UK: Teenager jailed for refusing to disclose password

[Dauphin]

"pub takings"? Illegal gaming/gambling proceeds? What we would call a "bookie"?

Pub takings is the cash sales of the pub for beer and food etc.

Bookie is a common term all over.

[Wezil]

Sorry, I misread.

I think your reporting rules are stricter than ours. I'm still trying to think of a non-professional requirement here.

[Dauphin]

The scope for the public is actually narrower than I thought. It also has to be linked to terrorism.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Scottish law is even tougher. From the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010-

31
Failure to report serious organised crime .(1)

This section applies where— .
(a)
a person (“the person”) knows or suspects that another person (“the other person”) has committed— .
(i)
an offence under section 28 or 30, or .
(ii)
an offence which is aggravated by a connection with serious organised crime under section 29, and .
(b)
that knowledge or suspicion originates from information obtained— .
(i)
in the course of the person’s trade, profession, business or employment, or .
(ii)
as a result of a close personal relationship between the person and the other person. .
(2)
In the case of knowledge or suspicion originating from information obtained by the person as a result of a close personal relationship between the person and the other person, this section applies only where the person has obtained a material benefit as a result of the commission of serious organised crime by the other person. .
(3)
The person commits an offence if the person does not disclose to a constable— .
(a)
the person’s knowledge or suspicion, and .
(b)
the information on which that knowledge or suspicion is based. .
(4)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for not making the disclosure. .
(5)
Subsection (3) does not require disclosure by a person who is a professional legal adviser (an “adviser”) of— .
(a)
information which the adviser obtains in privileged circumstances, or .
(b)
knowledge or a suspicion based on information obtained in privileged circumstances. .
(6)
For the purpose of subsection (5), information is obtained by an adviser in privileged circumstances if it comes to the adviser, otherwise than for the purposes of committing serious organised crime— .
(a)
from a client (or from a client’s representative) in connection with the provision of legal advice by the adviser to that person, .
(b)
from a person seeking legal advice from the adviser (or from that person’s representative), or .
(c)
from a person, for the purpose of actual or contemplated legal proceedings. .
(7)
The reference in subsection (3) to a constable includes a reference to a police member of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. .
(8)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— .
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both, .
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

[Dinner]

I'd love to the the Patriot Act and similar laws all get repealed.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You had laws around failure to report serious crimes before the Patriot Act, Oerdin.

[Proteus_MST]

I realise that, but the law is wrong in my opinion.

It was designed for counter terrorism, and has been used for spying on people's rubbish before now.

And I wonder what keeps them from misusing the law in order to commit (industrial) espionage.
I mean imagine the scenario where some foreigner living in britain sends out encrypted business eMails containing trade secrets (for example blueprints of some (not yet patented) advanced motors his company developes and wants to sell).
So, what keeps the MI-x (whatever the number of the department is, that is responsible for industrial espionage) from demanding the decryption of the eMails under some feigned accusations

[Dauphin]

I would have thought that overt espionage like that is not what security services normally go for. They prefer to be covert.

[Proteus_MST]

Well, if people aren´t nice enough to give out their trade secrets in plaintext eMails,
other people interested in said secrets might use other measures to get them.
Espcially if they can still stay hidden, while at the same time discrediting their victims, by using false pretences like accusations of pedophilia or terrorism

[Dinner]

You had laws around failure to report serious crimes before the Patriot Act, Oerdin.

No one has claimed he failed support a serious crime or any crime. What has been claimed is that he really didn't forget his 50 character password and that he needs to incriminate himself to avoid jail. Either way the state hasn't even charged him with the supposed offense they were originally looking for.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

No one has claimed he failed support a serious crime or any crime.

It would be pointless to claim it because, unlike America, England has no such law.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

No one has claimed he failed support a serious crime or any crime. What has been claimed is that he really didn't forget his 50 character password and that he needs to incriminate himself to avoid jail.

That's why we have juries. The jury had the option to find him not guilty, and didn't.

[Dinner]

Did he actually get a jury trial? It sounds like this is a sentence imposed by a judge.

[Darius871]

self-incriminate

self-incriminate

self-incriminate

self-incriminate

self-incriminate

self-incriminate

Ok just for the record, Elok gets the lawyer seal of approval, yay. The SCOTUS has repeatedly explained that at least in the constitutional sense, if not the Webster's sense, "self-incrimination" does not mean any compelled affirmative act by an accused which directly adds evidence to the government's case, such as complying with a search warrant (or authorized warrantless search), providing tissue and fluid samples, providing fingerprint samples, presenting yourself before a line-up, writing out a handwriting sample, disclosing non-privileged documents fraught with past self-incriminating statements, etc. etc. etc.

I suppose you could argue, hoping to pluck at enough originalist heartstrings to maybe get Thomas and Scalia to pull a Kyllo, that giving the police a filing cabinet key is a flawed analogy because speaking is the quintessential type of self-incriminating activity the Framers targeted, but that distinction has already been addressed in other contexts; for example Hiibel v. Nevada made clear that being forced to speak your name is never a Fifth Amendment violation, U.S. v. Wade made clear that being forced to speak a voice sample for identification is never a Fifth Amendment violation, etc. etc. etc. This guy would be out of luck under at least U.S. "self-incrimination" law, not sure what the limeys do though.

[DaShi]

The problem is that the 50 character password is actually a text of him admitting guilt.