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.
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.
what are the laws in the uk on this?
nothing to see here - move along
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
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.
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
He did not get out of the murder charge by refusing to unlock his phone and getting 14 months, Kendall you fucking moron.
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.
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
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
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.
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”).
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.
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?
When the efficiency of the police is more important than the rights of the people, we can call that a police state.
From the Greek: Don't do what they did to Socrates!
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
....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
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.
Wrong. Britain is a parliamentary democracy with a monarch as head of state.
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
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.
He gets married. Tells his FB password to his wife, she changes it. she can be forced to testify against him.
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.
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?!
You're confusing republic with democracy. These are two separate areas.
Republic vs. monarchy. Democracy vs. autocracy.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
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
to jail with you until you remember your password
Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
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.
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"
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!
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.
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....
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