AusCERT arrest - yes, "arrest"
smh.com.au
smh.com.au
Laws aren't necessarily logical or fair and you might never grasp the danger of that until you are on the wrong side of one. Unless you are purposely trying to get arrested to make a protest, stop chatting with cops! Their policy is typically "arrest anyway, get them in the system, let the courts sort it out later".
Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning.
What's really surprising in this case is only that this particular person didn't grasp the concept. He probably got to walk away only because they knew the ipad data could make much better evidence to arrest others than forced testimony. But they obviously used his arrest to leverage him giving it up without a fight.
http://lawiscool.com/2009/04/16/why-you-should-never-talk-to...
Tell them what you have too by law (and make sure you know enough of your local law to be reasonably sure where you are required to answer and where you are not), and never ever ever "just chat".
It's not that "the cops are out to get _you_", it's mostly that the metrics and motivations they're operating under while doing their job will _very_ rarely end up even aligning with your civil rights, never mind aligning with your best interests...
They're not joking when they say "anything you say can _and will_ be used against you." That very much includes anything you say before they miranda you...
When a cop starts chatting with you, your first question to yourself should be "why"? Then, don't volunteer reasons why.
Can you elaborate?
As far as I know, you have to identify yourself and provide id, but thats about it.
Law enforcement is a massive, for-profit industry. Everyone is out to improve their arrest/prosecution record. If you can't afford to defend yourself, you are an easy target. Even if you win, you still lose for having to go through the process.
If the police are talking to you then by definition they are trying to incriminate someone, that's their job. Police officers are obliged to use any legal means available to obtain evidence - anything less would be negligence. As they are obliged by law to tell you, anything you say or do can be held against you in a court of law. You have a legal right not to incriminate yourself, but you don't have the right to un-incriminate yourself in hindsight, even if you incriminated yourself only inadvertently. If you have evidence that proves you did not commit a criminal offence, then it is in your best interest to use your right to legal representation to ensure that you give that evidence as clearly as possible and do not say anything that could undermine that evidence.
Not talking to cops is a basic principle of privacy, like shredding your credit card bills or using a password on your e-mail account. Once information is out there, you can't get it back, so it's your duty to preserve it at all costs.
If talking to the cops made sense, the cops would be doing a lousy job.
This is a poor attitude and probably explains why dealing with police in the US is such a big deal. It doesn't have to be like this, and isn't in a lot of other countries.
How could we possibly architect a legal system in which it doesn't make sense to speak to a lawyer before giving evidence? Unless we massively simplify the law and train every single citizen in the law to a fairly high standard, the benefit of representation will persist. The system recognises this and enshrines the right to legal representation.
This claim is even more extraordinary than the first. I'm living in Switzerland and I can tell you dealing with the cops is not a problem here because they use their heads (instead of just trying to close a case). Of course if they think you're a scum bag then you won't get the benefit of the doubt, but I can understand that.
>but by global standards the US legal system isn't exceptionally bad.
To be honest, I would trust the US system more than I would the UK system because at least if something stupid happens I would expect to be able to sue someone for lots of cash. The UK could just D-notice me away.
Unfortunately, the job of law enforcement is in fact to enforce the law. The same law which is written by people you don't know and are not asked your opinion on. The same law which is influenced by people richer and more connected than you. A government consists of a group of people who threaten other people with violence (through the police) when they do not agree with their actions. The only way to have real justice is to not have a police force, or a government, for that matter.
I'm shredding my credit card bills so that the "bad guys" don't get their hands on them. What we disagree on is whether law enforcement _has_ to be one of the bad guys. I certainly do not disagree on whether they are right now - I've downloaded my share of music and smoked the occasional pot.
But can't their incentives be changed?
I think they can. Dropping prosecution on a handful of "crimes" would most likely instantly slash over 90% of the problem. Instituting a number of well-thought policies would most likely chip away at the rest 10%. I don't really see any reason why it'd be a futile endeavor...
Two scenarios that have serious, counter-productive effects upon society.
Police used to non infrequently be called "peace officers" ("officers of the peace").
We used to use the term, with at least some genuine meaning, "good corporate citizen".
Assign skewed metrics, and you'll get skewed results. Judging someone solely on their arrest record, or on the financial profit they acquire, misses much of what people contribute in life -- or don't.
well, we know that the law enforcement is ally to some, it is just not to you or to me. Everybody wants to have the Power on their side, just not everybody can by definition.
I would like that too, the problem is that because a cop wields so much power one bad apple really does ruin the bunch. As a citizen you never know if you're going to get the cop who does his job well and isn't out to get people or the cop who is drunk with power and can't wait to flex on someone.
[citation needed]
In my experience US cops tend to be more aggressive than cops most anywhere else.
EDIT: In most any other 1st world country. I can't speak on the top of 3rd world country police as I've never dealt with one.
Once they get their bead on you it can be very uncomfortable situation. And this has been in a few different countries.
It's also easier for the cops to flat out lie on the police report once you start talking. If you refuse to talk and ask for your lawyer you have removed all opportunity for the cops to gather evidence directly from you and/or simply lie about it later. It's much easier to defend knowing you said nothing rather than you talked for an hour and can't quite remember just how you said something.
The convenience these devices provide comes at the cost of your personal privacy and security. You basically give up control of your data when you decide to use an iPad. Most people just don't realize it.
I really wish the device manufactures would allow, open-source, transparent whole device encryption that can be externally validated (Droids may have the capability already thanks to Linux and dm-crypt). In general, user's don't demand it, so the Apples of the world have no incentive to do it. All the while, they provide full access to the device's secret/undocumented data recovery/snooping features to governments leaving their user's private, personal data easily accessible.
