losing a case AND having to spend time in jail? Very unlikely that prosecutors will be willing to risk that simply because of political pressure.

  14. Re:How does it work in this case? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The first thing Sonna said after how happy he is to be free, is that he's going to keep doing the same sorts of things that got him in trouble. And he's also suing the government. It doesn't sound to me like the prosecutors were particularly brilliant in their making an example of him.

  15. Re:Retaliation -- slim by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm afraid you do have an overly sunny impression of our approach here in England.

    I was a witness in court a while back. It was a simple trial related to a motoring accident, which would take only a few hours. It had been aborted on one occasion a few months after the event in question, reasonably enough IMHO because there wasn't enough time left at the end of the day to be sure of hearing the case fully in one session. It was then tried on a different day, several months later still.

    The defendant was found not guilty. In their summing up, the magistrates criticised the police report that was given as evidence, and noted that evidence by one of the prosecution's own witnesses was a major factor in the not guilty decision. In short, the magistrates did not seem to have a very high opinion at all of the case that had been made by the prosecution.

    As a witness, I was entitled to some basic cost-of-living expenses for my trouble, and in practice my employer had paid me my normal wage despite missing the two days of work. However, I discovered later that the defendant (who, remember, was found not guilty, and had presumably already had about a year of stress since the accident with the case hanging over them) was entitled to nothing by way of compensation for either the lost time or the reduced quality of life.

    It turns out that in England, you can have your day in court -- in fact, you might not get much choice about it, and it might be more than a day -- but only at your own expense. It's no wonder that so many people pay up the fixed penalty fines for traffic offences they cannot possibly have committed, if it would cost them more than the fine to take time off and travel to a faraway court near where the alleged incident took place in order to defend themselves.

    It's a shame. I think rules that mean you can lose out even if you have done nothing wrong bring the entire justice system into disrepute. It's not as obvious as a couple of recent high profile cases when someone died after the police made a mistake, but in a way this sort of widespread, low-level abuse is just as insidious, and the kind of middle ground that we're talking about in TFA is the next logical step.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  16. Re:How does it work in this case? by KhabaLox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it would certainly make railroading a lot less interesting for the prosecution

    I think you would find just the opposite. If the prosecutor faced jail time for losing a case, he or she would probably go to more extreme lengths to insure a conviction.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  17. Re:How does it work in this case? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Poking the cage is not illegal. Pissing off those in power should not land you in prison for 2 years. His behavior is not smart and the outcome might be predictable, but that does not make the outcome right.

  18. Re:How does it work in this case? by TheGavster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The man had his reputation and property taken from him by the state. Presumably, the prosecutor has both property and a reputation. In Babylon they solved this by summarily executing the prosecutor and conferring their lands and titles to the falsely accused. As a society, we've evolved, and I think we could make do with just transferring the property and reputation and leaving the accuser in the gutter.

    --
    "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  19. Lesson pointedly taught: Don't do this, or else. by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's why the 11 months, that's why the easily refuted charges, the pointless lying by the security forces. They aren't punishing him as much as they are demonstrating what they can do to YOU or YOU or YOU, if you get lippy.

    It's working. People are shutting up. You can't meter what ain't there, but public disagreement with the established police state is muted by these endless arrests. People don't want to go into debt for the rest of their lives, lose their jobs and their families, just to say "I disagree."

    Stay tuned for Rahm Emmanuel's series of lessons in Chicago later this week. It's Tuesday, and already the security forces are running helicopters overhead. We have LDAPs! Let the schoolin' begin.

  20. Re:How does it work in this case? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And if a woman goes out at night after 9pm in a sexy outfit, not even carrying a firearm, well she is practically asking to be raped and tortured. She wouldn't be a victim. She would be doing it to herself. People can be so self-destructive. If you give a cop the finger and he beats you to death or shoots you until has Glock is out of bullets it is something you have done to yourself. The angry cop cannot be held responsible. And if you publicly criticize the government...well you know what to expect. The government cannot be held responsible for what they are forced to do to you. They would rather not ruin the life of an innocent person, but they were left with no choice. Victims have no one to blame but themselves. I think I am starting to understand now.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.