Slashdot Mirror


Murder Suspect Jailed Over Refusing To Reveal Password In the UK (bbc.co.uk)

A man suspected of murdering a teenager in England has been arrested for failing to hand over his Facebook password to authorities. The BBC reports: Lucy McHugh, 13, was found stabbed to death in woodland last month, a day after she disappeared. Stephen-Alan Nicholson, 24, pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an order under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, requiring him to disclose the Facebook password. He was sentenced to 14 months in jail.

He was first arrested on July 27 on suspicion of murder and sexual activity with a child and subsequently bailed. But he was also charged under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The court heard the charge related to a court order that Nicholson disclose his Facebook password protecting any private communications with Lucy McHugh. Passing sentence, Judge Christopher Parker did not accept Nicholson's "wholly inadequate" excuse that providing his password would expose information relating to cannabis.

165 comments

  1. laws in the uk? by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    what are the laws in the uk on this?

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
    1. Re:laws in the uk? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:laws in the uk? by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      he's toast...at least on that

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    3. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why even ask at this point? Ask 10 barristers you'll get 18 opinions. If the Powers That Be want to coerce you they can invent any number of reasons. They demand your compliance and failure to provide it is the real crime; it upsets the authorities more than any number of dead women. Offer the right story and have the right ethnic background and you may publicly behead people on a Canadian bus and walk free a couple years later, but don't you dare fail to unlock that phone.

      It's no good in the US but these commonwealth subjects are really SOL; their Lord's have decided that "papers and effects" are theirs for the rifling. Are they still pretending they have an unwritten "constitution" in the UK? I know they used to do that.

    4. Re:laws in the uk? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't need the password. They can just subpoena the evidence directly from Facebook.

    5. Re:laws in the uk? by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      and in the meantime the schmuck is in jail for violating The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Part III. and if he's guilty of other stuff he's in jail and can't run or commit other crimes.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    6. Re: laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have also thought her Facebook message history would tell them the same thing as his. And surely easier to access. Suspect he wonâ(TM)t enjoy those 14 months.

    7. Re: laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeOffer the right story and have the right ethnic backgroundâ - thatâ(TM)s not really how it works outside the US. We donâ(TM)t shoot unarmed black suspects.

    8. Re: laws in the uk? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Surely easier to access why? I guess dead bodies don't have human rights any more, so they could waterboard the corpse until it coughs up the password, but is that really easier than a court order against a living being?

    9. Re: laws in the uk? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      so they could waterboard the corpse until it coughs up the password

      Look, it is a password, used to get past Facebook's login page. It is not an encryption key.

      The girl's family can email a photo of the death certificate to Facebook, along with proof that they are the next-of-kin, and Facebook will give them access to the account. No waterboarding is necessary. Alternatively, the police can get a warrant or subpoena.

    10. Re: laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeOffer the right story and have the right ethnic backgroundâ - thatâ(TM)s not really how it works outside the US. We donâ(TM)t shoot unarmed black suspects.

      I think the point Mr. Apple Device User, was that outside of the US, an ethnic minority can practically get away with murder.

    11. Re: laws in the uk? by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why go to the effort of doing their damn jobs, when they can string up suspects for not cooperating, instead? That'll learn em.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    12. Re:laws in the uk? by dkman · · Score: 2

      Why can't they just look at Facebook for the girl? Messaging is similar to email, the posts are on both sides - unless she took effort to delete them.

      They can't ask her for her password, but they could certainly exercise power of attorney to get access.

      --
      I refuse to sign
    13. Re: laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if he's not guilty, then he'll get violently sodomized by other inmates for exercising his right nor to incriminate himself and/or protecting his privacy?

    14. Re: laws in the uk? by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      uk jails are full of people who hate sodomites. The sidomites are all outside running the shithole country.

    15. Re: laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he was not guilty he would give his password. Authorities are looking for a murderer not a small time drug dealer.

    16. Re: laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have no idea what my facebook password is. i have to change it everytime chrome forgets it.

    17. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you use LastPass and honestly do not possess the knowledge of the requested password?

    18. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use LastPass you're a fucking idiot. Who stores their passwords on a cloud service that uses JavaScript-based encryption, especially one that's already been compromised? Get a local solution for your keylocker.

    19. Re:laws in the uk? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Because they want to see what else in his Facebook account, not just any messages he sent to her. And yes, she might well have deleted them. He might have told her to.

      But who knows what else he might have in there - photos that place him in certain places at certain times, messages to other potential victims, and so on.

      It's called "gathering evidence" and you don't just look in the most obvious places.

      It'd be the equivalent of that Stormtrooper who goes "This door's locked; move on to the next one" when the droids they're looking for are right behind said door. He's an Imperial Stormtrooper! He could just bust the door down!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    20. Re:laws in the uk? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1
      Naah, he's just proven the old joke about forced-disclosure of encryption keys:

      Judge: Do you know what the penalty is for not complying with RIPA?

      Accused: No, but I bet it's a lot less than the penalty for murder.

    21. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be called "gathering evidence" but it smells of a fishing exercise. "photos that place him in certain places at certain times, messages to other potential victims, and so on." if you are searching for this, you are doing it wrong. If police believe that information that directly relate to this case i.e. murder of the girl, that that is what they look for. Looking for evidence that he is a serial groomer, perfect. looking for stuff to charge him with other unknown crimes - fishing.

    22. Re: laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't his excuse though.

    23. Re: laws in the uk? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      "He's an Imperial Stormtrooper! He could just bust the door down!"

      Well hold on a minute. Not in all circumstances. On their own ships they get in a lot of trouble just busting doors down. Stormtroopers were blasting doors off their hinges if they forgot their keys or for other trivial reasons and after a while Facilities complained to the Captain. Now if they don't have a Designated Master Key Holder in the squad they have to call in for permission from an senior officer and then fill in reports afterwards with evidence and everything and if the reports are rejected it comes out of their salary. Same with their uniforms.