Moral of the story: don't use the Internet in Queensland.
and I read here http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-story-arrest-disp... that the queensland police thismorning tweeted again: "Our bad @bengrubb was arrested for questioning briefly Our tweet last night was based on information provided at the time Apologies,"
its absolutely infuriating that cops can be so drunk with power that they can be so publicly blasé with the fact that they are fucking with someone's life and liberty.
Detective Superintendent Brian Hay today likened the issue to receiving stolen goods, but refused to go into details of Fairfax journalist Ben Grubb's case.
"Let me give you an analogy. Someone breaks into a house and they steal a TV and they give that TV to you, and you know that TV is stolen, and you apply it to your own use ... that's receiving stolen property," he said. [0]
[0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/18/3220071.htm
Most of these guys have absolutely no understanding of the law, which is hardly their fault. After all, IP law was established decades ago, in the pre-digital world. For most of its evolution, it functioned as a highly obscure branch of industrial law, used almost exclusively to govern relations between corporate publishers with large legal and clearance departments. It was manifestly NOT designed to govern the conduct of private individuals.
In other words, police are as well-equipped to deal with this as they are to handle international trade disputes, which is why 'additional training' isn't the solution, since no amount of training can turn a blue collar union guy into the kind of highly educated corporate lawyer whose domain this really is.
I agree with every other poster here - if you really want to balance your desire to be a good citizen with a measure of intelligent self-preservation, say you're happy to help with their investigation. Ask them to leave a number where they can reach you, and let them know that your legal representative will be contacting them there. Your lawyer can start by insisting that your cooperation is contingent upon a grant of total immunity. If there's any hesitation here, you'll know that actually, their request wasn't so friendly after all, and that they were, in fact, viewing you as a possible suspect the whole time.
A key concept to understand is the phrase "Anything that you say can be used against you." That's a key phrase because of what isn't stated -- that words you say will be not be used to help you. A prosecutor has broad discretion to prosecute, and can (and will) cherry-pick information to use against you.
Most cops and prosecutors are great people to have a beer with, and are not corrupt. But sometimes their position gives them a myopia and they see things or make connections are convenient or expedient. They are also invested with powers that make them extremely dangerous to interact with in many scenarios.
You get the world you're willing to participate in. Enlightened self-interest may be in play here.
[EDIT: make it clear that I'm referring to the neighbours, was "To some extent, yes; but in that case it's a much more reasonable assumption that you're not a suspect."]
By all means have your wits around you when talking to the police, especially if you think they suspect you of something, but the police are not out to get their jollies by locking up innocent folks for no reason, and your chance of winding up in prison for a crime you didn't commit based on a random off-hand innocent remark to a police officer is... much lower than other things you hardly ever think about.
Hey, did you know that you have a one in eight hundred chance of getting multiple sclerosis? Go worry about that for a while instead.
This is also why I automatically encrypt all of my incoming email with my public pgp key on the mail server. So any mail sat on my phone/laptop/server is encrypted with my password protected private pgp key (https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_E...)
I'm in the UK, so unfortunately they can demand that I give up my encryption keys and passwords and charge me if I choose to refuse, but at least it will slow them down enough so I can get a lawyer involved. And at least I have the choice of refusing.
do they have the right to scan your brain if you forgot the password or produce the wrong one under the stress of the arrest (my hands shake, heart races and i have hard time finding insurance card lying in plain view in glove compartment even when i'm having a traffic stop, less hard to imagine how i'd feel when/if i'd be "arrested for questioning")?
For example a former Novell executive always emptied his email inbox daily and deleted email after handling said email..he still works for Google
Nothing says that when they get hold of the device that you have to give access to data on that device..however that enters contempt of court grounds if they do not believe the excuse you give for not remembering a password.
It seems like they arrested him primarily because they wanted the evidence on that iPad to charge the other guy. I assume that the actual one-on-one demonstration had taken place on that iPad? The details aren't given, but it kinda makes sense.
The justification they used to arrest him is iffy, and I suspect they know it, but it's just strong enough that it doesn't count as a false arrest (though they're certainly not going to bother to charge him with receiving stolen goods).
While some people are using this as an opportunity to spread the "don't talk to police" meme, I'd like to use it as an opportunity to spread the "don't do illegal stuff with your computer or let other people do illegal stuff with your computer" meme, as this seems to be an easier way to avoid running afoul of the law.
(I agree its a little silly that "don't talk to the police" dominates this page so much it's a pain to find the posts about the actual article.)
"the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him."
http://www.zgeek.com/showthread.php/101079-Article-Queenslan...
1. Always assume that police and computers are a disaster waiting to happen and thus that law officers are often overwhelmed by complexities of computers.
2. Always fight any request to impound any computer device. Its taking control of your property under somewhat shady if not illegal circumstances.
3. Have a business card with someone reachable 24-7 that will go to bat for you and claim that the device in question if company property and cannot be confiscated or impounded.
4. Be a little less naive, as breaking into two FB accounts that I won or control is not illegal, breaking into someone else's is somewhat illegal even for demo purposes. However, what saves this journalist's ass is its just a photo that does not have large company copyrights attached to it.
FaceBook's TOS specifically states that anything uploaded onto their site, including the text of a status update, pictures, videos and comment text, is the irrevocable ownership of FaceBook. This gives them the ability to use your friend's pictures inside targeted ads, as well as take general screenshots of the site that may contain your comments or pictures as marketing tools for their own benefit and not yours.
I wonder if unauthorized access to a FaceBook account is deemed theft of stolen property with the owner of the account as the victim, or if this was to go to court, would FaceBook be in the prosecution chair claiming their property was stolen†. If the latter, does anyone besides FaceBook have any say on how an unauthorized entry to some account should be treated?
†Stolen in this context just means the "downloading" of page assets that occurs when one visits a web page.