I'm especially paranoid about typing in my account information when the web browser address page reads "https", but the browser doesn't seem to be in SSL mode. Anytime you log in to your Amazon account, you can verify that you are logging into Amazon by checking the certificate of the web site and ensuring that it is legit. On the Turk website, there's no certificate to back up the SSL claim...
"If they found a gun on your property (like, in your front yard) that had been used in a murder, but there was NO evidence that you had ever had any contact with the weapon (no prints, no DNA, no GSR on you), would a US court convict you?"
Not a good analogy. Possession of a murder weapon doesn't make you guilty of murder. Possession of something that is illegal to possess DOES make you guilty of possessing it. We could take the gun analogy one step further, and say that it's an illegal automatic rifle, and that instead of lying in your backyard, it's carefully concealed under the floorboards of the unlocked shed in your backyard.
"What I do know is, there is a reasonable chance that her story is true."
So why is there a reasonable chance that her story is true? As I point out, if looking surprised when drugs are found in your bag is all that is required to beat customs, NOBODY would ever be arrested. Simple training for drug mule: "Take your bag. Walk through customs. If drugs are found, act shocked and deny they are yours."
I don't see why her claim of innocence is any more reasonable than any other person's in the same situation. The idea that she was an unwitting mule just doesn't make sense.
How much of a defense could a Columbian man who shows up at Sydney with 3 kg of cocaine in his surfboard mount? Corby was given every opportunity to defend herself. The problem is that when you are guilty, it's hard to defend yourself other than to say "It's not mine, someone planted it". That WAS the whole of her defense.
If not having fingerprints on the drugs and looking surprised when they were found were a valid legal defense, then nobody would ever be arrested for smuggling drugs.
No. I just don't think it warrants a possible prison sentence of 3 years.
The law allows punishment of up to 3 years for distributing movies. It's highly unlikely that someone with no criminal record is going to serve any time at all for distributing movies on the internet.
Possessing an ounce of marijuana can lead to a prison sentence of several years in some states. However, the vast majority of people who are arrested on cannabis possession charges don't go to jail (unless they have a criminal history).
It's not hard to find Americans overseas without knowing the contents of their passport. Believe me, most Americans stand out in a big way.
A kidnapper in Columbia isn't going to single out an American by snooping their passport. He's going to point a gun at them, say "let me see your passport", and then decide whether to keep them.
The US government is NOT putting a simple RFID tag into passports. They are embedding a fully functional smart card chip with an RF interface into the cover of the passport. The smart card can do on card matching of biometrics (which means that you don't have to store your fingerprint in a giant government database, it stays in your smart card).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm especially paranoid about typing in my account information when the web browser address page reads "https", but the browser doesn't seem to be in SSL mode. Anytime you log in to your Amazon account, you can verify that you are logging into Amazon by checking the certificate of the web site and ensuring that it is legit. On the Turk website, there's no certificate to back up the SSL claim...
"If they found a gun on your property (like, in your front yard) that had been used in a murder, but there was NO evidence that you had ever had any contact with the weapon (no prints, no DNA, no GSR on you), would a US court convict you?"
Not a good analogy. Possession of a murder weapon doesn't make you guilty of murder. Possession of something that is illegal to possess DOES make you guilty of possessing it. We could take the gun analogy one step further, and say that it's an illegal automatic rifle, and that instead of lying in your backyard, it's carefully concealed under the floorboards of the unlocked shed in your backyard.
"What I do know is, there is a reasonable chance that her story is true."
So why is there a reasonable chance that her story is true? As I point out, if looking surprised when drugs are found in your bag is all that is required to beat customs, NOBODY would ever be arrested. Simple training for drug mule: "Take your bag. Walk through customs. If drugs are found, act shocked and deny they are yours."
I don't see why her claim of innocence is any more reasonable than any other person's in the same situation. The idea that she was an unwitting mule just doesn't make sense.
How much of a defense could a Columbian man who shows up at Sydney with 3 kg of cocaine in his surfboard mount? Corby was given every opportunity to defend herself. The problem is that when you are guilty, it's hard to defend yourself other than to say "It's not mine, someone planted it". That WAS the whole of her defense. If not having fingerprints on the drugs and looking surprised when they were found were a valid legal defense, then nobody would ever be arrested for smuggling drugs.
The law allows punishment of up to 3 years for distributing movies. It's highly unlikely that someone with no criminal record is going to serve any time at all for distributing movies on the internet.
Possessing an ounce of marijuana can lead to a prison sentence of several years in some states. However, the vast majority of people who are arrested on cannabis possession charges don't go to jail (unless they have a criminal history).
It's not hard to find Americans overseas without knowing the contents of their passport. Believe me, most Americans stand out in a big way. A kidnapper in Columbia isn't going to single out an American by snooping their passport. He's going to point a gun at them, say "let me see your passport", and then decide whether to keep them.
The US government is NOT putting a simple RFID tag into passports. They are embedding a fully functional smart card chip with an RF interface into the cover of the passport. The smart card can do on card matching of biometrics (which means that you don't have to store your fingerprint in a giant government database, it stays in your smart card).