    24. Re: laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could change it and give it then...

    25. Re:laws in the uk? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Remembering that the UK is, currently, in the civilised world and doesn't have the death penalty for murder. Therefore the maximum penalty for non-compliance with RIPA (which I think is just another form of contempt of court) is imprisonment for the rest of your life, which is precisely the same as the maximum punishment for murder.

      In practice, since the contempt embodied by non-compliance with RIPA will occur before trial can take place, you'd serve this punishment before trial (and possible acquittal) for murder. So it is actually completely irrational to comply with RIPA if you know that doing so will reveal evidence likely to lead to your conviction for murder. Which would suggest that the accused is acting in his rational self-interest in this matter.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    26. Re:laws in the uk? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      While the UK still follows the ECHR, which admittedly it probably won't for much longer, it could be argued that prolonged imprisonment for refusing to reveal a password is a form of duress, article 3, and that imprisonment without trial runs up against article 6. Not sure how successful you'd be, but the ECtHR has been fairly flexible in how broadly they'll interpret article 3.

    27. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Refusal to comply with RIPA can result in a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, or five years in cases involving national security or child indecency. Contempt of court would also be a maximum of two years.

    28. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Being part of the ECHR does not mean you must be part of the EU. Russian is a signatory.

    29. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear readers, this is FUD. Signed, AC

    30. Re: laws in the uk? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Surely easier to access why? I guess dead bodies don't have human rights any more, so they could waterboard the corpse until it coughs up the password, but is that really easier than a court order against a living being?

      At least in the US, reasonable expectation of privacy does not apply to the dead so a court order if necessary is easier to get.

      To me it sounds like they are just using this as a fishing expedition for crimes unrelated to her which would be standard procedure in the US to force a guilty plea.

    31. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ding Ding Correct. And if convicted, time spent will probably count.
      Anything on FB will be at best circumstancial - unless there is a cam filming the actual alledged murder in HD.
      I also suspect UK jails are full, and contempt charges fill up costly jail cells so drug dealers can get bail. RIPA is not serving the public interest where it is not material to future, imminent threats, It is really a tantrum act - we can employ less police if people self incriminate and help us build or fabricate a case. Otherwise we have to employ more police as the population grows.
      If the glove does not fit, you must not convict!

      The USA is having similar issues where politicians (usually lawyers) refuse to cooperate saying evidence with drop them into another bucker of slime.

    32. Re:laws in the uk? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Contempt of Court can be renewed indefinitely, can't it? If you keep on pissing off the judge, he can keep throwing you in the slammer.

      Yes, eventually you'd probably be able to build a human rights case, but that'd take a lot longer than 2 years.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    33. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would not be able to be jailed for life for refusing to reveal his password. After 14 months in jail without access to Facebook he could legitimately argue he is unable to recall said password given the elapsed time and lack of need for recollection during that period - neural connections being what they are, namely reinforced through use.

      My guess is they...
      1. Wanted him to self convict as Western police forces are full of lazy unintelligent fuckknuckles who never want to actually perform real policing.
      2. Otherwise have little to convict him on so want him otherwise occupied pending further investigative work, "no smoke without fire", or "that'll teach the prick to not comply".

    34. Re:laws in the uk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's "gathering evidence" and you're that sure then just get a court order for Facebook to comply with FFS.

  2. That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should be allowed to keep his privacy.

    1. Re:That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? no one else can.

    2. Re:That's Terrible by blindseer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I recall a story that likely has a grain of truth to it. It goes something like this...
      Benjamin Franklin was seen leaving the chambers on where they were debating the creation of a new United States government. A lady on the street asked, "What have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" His reply, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

      He should be allowed to keep his privacy. His loss of privacy due to the government prying into it is the loss of a republic.

      I know this is a story from the UK but the rules on keeping a republic is universal. Requiring the revelation of a pass code upon demands of the government violate many basic rights needed to maintain a republic.

      The guy is being punished for inconveniencing the government. Well, sometimes law enforcement is inconvenient. They know they can get what they seek from FaceBook, as does the suspect. The suspect also knows he's likely to get a very long sentence if he's caught. So, it's only in his best interest to keep his mouth shut. This kind of punishment serves no purpose but to erode people's rights to be free from government coercion.

      People can keep their privacy only if they defend it. By defending privacy against the government they are defending the concept of a republic. It's disconcerting to think that this kind of law exists in what is considered a free nation. Just by asking for the pass code they are violating the suspect's rights.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re: That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. - defenders of child murderers and rapists since 2002.

    4. Re:That's Terrible by dyfet · · Score: 1

      When the efficiency of the police is more important than the rights of the people, we can call that a police state.

    5. Re:That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By defending privacy against the government they are defending the concept of a republic. It's disconcerting to think that this kind of law exists in what is considered a free nation. Just by asking for the pass code they are violating the suspect's rights.

      Exactly! Though Britain is a monarchy.

    6. Re:That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US the citizens have all the rights they need to destroy the country from within and they are having a gleeful time doing so. The vast majority have interpreted the right to free speech to mean they are not responsible for the consequences of their free speech. It is easier to tear down a society than create a better one. The outraged e-mobs don't solve any problems they are only interested in finding someone to blame. After the blame is affixed they move on to the next outrage of the day. It's all about "winning" the argument not solving the problem.
      The creators of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights did not factor in what would happen when common sense was exiled form the public sphere.

      And remember this case? The San Berdino gunman who went on a rampage with an AK-47 and was shot dead in the street had a mob of people up in arms when the government obtained a court order to access his iPhone. First of keep in mind the fucker was dead and there was absolutely no doubt he was guilty. The iPhone in question was not owned by the dead guy it was owned by his employer. And the employer gave the government permission to crack the phone. Then Apple's marketing geniuses decided to lie to the entire world about how hard it would be to fulfill the court order. Apple used the whole incident to market how secure there phone was and how stalwart they were when it came to protecting it's customers. The social justice warriors joined with Apple to decry the governments actions. 3 days later a 3rd party cracked the Phone for the government which sort of killed Apples argument about how hard it would be for them to do it. And now Apple has turned over or turned of every security and privacy measure on the phones it sells in China.

