Man jailed over computer password refusal (UK)

[thatdamnJoe]

Evidence in my opinion. Let's say someone mugs a person. The mugged person can ID him or there are witnesses but this case for instance revolves around the evidence on his pc.

There is no way to convict people who can hide what they do behind a password.

Not sure if it makes sense but to me it seems about right. I guess it is the same as a murderer being allowed to store a gun in something that can never be opened. He would walk free because you cannot access the evidence needed to convict him.

If the point you're trying to make is that without evidence, the accused(because until he's convicted he's not a murderer is he?) could not be convicted, then thank God for that.

 

[thatdamnJoe]

Statutes override common law. They don't have a constitution, so the statute is legal.

The UK is a constitutional state - not a codified constitution would be more accurate

 

[thatdamnJoe]

They still need a warrant from a judge. They can't just knock on your door and ask for your passwords. Obviously they had enough evidence to obtain the warrant.

Then there is the trial itself where the evidence can be thrown out if it was obtained improperly.

This guys identity was successfully kept confidential throughout this process.

At least this pervert is off the streets for a few months and is now known to everyone. Hopefully the f***er will get it soon

I prefer the legal system on the UK as opposed to the one you have in SA where rapists, murders and thieves seem to be the symbols of freedom and the model citizens.

I dont doubt that the UK procedures were followed - such a statute would probably not withstand constitutional challenges in SA though

 

[OnePostWonder]

Who with nothing to hide uses a 50 character encryption password?

 

[shaunvw]

No you can't do that its called double jeopordy in america, you can't charge they same person for the same crime without substantial new evidence (the evidence part is when your found innocent the first time). Most if not all countries have this law.

This is not America. What they do in America is not relevant to the UK.

Thats why at the end I wrote most if not all countries have this law, even south africa has it. Without this law they can arrest you for say drinking and driving and sentance you for one year, then as you get released they charge you for the same thing over and over again. It also works if your found innocent, to stop the cops from charging you again and again untill they find you guilty.

EDIT: UK has this law they just probally don't call it double jeopardy

 

[thatdamnJoe]

Who with nothing to hide uses a 50 character encryption password?

that is conjecture. If they dont know the password they certainly dont know exactly how many characters are actually used, only that the field can take so many characters.

But that is besides the point isnt it. Nobody has any right to snoop around what I regard as private. If you think I have done something illegal, then prove it- if you cant, then you certainly dont have enough to force me to hand over my information. Whats next in 50/100/150 years time, a memory-scan? Civil liberties are hard-won, they should not be easily given up

 

[Ruach]

Whats next in 50/100/150 years time, a memory-scan? Civil liberties are hard-won, they should not be easily given up

Minority report with precogs

 

[ToxicBunny]

Who with nothing to hide uses a 50 character encryption password?

Me.... My stuff is encrypted with at least 50 character passwords.

 

[Billy]

Double jeopardy overturned in UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5333230.stm

Going police state law by law?

 

[shaunvw]

Double jeopardy overturned in UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5333230.stm

Going police state law by law?

In the article it says only if the person was aquited the first time and new compelling evidence is found, then you can charge the person again and it has to be a serious crime. If the person is sentanced you can't charge him again.