Man jailed over computer password refusal (UK)

16 weeks in prison is a lot less than he would get if they found child porn on his hard drive
 
blunomore said:
Huh? How do you the police did not have sufficient grounds in this case ?
Click to expand...

According to the article, "Drage was previously of good character..." and there is no evidence to indicate he has committed a criminal act. Even assuming the police had a warrant, what if that warrant was obtained under false pretenses, i.e. someone lied to the police to incriminate Drage? Suspicion and accusation are not guilt. (I am not saying he isn't guilty - I am saying there is apparently no evidence to indicate that he is.)

If this is legal, how long until thinking "illegal" thoughts can land you in jail? How long until privacy is no longer a right but a privilege?
 
The_Assimilator said:
According to the article, "Drage was previously of good character..." and there is no evidence to indicate he has committed a criminal act. Even assuming the police had a warrant, what if that warrant was obtained under false pretenses, i.e. someone lied to the police to incriminate Drage? Suspicion and accusation are not guilt. (I am not saying he isn't guilty - I am saying there is apparently no evidence to indicate that he is.)

If this is legal, how long until thinking "illegal" thoughts can land you in jail? How long until privacy is no longer a right but a privilege?
Click to expand...

How do you know there is no evidence ? How do we assume the police came to know of him as a 'person of interest' ?
 
Probably signed onto one of these dodgy kiddy sites using his personal credentials. From what I've read the police have entire mock sites used to bait and bag pedophiles; "sign up here and gain access" sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
B.O.F.H. said:
No Court Order.... no password,

I think I'm going to have to find something that has 2 passwords... 1 to use the system.. and if i give you the other 1, it completely destroys the data...
Click to expand...

Do you have child porn that you dont want the authorities to find ?
 
Nothxkbi said:
Probably signed onto one of these dodgy kiddy sites using his personal credentials. From what I've read the police have entire mock sites used to bait and bag pedophiles; "sign up here and gain access" sort of thing.
Click to expand...

There has been a number of arrests in the UK and Europe where someone slips up and gets reported, the cops arrest them and then discover others. This is probably how they got this this fool. He may think he has got away with it, but now they know him. And of course everyone, including some really dodgy characters in Liverpool, know his name as well. Pedo's are not very popular. He may prefer to stay in jail.
 
Billy said:
The last time I checked a person was innocent until proved guilty. In the UK the onus is on the Crown to prove guilt not on the suspect to prove innocence.

Surely not giving a password is much the same as "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself" US 5th amendment.

I think that a problem in the UK is that they do not have a constitution enshrining rights, except the ignored Magna Carta.
Click to expand...

The UK is not part of the US, hence the US 5th amendment doesnt apply. In the UK you are legally obliged to cooperate with an investigation. You have an opportunity to defend yourself in court once the facts are gathered. Its obvioulsy more complicated than that, but dont let the American TV programs confuse you :D
 
zippy said:
The UK is not part of the US, hence the US 5th amendment doesnt apply. In the UK you are legally obliged to cooperate with an investigation. You have an opportunity to defend yourself in court once the facts are gathered. Its obvioulsy more complicated than that, but dont let the American TV programs confuse you :D
Click to expand...




I am fully aware that the UK is not part of the US. What I quoted was an example of protecting ones innocence.

When arresting someone the Police have to caution thus:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm
your defence if you do not mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do
say may be given in evidence"

Not giving the password is "saying nothing"

I am pretty sure that if this law was in SA it would be overturned by the Constitutional Court.

It is interesting that the Police in the UK have greater powers to stop and search people than they do in SA.
 
zippy said:
The UK is not part of the US, hence the US 5th amendment doesnt apply. In the UK you are legally obliged to cooperate with an investigation. You have an opportunity to defend yourself in court once the facts are gathered. Its obvioulsy more complicated than that, but dont let the American TV programs confuse you :D
Click to expand...

The "right to silence" is almost a universal right in all legal systems. The USA just has it as an amendment to their constitution so kinda call it by a name but it is still a right to silence. Use law is based on English common law, but they felt so strongly about the right to silence they made it explicit in their constitution so their is no doubt about it.
In the UK the right to silence is part of English common law.
The very same rights are granted to SA citizens as per Section 35 of our constitution.

You cannot force a person to provide evidence which would incriminate him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
 
blunomore said:
Huh? How do you the police did not have sufficient grounds in this case ?