    7. Re: That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because no one complained about the government wanting to access his iPhone. Some people complained about the cops wanting to remove everyone else's security by demanding apple give them keys to access all phones anywhere at anytime.

    8. Re:That's Terrible by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      May I differ? The interests of other party's, including swift justice for the victim of a murder, are just the sort of factors for which a warrant or a subpoena can be be demanded. The teenager has a trial process, where the demand for a subpoena can be objected to the decision compared with British law, with precedents of the court, and with There has been enough evidence to seize his computer records.

      The case is interesting because it is setting precedents in the UK. But the legal principals seem clear and in no way does the demand for the passphrase of the accused seem outrageous under such extreme circumstances.

    9. Re: That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Britain is a parliamentary democracy with a monarch as head of state.

    10. Re:That's Terrible by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I agree that there is quite likely enough evidence to seize the computer records from FaceBook. Where I have a problem is he was asked for evidence that can be used against him, and then punished when he refused.

      He was punished without due process. He was required to offer evidence to use against him. This is potentially a search without a proper warrant or cause. It's a case like this that gave us the Miranda Warning.

      I agree that this is something that could set precedent. The way I see it there's enough precedent to stop this, but for some reason the argument of "on a computer" makes people think that this is somehow novel.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re:That's Terrible by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The part you're missing is the part where government compels you to testify against yourself. Which is exactly what giving them a password is doing.

      That's why we have a 5th Amendment. And yes, such cases have been tried here in the US. You may not be compelled to reveal a password, even at the border or in a court of law.

      But you do need to INVOKE your 5th Amendment rights. Some stupid court somewhere decided it wasn't automatic.

    12. Re: That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today, certainly

    13. Re:That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should be allowed to keep his privacy.

      Oh, the irony.

      You do realize we're talking about a Facebook account, right?

    14. Re: That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember there was nothing on it.

    15. Re:That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the government, microsoft, apple, etc. want you to use biometrics as both id and password for your personal accounts. it nicely gets around the issue of testifying against yourself. We don't need all of you to unlock the phone.

      I have absolutely no issue with using biometrics as ID, but the password must always be something that my conscious, willing, living brain is required for.

    16. Re: That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The English are all cowardly cucks.

    17. Re:That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great comment. Inconveniencing the government is exactly why the 3rd Amendment is there. It is a reminder that in and of itself, inconveniencing the government is not a valid reason for violating our rights. Unfortunately for UK citizens, they don't have our constitutional protections. I got yelled at once by calling the UK a police state.....

    18. Re:That's Terrible by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      The real story here is facebook is a safe place to put stuff? I don't understand why they even need his password. I don't think Facebook says that all your data is safe with us, in fact that's really not what they're about.

      He should have given it to them. What could be out there that if it was that bad they couldn't get anyhow. He's probably in this situation in the first place because he doesn't know how to assess risk.

    19. Re:That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call it justice for the victims, without which we would all end up dead.

    20. Re:That's Terrible by t14m4t · · Score: 1

      This was written by James McHenry; he recorded it in the notes he took when he was the Maryland delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It's unclear the specific date, but Dr. McHenry clearly attributed the quote directly to Franklin.
      Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
      weylin

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
    21. Re: That's Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defenders of the innocent - who are innocent until proved guilty. Law enforcement is not perfect. We have executed people who didnâ(TM)t commit murder because of overzealous DAs.

  3. Missing piece to this puzzle by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why can't the authorities just ask Facebook for all private communications as part of the investigation? I'm sure Facebook works with authorities on other things. Maybe because the victim was a minor there is some special detail to this case?

    To me it makes sense from his part if he did kill her, to take 14 months over however long he might get for murder.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're asking for too much intelligence on part of this generation of Britons, I'm afraid...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why can't the authorities just ask Facebook for all private communications as part of the investigation?

      They are, it just takes a lot of time. The BBC article says:

      Matthew Lawson, prosecuting, said police were following a "lengthy procedure" to get the information from Facebook itself.

    3. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 2

      Read the article - they are working with Facebook on that, but it takes a lot longer. Now, though, they should have 14 months to get it done.

      What I wonder, though, is what sort of stuff could be in the account that would incriminate him? Surely the parents of the victim cooperated and provided *her* FB password, which would have given them access to any mutual communication?

      --
      William George
    4. Re: Missing piece to this puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem is that Facebook will not release anything before a court orders them to do so, otherwise people will move away even from it even further because they know The Man can read their chats just because of an investigation.

    5. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read the article - they are working with Facebook on that, but it takes a lot longer. Now, though, they should have 14 months to get it done.

      What I wonder, though, is what sort of stuff could be in the account that would incriminate him? Surely the parents of the victim cooperated and provided *her* FB password, which would have given them access to any mutual communication?

      The parents don't necessarily have the password. There are plenty of young kids with accounts that parents don't have passwords to. Most parents don't do a good job monitoring their kids activities otherwise they would likely detect a groomer long before something bad happened.

      As far as what's on his phone, if he had something like child porn on his phone he would likely be convicted of the murder even if he had nothing to do with it.

    6. Re: Missing piece to this puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The main problem is that Facebook will not release anything before a court orders them to do so" - That's not a problem. I don't use Spybook but that would not be a problem.

    7. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it opposite day today? Everyone knows Americans are the worst and literally anyone else is the best!

    8. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Surely the parents of the victim cooperated and provided *her* FB password

      As a parent of teenagers, I can assure you that they don't tell us their social media passwords.

    9. Re: Missing piece to this puzzle by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main problem is that Facebook will not release anything before a court orders them to do so

      That doesn't sound like a "problem" to me.

    10. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by Raenex · · Score: 2

      Matthew Lawson, prosecuting, said police were following a "lengthy procedure" to get the information from Facebook itself.

      Why is it a "lengthy procedure" that takes longer to convict this man and sentence him to 14 months in prison? Why don't they raid the offices of Facebook? Why do megacorps have more rights than individuals?

