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.

Comments

Missing piece to this puzzle

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Missing piece to this puzzle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

Re:Missing piece to this puzzle

[Wycliffe]

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.

Re: Missing piece to this puzzle

[ooloorie]

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.

What a stupid system

[locater16]

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.

Re:Get used to it

[fafalone]

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.

Re:That's Terrible

[blindseer]

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.

Re: laws in the uk?

[mentil]

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