Man jailed over Facebook password refusal | Hacker News Reader

Man jailed over Facebook password refusal

bbc.com

51 pointsmatthewowen22 comments

Its important to remember that different countries have different customs, even if we share a language.

In the USA, people have the right against self-incrimination, aka the 5th Amendment ("Pleading the Fifth"). I'm not entirely sure if Britain affords the same right to their citizens.

Ideally, this kind of article would have some analysis and background for the American audience. Legally understanding the promises our governments make to us citizens is important.

Anyway, its clear that self-incrimination is an issue, otherwise this wouldn't be news at all. But I can't help but wonder that my ignorance of British law is making me misunderstand an issue, or otherwise make me biased. In particular, I know that British citizens have a completely different relationship with their Police force compared to US Citizens with our police force. (Ex: British police don't normally carry guns).

But I really don't know the full scope of cultural or legal differences that are needed to even understand this short article.

britain doesnt have a 5th amendment right... thats one of the reasons there was a little bit of a problem ~ 240 years ago

https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights

you will be sanctioned for not answering questions and later attempting to use facts related to that question for a defense

That's pretty disgusting from an American point of view. It's unfortunate that they don't have such rights.

Well, Americans don't have those rights at the US border[0], so it's not like we're any shining example ourselves.

0. https://www.eff.org/wp/digital-privacy-us-border-2017

if you know what you are doing you dont need to take any kind of a digital asset across a border, everything you need can be obtained at your destination... border agents are not paid to respect your property, so avoid the opportunity for them to destroy your intellectual achievments via ignorance

However...

==> Your rights at the border. Compared to people and police in the interior of the country, border agents have more power and people crossing the border have less privacy. But the border is not a Constitution-free zone. The powers of border agents are tempered by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, association, press, and religion), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures), the Fifth Amendment (freedom from compelled self-incrimination), and the Fourteenth Amendment (freedom from discrimination).

but the agents do have the right to mitigate security/criminal threats.

Just because you know how to avoid the problem doesn't make the problem go away.

[Re:] the same article we are talking about...

[===>] https://www.eff.org/wp/digital-privacy-us-border-2017

...yup a local solution doesnt satisfy a global level bork [NOT BorK ]

Having grown up in the UK and known people to have been convicted of crimes, it's never struck me as disgusting or something that is particularly unfair. You're within your rights to refuse to answer a question, but this could be used against you in court.

"Where were you on the night of the killing?"

"..."

Prosecution could well use your initial refusal to answer this question to aid their case in court, even if you then provide some answer within court.

I am very unfamiliar with American law concerning these matters, so I'm not sure how much of a divide there is between America and the UK when it comes to this.

From that page: “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.”

IANAL, but my understanding is that if the question is "What's your Facebook password?" and you refuse to give it, then the prosecution can mention this fact in a trial. But this by itself is not a problem for you. However, if you claim in court that there's evidence in your Facebook feed that shows you did not commit the crime (e.g. photos of you elsewhere at the time), then the jury might hold it against you that you didn't allow the police to access your Facebook account at the time, and they might then question the strength of this evidence.

Better explanation here: https://www.quora.com/UK-police-constables-say-it-may-harm-y...

This is a bizarre comment, although certainly familiar. A British publication writing about a crime in England, and you're faulting it for not offering context comparing it to the American situation. As an Australian, should I expect the international press to compare every issue to my own nation's laws? Of course not. And yet the entitlement that all of the internet should cater to the American audience is alarmingly popular.

I'm not "faulting" it. I'm simply commenting on my own ignorance. Especially since other directions in this thread don't seem to offer a British perspective, or an explanation.

I understand that things are different over the pond. But that's about all I really understand.

This is not just a matter of custom. But of deep philosophical and metaphysical significance that we discovered the principle of anti self incrimination.

The moral relativists would have you believe that these fundamental principles are merely fashions, like the type of coats or hats people wear.

Next thing you know... we will be defining North Korea or Saudi Arabia for sending people to slave work camps because they didn't bow down to the leader fast enough and then brush it off as mere "custom".

Absolutely apalling state of UK in terms of erosion of principles of life and liberty ans freedom.

> In the USA, people have the right against self-incrimination, aka the 5th Amendment ("Pleading the Fifth").

I'd say it's more like "had the right". Ask the guy who's still in jail in Philadelphia, because he "forgot" his FDE password. But hey, we won't know for sure until the Supreme Court has its say.

I don't think it's a straightforward conclusion that refusing to provide the password to a digital safe falls under fifth amendment protections. Following the precedent for physical documents the court would probably argue that unlocking a device, disk, file, etc. would not be self-incrimination because the person compelled to decrypt is not making any comment or statement of truth about the decrypted contents.

It’s bad enough that people have border security, job applications, etc. all depend on access to social media accounts. Yet fake accounts are clearly a thing (I’ve seen two versions of “friends” on Facebook and LinkedIn), and some people have never created accounts on even popular services. What do you do when a guard is screaming at you to unlock an account that isn’t even you? And if you lie and say you don’t have a Facebook account, I bet they aren’t aware of the possibility of fake accounts and simply assume it’s impossible (so what, you miss your flight if you never even had an account, because some scammer made one for you?).

Fake accounts are clearly a thing, you are right, so it seems silly to then assume that the police and justice systems wouldn't be aware of them or assume they were impossible. What do you do in any other scenario where you've apprehended wrongly or are wrongly suspected?

kind of silly that the court isn't just asking facebook

Are you distinguishing the court from the police here? The article states:

"Matthew Lawson, prosecuting, said police were following a "lengthy procedure" to get the information from Facebook itself."

...i think the approach is that since he refused to provide a passwd and stymied the investigation, there is now a real basis in law to hold and prosecute him...i.e. put him in jail, with a bunch of others that dont like such ilk...a point of leverage i would think..

It's a weird situation because if a facebook engineer reset his password to something else, he'd never be able to get out of jail? Seems odd to make a criminal court order based on a commercial authentication scheme.

If he forgets the password or it gets magically reset somehow and he legitimately no longer has access to the account (a stretch....password resets are a thing for this reason), then perhaps he should still serve his time anyway as the crime has already been committed. If it was unrecoverable, then of course he'd still be able to get out. It even says in the article he was sentenced to 14 months, not until he gave up the password.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com