    11. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "this generation"

      wow it's like going into a time machine back to ancient greece where they also blamed their problems on those darned kids

    12. Re: Missing piece to this puzzle by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That doesn't sound like a "problem" to me.

      Quite so.

      The standards for such things aren't enormously high, so I'm surprised they can't get a court order anyway. Or who knows. we don't refer to them as "Her Majesty's Finest" for no reason you know.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      As a parent of teenagers, I'm surprised you let them piss on you like that.
      Do they give you a weekly allowance, and tell you off if you are home late also?

      Trust is them giving you the password, and you not using it unless you need to, NOT them keeping it from you.

    14. Re: Missing piece to this puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a terrible parent if your children don't trust you with those passwords in a way that lets them trust you not to snoop unreasonably.

      Write it on a piece of paper, put that paper in a signed envelope. Periodically open it together to verify the password and have them set a new one and write that on a new piece and repeat.

      Embed the envelope into a wax cast displayed as art where you can both see it hasn't been tampered with if you don't have a safe they have access to too.

      Trust is a two way street. You seem like a bit of a condescending narcissist just in that post alone, which would explain your problems with your kids.

    15. Re: Missing piece to this puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think about it for a few minutes and the answer should become evident.

    16. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Megacorps have more money to hire lawyers. Also funding of political parties (which have influence over police) plays its role. It is as simple as that.

    17. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      "Lengthy procedure" is code for "you made me fill out some paperwork so I'm going to punish you".

      They won't screw with Facebook because Facebook has enough money to push back hard.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Why don't they raid the offices of Facebook?

      Because the only offices Facebook have in the UK sell advertising, and do management shit. Which country their server farms are in is not known (to me), but one would infer they're not in the UK. And you can bet that the "management shit" of Facebook will have enough legal horsepower in the office that the RoTW management of Facebook will know about the raid before the officers start to try to force passwords out of the arrested, so the Facebook internal security system will just stop all non-customer log-ins from the UK. Or Europe.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    19. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Reality is them giving you the password, you not using it (because "trust"), and so you not discovering that they changed the password 3 minutes after they gave you the old one.

      A better reality would be having a monthly ("weekly" is also defensible) ceremony of them (all, assuming multiple kids) changing their passwords for all their online accounts in front of you, you writing down the passwords into a notebook, then locking the notebook into a box which is bolted into the wall of a public room. After all, for their entire working lives they'll be required to change passwords frequently, so get them used to it young.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    20. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me it makes sense from his part if he did kill her, to take 14 months over however long he might get for murder.

      Or he didn't murder her but there is something else he wants to keep hidden from the authorities.

    21. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, for their entire working lives they'll be required to change passwords frequently, so get them used to it young.

      Debatable. Official guidelines are *not* to force people to change passwords frequently. It's been shown to make passwords less secure. Either people use the same one with an incrementing number at the end or they put it on post-it notes.

    22. Re:Missing piece to this puzzle by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Why can't the authorities just ask Facebook for all private communications as part of the investigation? I'm sure Facebook works with authorities on other things. Maybe because the victim was a minor there is some special detail to this case?

      To me it makes sense from his part if he did kill her, to take 14 months over however long he might get for murder.

      They can. And Facebook will hand everything over. This is just a way to stack charges and convictions on him.

  4. What a stupid system by locater16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Possession of cannabis is punishable by up to 5 years in the UK.

    Instead this kid, guilty of murder or not, only gets 14 months. He's doing the very thing the laws say is smartest to do, and because of it it's possible a murderer may get away with their crime.

    1. Re:What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather a thousand guilty men go free... than chase after them.

    2. Re:What a stupid system by Gaxx · · Score: 1

      Except that at the end of his sentence, they can ask for his password again and if he refuses he can be jailed again.

      --
      -- Gaxx
    3. Re:What a stupid system by gweihir · · Score: 1

      No. He is getting 14 months now while the police gets the Facebook access another way. If there is evidence in there, he may still get the murder conviction on top.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't convict the guy without an outright admission of guilt via Facebook, then he's only a suspected murderer.

      His excuse about cannabis is likely complete BS, and it's quite plausible he's covering up a much more serious crime by pleading guilty to a lesser charge. He hasn't yet seen court over the sexual activity and murder charge though. They'll go through with the trial on those charges once they have the evidence needed. The 14 month sentence, if he's guilty of worse, is only the beginning.

    5. Re:What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's getting 14 months for not telling them his password.
      Whatever you think of weed, going to prison for not telling your password is retarded.
      Fuck off with your "a murderer may get away with a crime" bullshit.
      If they can't prove he did it without his password he deserves to.
      They can get a warrant to make facebook unlock the account.
      If they can't it means they don't even have enough evidence to reasonably suspect him, so they can fuck right off.
      How about an innocent man may be in prison because of retarded laws?

    6. Re:What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "understanding" of law is very... shitty. The same for your logic of probably just about anything.

      Why the fuck are moronic cunts like you given a platform to prove how absolutely fucking retarded you are?

    7. Re:What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly everybody in the UK needs to set facebook to delete their account if it hasn't been logged into in 12 months.

    8. Re:What a stupid system by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Possession of cannabis is punishable by up to 5 years in the UK. Instead this kid, guilty of murder or not, only gets 14 months.

      Good grief, you're saying not only that refusing to disclose your password should get you jail time, but it should get you more than 5 years? WTF is wrong with you?

    9. Re: What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except at the end of the prison term he can be locked up again if they ask again. Itâ(TM)s not against the law to have smoked cannabis or to admit that you have smoked it in the past. Possessing cannabis without a legal prescription is the crime in the UK.

      So he would have been smarter to have a lawyer allow discovery without providing a password. The law does not require you provide the password but that you provide access, so a lawyer could use âoedownload my dataâ to provide access under RIPA.

    10. Re:What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. He is getting 14 months now while the police gets the Facebook access another way. If there is evidence in there, he may still get the murder conviction on top.