Maybe they got one or are in the process of getting one.

If the man is innocent and would like to prove it, just hand over the password.
Click to expand...

You should know better.

The state must prove the crime- the accused need not prove his innocence
 
Another option to protect your data is a dead man's switch.

zippy said:
He may think he has got away with it, but now they know him. And of course everyone, including some really dodgy characters in Liverpool, know his name as well. Pedo's are not very popular.
Click to expand...
One reason why for certain crimes someone's details should not be divulged until they have been convicted and exhausted all appeals

Billy said:
I am pretty sure that if this law was in SA it would be overturned by the Constitutional Court.

It is interesting that the Police in the UK have greater powers to stop and search people than they do in SA.
Click to expand...
The UK is basically a police state. Has been for decades.

davemc said:
It seems a little stupid to me, to live in a society that aims to take all necessary steps to protect children whilst at the same time allowing child porn to hide behind a veil of "privacy".
Click to expand...
We live in a society that has become hysterically obsessed with protecting children, to point where save the children is regularly used an excuse for further advancement of a police state.
 
davemc said:
It seems a little stupid to me, to live in a society that aims to take all necessary steps to protect children whilst at the same time allowing child porn to hide behind a veil of "privacy".
It should be a case of:
- Can the police provide reasonable grounds of suspicion?
- If so, a court order must be issued, failing to react to the court order results in a life sentence being imposed.
Of course, things get tricky as all heck when the suspicious person is a juvenile.
And, what happens if you actually cannot access your password any more, life sentence because you accidentally deleted your email with the key in it. LULZ!
Click to expand...

You are saying a man needs to prove himself innocent instead of the state proving him guilty?

This follows logically from your statement about child porn hiding behind "privacy". How do you know he has child porn? First you need to prove it.
 
thatdamnJoe said:
You are saying a man needs to prove himself innocent instead of the state proving him guilty?

This follows logically from your statement about child porn hiding behind "privacy". How do you know he has child porn? First you need to prove it.
Click to expand...

Would you have the same opinion if the person in questino was suspected of having inappropriate photos of your children on his password protected PC?
 
ponder said:
The "right to silence" is almost a universal right in all legal systems. The USA just has it as an amendment to their constitution so kinda call it by a name but it is still a right to silence. Use law is based on English common law, but they felt so strongly about the right to silence they made it explicit in their constitution so their is no doubt about it.
In the UK the right to silence is part of English common law.
The very same rights are granted to SA citizens as per Section 35 of our constitution.

You cannot force a person to provide evidence which would incriminate him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
Click to expand...
The right to remain silent does not exempt you from being forced to allow access to your property for the cops to conduct an investigation. It doesn't render search warrants and such invalid
 
thatdamnJoe said:
You are saying a man needs to prove himself innocent instead of the state proving him guilty?

This follows logically from your statement about child porn hiding behind "privacy". How do you know he has child porn? First you need to prove it.
Click to expand...

There must be some sort of evidence like IP address or such. Otherwise the police would be knocking on ALL the doors to enforce the law on ALL people. Now if the police can produce evidence as to why they came knocking on only one specific door…then where there is smoke there must be a cigarette or smoking gun?
 
Fudzy said:
Would you have the same opinion if the person in questino was suspected of having inappropriate photos of your children on his password protected PC?
Click to expand...

This is the problem with any set of legal rules. When focused on one set of specific circumstances, it may appear to be completely nonsensical or downright daft, but the principles have been developed over many years(sometimes thousands) to reach where we are today. SA's legal system in particular(along with many others) follow the approach that they would rather see a guilty man go for lack of proof than an innocent man sit without proof.

If policemen showed up at your door and accused you of treason charges - without any proof at all. And then accused you of hiding documents proving that in a secret volume thats password protected(they also happened to create the volume themselves so you couldnt give them the password even if you wanted)- given your approach, how do you propose to prove your innocence? And corrupt cops are by no means a fanciful invention, they exist in any administration in the world.
 
noxibox said:
Another option to protect your data is a dead man's switch.


One reason why for certain crimes someone's details should not be divulged until they have been convicted and exhausted all appeals


The UK is basically a police state. Has been for decades.


We live in a society that has become hysterically obsessed with protecting children, to point where save the children is regularly used an excuse for further advancement of a police state.
Click to expand...

His details where only released after his conviction :)

I think more people would argue that the UK is too soft on crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X