      A lot of people use the same password for multiple accounts. Giving the police your password, and it's possible they'll decide to look into all your accounts with that password especially if there's nothing on Facebook. Further, it possible (if stupid) that he has some encrypted storage and he used the same password for it. Or, of course, he could be stupid and think that the messages are encrypted on Facebook and only he with his password can read them.

      Really, we don't know.

    11. Re:What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Presumption of guilt.

    12. Re:What a stupid system by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      The evidence is he knows her? IDK I'm just glad I don't live in the UK.

    13. Re:What a stupid system by mentil · · Score: 1

      He could say he forgot it since he hadn't typed it in for 14 months.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    14. Re:What a stupid system by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I agree, we do not. But it is not the case that he can get 14 months for murder instead of something more appropriate as implied. Anyways, being able to force people to hand over something they know (passwords, e.g.) is hugely problematic and incompatible with a free society. People must be allowed to keep everything in their minds secret that they wish to. It is the job of the police to find physical evidence or witnesses, not to force confessions of whatever things an accused person knows. Because if they start doing that, they will also start to force false confessions (passwords are a slippery slope here) and that must not happen in a free society.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re:What a stupid system by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Possession of cannabis is punishable by up to 5 years in the UK.

      Doesn't your country have laws against incidental incrimination for an unrelated crime?

    16. Re: What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A technicality, but he hasn't plead guilty to anything. He's refused to give up his password which is being demanded under RIPA powers. He's trying to say it would incriminate him, but our right to silence doesn't work like the US one. It's inherent, not predicated on preventing self-incrimination.

      RIPA by the way was introduced by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary, with justification being that it would help stop organised crime.

    17. Re: What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can literally use âoeI didnâ(TM)t kill X person because I was busy burglarising X houseâ at the time, see CCTV camera X for evidence. Unless the victim of the burglary reported to the police independently and charges are brought against you for that specific crime, youâ(TM)re fine.

    18. Re:What a stupid system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it goes further than that and that personhood excludes the ability of anyone else to compel any sort of self-incrimination. It's not that it will force false confession, as we may some day be able to scan people's minds and extract out memories (with some degree of known inaccuracy because of the plasticity of memory). It is sufficient that to pierce the veil of the person fundamentally undermines all the fundamental concepts of what a society of individuals is. Either society has to be radically restructured to accommodate this or there should be fundamental safeguards to prevent this piercing.

    19. Re:What a stupid system by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Long-term, you are certainly right.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    20. Re:What a stupid system by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      This would not be accepted as a defence.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    21. Re:What a stupid system by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Possession of cannabis is punishable by up to 5 years in the UK.

      Instead this kid, guilty of murder or not, only gets 14 months. He's doing the very thing the laws say is smartest to do, and because of it it's possible a murderer may get away with their crime.

      Except they will get a warrant (if necessary, I'm not sure if it is in the UK) for his Facebook content anyway and then add a cannabis conviction as well.

    22. Re:What a stupid system by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Possession of cannabis is punishable by up to 5 years in the UK.

      However unlike the US, the UK does not lock up drug users. Dealers, sure, but users end up getting a misdemeanour fine and possibly an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO).

      Cannabis is practically defacto legal in the UK. Cops have better things to do over here.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. Re:Should be hanged by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

    I'm all for hanging murderers and rapists, but I think the burden of proof is on the accusers (government, I assume, in this case) not the accused.

    --
    William George
  6. Re:Should be hanged by Aighearach · · Score: 0

    Are you sure that is true in South Brexitville?

  7. Kendall is a moron, officially, again, perpetually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He did not get out of the murder charge by refusing to unlock his phone and getting 14 months, Kendall you fucking moron.

  8. Get used to it by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    This will not be the only time this happens. It will happen more as time goes on and Law Enforcement has to rely upon technology to gather evidence needed to convince a jury of someone's guilt in any matter before a court of law.

    In all honesty, you really shouldn't be putting anything you don't want any one in particular to see on the internet. Period. Because this will happen. Best defense against this is just don't put any compromising information on ANY website. Hell, don't put it on any 'device' you own, keep it in your brain.

    And if you think this is somehow a problem, that Law Enforcement can do such a thing, let me present this to you: If a suspected murderer was keeping a written diary in his home, under his mattress and Law Enforcement believes it contains incriminating evidence, you can bet your panties there will be a warrant for that diary. Why should technology trump Law Enforcement doing it's job? People have become deluded into thinking 'online' is some sacred untouchable space. It's not.

    1. Re:Get used to it by sjames · · Score: 2

      At the same time, why do the authorities think on a computer should give them special access. If I write a diary entirely in a cipher of my own devising, I am under no obligation to teach it to them.

    2. Re:Get used to it by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Firstly of course the poster above mentioned written ciphers. Second and even more important, you do realize people forget passwords right? Fortunately in the UK it appears if you don't remember the password to every encrypted item or account the police want you only get 14 months, in the US you can effectively get life (they hold you on contempt of court until you enter it, one man is approaching 3 years in for this).
      Plus here in the US we're supposed to (and some other courts have recognized) have the 5th Amendment, which prevents you from using the contents of your mind to assist in your own prosecution. In the most well known precedent, the court explained that while you were obligated to turn over a key to a safe, you could not be made to disclose the combination to one. They're trying to argue a password is more like a key than a combination, which is absurd. If it's something you can forget, it's the contents of your mind, and should be off limits. Computers don't become some magic space exempt from that just because police don't have any other way to get the information.

    3. Re:Get used to it by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Second and even more important, you do realize people forget passwords right? Fortunately in the UK it appears if you don't remember the password to every encrypted item or account the police want you only get 14 months, in the US you can effectively get life (they hold you on contempt of court until you enter it, one man is approaching 3 years in for this).

      Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go.

      I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to help get it reset or whatnot.

      Writing in a language (ie cypher text) the reader doesn't understand, I don't think a judge would find you in contempt in this case either. Unless of course, in the case of cypher, you refuse to assist in reading it. That's what contempt of court means, you refuse to do what the court instructs you to do. And when you decide to behave with contempt in a court, you can expect to be punished for your behavior, and rightly so.

      Y'all think it has something to do with passwords, or access to materials, or whatever you want to think it has to do with, when that's not really what it is. It's contempt of court. And that is a serious matter, in my perspective.

    4. Re:Get used to it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If I write a diary entirely in a cipher of my own devising, I am under no obligation to teach it to them.

      People have gone to jail for refusing to disclose encryption keys.

    5. Re:Get used to it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Second and even more important, you do realize people forget passwords right?

      He has already admitted that he knows the password, and has pled guilty to refusing to disclose it.

      That may have been a stupid admission, buy you have to admire his honesty.

    6. Re:Get used to it by sjames · · Score: 1

      Electronic ones, yes. Hence my comment about authorities thinking "on a computer" is special.

    7. Re: Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends. Carefully acquire your web based services anonymously and never use your real identity, if asked to provide a password you then canâ(TM)t as itâ(TM)s not yours and the burden of proof is on the Crown Prosecution Service to prove otherwise. Clever individuals can leverage this technique to hide things in the cloud without having to pay.

      MEGA for example gives 50GB per account without needing a real identity to sign up. To go one step better, using multiple services will allow one to keep the data safe from loss if a single service is wiped out. It doesnâ(TM)t matter what the content is either, encrypt it either way and watch the lulz pile up.

      For added protection: use a non logging VPN service and combine it with TAILS. This prevents your ISP knowing you use Tor and the use of Tor prevents the VPN service ever knowing what you do with their connection. This means if your VPN provider betrays you then... oops... still nothing. But if your VPN provider doesnâ(TM)t betray you then it stops the government performing correlation analysis using ISP logs in the event of say a honeypot.

      Technology can hinder investigations quite well....

    8. Re:Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are fucking retarded if you think this guy forgot his password.

    9. Re:Get used to it by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go. I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to help get it reset or whatnot.

      Honestly, I think you're blissfully naive. If you manage to decrypt it somehow, you're off the hook. If for any reason you can't because you've forgotten the password or your "password storage thing" is corrupt or the stress of facing years in prison is causing you to mind blank then they're likely to slam you double for pretending to know it and wasting everybody's time.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Get used to it by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go.
      I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to help get it reset or whatnot.

      But if someone is lying, those steps are easily faked, and someone telling the truth would have to admit they could in fact access it. Courts don't ask for the password itself, they ask you to sit at the computer/phone and decrypt/unlock it.

      Writing in a language (ie cypher text) the reader doesn't understand, I don't think a judge would find you in contempt in this case either. Unless of course, in the case of cypher, you refuse to assist in reading it. That's what contempt of court means, you refuse to do what the court instructs you to do. And when you decide to behave with contempt in a court, you can expect to be punished for your behavior, and rightly so.

      But how is this not self-incrimination? The 5th Amendment has been interpreted to mean using information in your mind to assist in your own defense, and there's no universe where that doesn't qualify. The court can't order you to waive one of your rights. You have completely unfounded confidence that people wouldn't be asked to provide information they don't have too. What if the police think you killed someone, could they demand you tell them where the body is, and if you say you don't know, but they think you do, it's off to jail? How would that be any different?

      Y'all think it has something to do with passwords, or access to materials, or whatever you want to think it has to do with, when that's not really what it is. It's contempt of court. And that is a serious matter, in my perspective.

      No, it has to do with the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. You seem to be arguing that a court order supersedes that, as you've offered no case for it not falling under that. Is it information, that resides (and may not) inside your head, that would aid in a prosecution of yourself? Then being forced to provide it is barred by the 5th.
      It's awful that you don't seem to understand how dangerous a precedent it is to jail people for not incriminating themselves with knowledge that resides only in their head, especially when they may have forgotten. And it's just sad that I really doubt you will until you're on the receiving end of a civil rights violation yourself.

    11. Re:Get used to it by fafalone · · Score: 1
      Since most /. readers are in the US, that section was talking about here in comparison to the UK, not referring to him. I'm unsure of how high the burden of proof is given the law in the UK (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) for forgetting a password; this seems to be the relevent section if a password counts as a key:

      (2)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.

      (3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time ifâ"

      ----(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

      ----(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    12. Re:Get used to it by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Not in the United States.

      It falls under the 5th Amendment.

    13. Re:Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These laws also apply to passwords you use to encrypt your personal documents, diaries, financial records, everything. These laws also violate basic principles of systems of law and would be unconstitutional in many other countries. They are just typical for the UK's fake security theatre, implementing all kinds of online filtering, censoring and monitoring systems and laws to detract from the fact that approximately every tenth priest , BBC employee, or high ranking government official habitually fucks children and that child abuse usually takes place in a domestic setting with no relation to the internet at all.

    14. Re:Get used to it by PPH · · Score: 1

      In all honesty, you really shouldn't be putting anything you don't want any one in particular to see on the internet.

      But the whole point of Facebook is to self promote. It doesn't do any good to brag to your buddies about your upcoming date with a 13 year-old if you do it behind an alias.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But none of this matters for the story at hand, because the UK has no 5th

  9. Re:Should be hanged by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

    I have no idea of the laws in play there in the UK, hence my use of the term "I think". I would hope that most civilized folks would agree that just being accused of a crime, and unable to prove your innocence, does not make you guilty.

    --
    William George
  10. Re:Should be hanged by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

    Moreover, it does appear that presumption of innocence ("innocent until proven guilty") is a part of English law:

    https://www.quora.com/In-the-U...

    --
    William George
  11. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a 24 year old contacting a 13 year old on Facebook...?

    1. Re:Why by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's just over shared interests in comic books, stargazing, and calligraphy.

      What do you think they were talking about? If the suspect was at least half honest about his cannabis habit then I have one shared interest down, and the other isn't comic books.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  12. Re:Should be hanged by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    They got it from Roman law: ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

  13. Is FB Data at Rest encrypted by *user* password? by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    Wonder why the Facebook chat logs aren't already with law enforcement. Surely, there's a warrant by now.

    Does a Facebook user password also encrypt data at rest on Facebook servers? So, unless the user logs in and their password provides the decryption key, not even Facebook can decrypt stored chat history?

  14. Re: Should be hanged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They got that from the original, "he who smelt it, dealt it."

  15. Re:Is FB Data at Rest encrypted by *user* password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supposedly they use "Signal" protocol, which should prevent this. If they get the logs, then we'll know they either got them from the girl's account, or FB is lying about their Signal implementation.

  16. Re:Should be hanged by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    From the Greek: Don't do what they did to Socrates!

  17. What if you have undiagnosed stress anxiety? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    And the pressure of being forced to produce your password or be put in jail for not producing it only makes it worse so that you can't accurately remember it? While certain types of meds might alleviate some of that if everything goes according to planned expectations, it could just as easily make things even worse.

    Memory is a tricky thing sometimes.

    1. Re:What if you have undiagnosed stress anxiety? by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Even worse, in a case like this where a man has been held 3 years now for his claim of forgetting a password not being believed, whether that was legitimate or not, if a password is even a little complex just going a few months without using it and you're likely to have forgotten, nevermind multiple years. So the longer they hold you the less likely compliance is, and a contempt of court hold is supposed to produce the opposite effect. That's why I'm always saying that it carries an effective possible life sentence for forgetting a password.
      Since different courts are currently split, SCOTUS is eventually going to have to settle this, and unfortunately wiping your ass with any part of the Bill of Rights that interferes with law enforcement is the favorite passtime of the right wing*, who are now in control of the court.

      * And almost as sad, for all the crying about how Merrick Garland would have protected civil liberties if only the nomination had not been stolen, when it came to criminal justice and national security related civil rights, Garland was solidly right-wing, because the left has decided social justice issues are way more important than the basic rights our country fought and died to give us. A pattern I suspect we're likely to see play out again in 2020 or 2024 with Kamala Harris, the former state AG tough-on-crime prosecutor who is also way out to the right on criminal justice/civil rights, then further has no problem tearing up even more of the BoR to appease SJWs.

    2. Re:What if you have undiagnosed stress anxiety? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      We can be imprisoned for forgetting a password. Any password.

      Blair's Govt wrote terrible laws, including two which can abolish elections without debate.

    3. Re: What if you have undiagnosed stress anxiety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one is all Theresa May, RIPA came in when she was home secretary in David Cameron's cabinet.

    4. Re:What if you have undiagnosed stress anxiety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all you have to do to get free food and a place to live for the rest of your life is just tell them that you don't know what your password i when they want to unlock your devicee? Sounds like a workable plan for some people.

  18. Re: Should be hanged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you have to remember "he who denied it supplied it".

  19. "i forgot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to all the stress,i dont remember the password.

    1. Re:"i forgot" by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 1

      to jail with you until you remember your password

      --
      Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
  20. Re:Is FB Data at Rest encrypted by *user* password by fafalone · · Score: 1

    In what universe does Facebook respect privacy enough to even consider that? Of course they don't do that, in fact they mine the conversations for information about you. Allegedly not for advertising, but for their own use and to enforce rules against abuse definitely.

  21. I am very surprised by maroberts · · Score: 1

    ....that the court didn't make a one time offer to give him an absolute discharge on all cannabis offenses that might be revealed by his Facebook messages, with the warning that if he didn't disclose the password in the light of this offer he would be charged with making a false statement (to a court) which carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment, same as murder.... :)

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  22. Re:Is FB Data at Rest encrypted by *user* password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am *sick to death* of all the failures saing "I have anxiety, boo-hoo". When and where I grew up, if you acted like prey, you were prey. But put on a dress and wear a man's tie and say "I'm gender neutral", and boy, you get to flip from the most hateful things about parents, straight people, and those who actually work for a living to "boo-hoo, I'm triggered, I need to call Antifa to storm the president's office, or better yet slap someone's cell phone out of their hand and run away, boo-hoo!!"

  23. Re: Should be hanged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking retarded ? Seriously ??

    I know you Americans are generally pig ignorant, but this is amazing.

    Where the fuck do you think your American law came from ??

    Its English Common Law , with the exception of the Frenchie bits in Louisiana.

    Fucks sake.

  24. it is not either or , it is in addition by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Where did you get the erroneous idea he would get out of murder ? What happens is 1) he is charged with murder 2) but in addition he is now on the hook for 14 month because he does not give his password. In other word, while they are investigating and getting the password from facebook with a court order, he is in prison for not giving up his password. If he get judged for murder , then the sentence would be in addition of that 14 months.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:it is not either or , it is in addition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concurrent not consecutive in the UK.

  25. Easy by spongman · · Score: 1

    He gets married. Tells his FB password to his wife, she changes it. she can be forced to testify against him.

    1. Re:Easy by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      she can['t] be forced to testify against him.

      In most circumstances yes, she can. And in any case, demanding the password, which she knows, is unlikely to count as testifying against him.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  26. Good thing he didn't have a gun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing he didn't have a gun! He might have killed someone ... er ... oh.
    And the gun would have made a loud noise, so people around are likely too look.

    Certainly there is sufficient probable cause to get a warrant for FB to provide all access to that data. It isn't like anyone would put the location of bloody clothes or the location of the murder weapon into FB.

  27. You are implying he's the murderer. THAT'S A CRIME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do not know if he is the murderer. You do not have right nor the competence to judge.
    Yet your comment strongly suggests/implies he did it. "Guilty until proven innocent" seems to be your default choice and mindset. Looking for things that back it up, after that decision.

    In my country (Germany), know that you could go to prison for publicly implying that he did it!
    You're not the judge. Your job is to STFU and let the judge do his job.

    (Which the judge of course did badly, since he can just get the data from Facebook. It’s not like they wouldn’t comply, or as if it was end-to-end encrypted.)

  28. In which case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This charge just keeps him behind bars, and the public safe temporarily. Just waiting for the REAL evidence......

  29. Robert Smith we hardly knew ye by UnixUnix · · Score: 1

    A more general matter: there might be some wisdom in Robert Smith not ever posting any personal photos or videos, eschewing Friendships with IRL friends and relatives, you get the idea -- good luck establishing he is THE Robert Smith of a case in question. Especially if, dastardly Facebook-law breaker that he is, he lists his name as Lazarus Long, Dick Diver or Robert Axelrod. Yes, Facebook fights this sort of thing but with only partial success. HOW UNHOLY huh, subverting the core essence of Facebook's Business Model?!

  30. Republic??? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

    You're confusing republic with democracy. These are two separate areas.

    Republic vs. monarchy. Democracy vs. autocracy.

    --
    Catalin Braescu
    Ofaly.com
  31. Re: Should be hanged by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 2

    Many elements of US law are drawn from where our nation originated (as colonies of England) - yes - but we also have a lot of legal protections which are not provided to citizens of other countries by their laws. The extent of our free speech rights, for example, or the right to keep and bear arms. I wasn't sure off the top of my head if presumption of innocence might have been another element that was added on top of or increased from what was brought over from England.

    Moreover, I would point out that it isn't like the English came up with all of those legal concepts completely on their own. Almost all legal systems inherit aspects of the societies that came before them, all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi (and possibly before, since that may have drawn on other oral traditional). So should I start in on a tirade about how English laws developed as a merging of Anglo-Saxon and Norman tradition, along with some influence from the Catholic Church and Roman history? I think I'll pass on that, and certainly on the use of unnecessary colorful metaphors :)

    --
    William George
  32. I'm such a coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm such a coward that if I was ordered to hand over my password I would - but not before changing it to "thejudgewhoorderedmetodisclosethispasswordisafuckingwanker"

  33. FB EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook EULA forbids users giving out their username and password

  34. UK laws are harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UK laws are harsh... Even in Russia (which is often criticised) a law provides protecting against self-incrimination. Though other methods are provided I guess.

  35. Re: Should be hanged by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Many elements of US law are drawn from where our nation originated (as penal colonies of the United Kingdom)

    The American colonies were first developed as a place for the UK government to put criminals instead of hanging them, and potentially convert them to tax payers instead of tax-users (it costs money to dig that hole in the ground, or more holes because of infection from the unburied corpse). The big difference with Australia was that it was relatively cheap to cross the Atlantic and establish profitable trading or farming colonies too, for commercial purposes. But many of those farming colonies would have been economically unfeasible if there wasn't a supply of "indentured labour" sent over by the British courts. If you had to pay the workers in your tobacco or cotton plantation, then your profit went down.

    So, when the supply of (temporary, white-skinned) slaves from Britain dried up ... the British (mostly) traders bringing (permanent, black-skinned) slaves from Africa to the Caribbean found it worthwhile to hop the extra thousand or so miles up to the American Colonies.

    It wasn't an instant switch - there were black slaves in America long before the penal servitude supply from Britain dried up - but it was a significant influence.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  36. Apple had no issue with the government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...trying to access the phone. In fact they said "have at it."

    What they objected was having to do the work themselves. Last time we forced people to do work unsolicited, we had a civil war about it. The issue was called slavery, you might want to look it up.

  37. How could you tell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if a string of text was encrypted or merely random gobbledegook?

  38. Re: Should be hanged by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    In my experience, you can spot a human at the low end of the intelligence spectrum that much easier when they start bragging about how much smarter than other animals they are.

    Pigs always have way more knowledge than whatever humans know that the pigs know. It is much easier to know something than to know somebody else doesn't know anything, and if you don't share a language, it leaves you mostly clueless about their knowledge.

    Dogs are often smarter than their human companions, and pigs are usually smarter than dogs; though less willing to try talking to a human!

  39. Re: Should be hanged by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    That is complete nonsense, you couldn't send anybody there for a long time, they had to exist first as farming colonies before you could expand them into any of that other stuff, and it took years.

    Indentured workers were often not criminals, and if fact most workers who required transportation to the work site would be "indentured." It doesn't mean they weren't paid, it means they were paid a contracted rate, and were already contracted so they couldn't quit! In many cases they paid for their passage with multiple years of work on arrival, at a low wage.

    Most employed farm labor in the UK would have been indentured. The term means you have an employment contract for a specified term, usually that cannot be canceled. It was absolutely critical to be able to plan your farm labor levels in advance, they didn't have pickup trucks to drive into town and pick up irregular workers every morning! So agricultural jobs were based on whole years of employment, with varied duties in different seasons. They were not seasonal or part time jobs.

  40. Bad people shouldn't have rights, is that it? by spikeysnack · · Score: 0

    In the UK,

    Does the Suspect have the right to remain silent?

    Does the Suspect have the right refuse to self-incriminate?

    Does the suspect have the right to refuse unwarranted search and seizure
    of property and personal information?

    Are matters of National Security or immediate loss of life or property involved?

    It sounds like they caught a killer/rapist and are trying to leverage
    a way to destroy citizen rights & protections by making the argument
    that those rights & protections are bad because the bad man has them
    and bad people shouldn't have rights, so we are going to take them away
    from everyone, OK?

  41. A lesson to you all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's faster to convict you of failing to incriminate yourself (by revealing your password and thereby potentially incriminating evidence against yourself) than it is to work with a mega-corporation to get what is likely (to said mega-corporation) readily available information.

  42. Re: Should be hanged by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

    What nonsense is this? The first colonies of Europeans in what is now the United States were a combination of business ventures (like Jamestown) seeking wealth and religious groups (like the Pilgrims at Plymouth and the Puritans at Massachusetts Bay) seeking a different way of life and belief. Later colonies, and especially those further south (below New England) did indeed have large populations of indentured labor... but even then, it wasn't like there were whole colonies of criminals - which is what the term "penal colony" usually indicates. Most indentured servants were not in that position because of criminal conviction. That was not how or why this place got started :)

    Regardless, this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the topic at hand. Were you just trying to add in some (slightly mistaken) history? Or was the idea of there being some criminals sent to the New World supposed to have a bigger impact on the discussion above?

    --
    William George