Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 208 posts

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#171

Post by redis_mlc »

40four wrote: post #96

I don’t get it. I’m mostly very skeptical of the claim of making a positive fingerprint ID through a picture. Has anyone ever heard of this before? Fingerprints are known to be very unreliable and subjective. I’m not convinced this is actually what happened, and not just a cute story pushed by the British law enforcement. Edit: I did find a couple articles talking about technique of lifting prints from photographs, s…

IIRC a top European politician's, maybe Angela Merkel's, prints were lifted from a foto a few years ago and used for something, so it's not a new or rare thing - examples come up in the press about once a year.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#172

Post by kergonath »

bobthepanda wrote: post #108
pjc50 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been various rather nasty trials in which vital defense info was ruled both secret and inadmissible; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity covers the most famous examples, particularly Matrix-Churchill which I'm just about old enough to remember. I believe ECHR 1998 has improved the situation a bit, although the existence of a court outwith the UK to which people can appeal their human rig…

Railing against the ECHR is arguably one of the things that sparked Brexit.

Which is very funny because the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. But hey, that’s brexit logic for you.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#173

Post by kergonath »

bobthepanda wrote: post #139
nojokes wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate this a little?

A key point of Brexit is to "restore sovereignty." At least some of that ire is directed at the ECHR, which can issue rulings that override British rulings and parliament. One of the examples of this occurring is when the ECHR overturned a British ban on voting for prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2) Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet. https://…

> Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet.

Independence from the ECHR does not follow from leaving the EU. To get out of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK would have to leave the Council of Europe. The Convention is also in the Brexit agreement. Though of course whether the tories will follow the provisions of the treaties they sign is another matter.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#175

Post by webmobdev »

rootsudo wrote: post #159
PeterisP wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO the concept of "parallel construction" is mostly an USA specific thing because USA legal doctrine is heavy on fourth amendment application and "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine that can make evidence inadmissible depending on how it was obtained. But all those things and rights are specific to USA, not in general, and not even for other common law countries. As far as I understand, such "fruit of the poison…

Great explanation, I understood parallel construction and chain of custody but did not know it was due to "fruit of the poisonous tree."

Watch this episode of The Good Wife (season 05, episode 13): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3540606/ ...

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#176

Post by gorgoiler »

Forgive the hot-take-paranoia, but this tale is exactly what the parallel constructors want you to think.

In reality the criminal was traced using* a government mandated BT Internet router backdoor / super grass / chemtrail deployed insect drones.

*one of the above is not serious.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#177

Post by webmobdev »

pc86 wrote: post #45
PeterisP wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO the concept of "parallel construction" is mostly an USA specific thing because USA legal doctrine is heavy on fourth amendment application and "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine that can make evidence inadmissible depending on how it was obtained. But all those things and rights are specific to USA, not in general, and not even for other common law countries. As far as I understand, such "fruit of the poison…

I agree with you on the legal doctrine piece, but most in the US (myself included) would say that the US Constitution doesn't grant anybody any rights. It codified inalienable rights that exist for all people merely by virtue of their existence. Every person has the right to speak their mind, to defend themselves, to not incriminate themselves, etc. etc. with all the caveats and potential nullifications that accompan…

    It codified inalienable rights that exist for all people merely by virtue of their existence ... The fact that some countries may violate those inherent rights is irrelevant
Ok, so what is your opinion on the trial and detention of various foreign "terrorists" in the USA who are / were in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base military prison? If we go by the very US laws you believe apply to every human being in the world, that implies the US government tortured, denied due process and illegally detained and treated many foreign citizens differently because they were not American citizens.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#178

Post by kergonath »

akarma wrote: post #100
pc86 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not meaning to imply that the USC applies to anyone other than US citizens from a legal standpoint. Not only am I not a lawyer, but I'm meaning to draw a distinction between legal rights and human rights in this context. I'm saying that the rights codified in the USC are inalienable rights. The US government isn't granting the freedom of speech, and it can't take it away. The right exists because you're a human b…

As an American happy to live in a country with all our protected freedoms, there are some parts of the Constitution that other reasonable countries don't agree with, and that's fine. There are other cultures with other value systems and they're no less valid. (1) Freedom of Assembly, part of our 1st Amendment, is one example. A French court recently decided a protest in Paris could not take place. The court rationale…

> The French Constitution allows freedom of speech, but not freedom of assembly, and Americans are often confused by that.

It is a subtle issue, but under French law assembling and protesting is covered under free speech, which is a human right.

However, another principle is that all rights are limited when they are in conflict with other people’s fundamental rights, one of them being to live in peace. So in case of protests they have to register beforehand to ensure that there would be some police to prevent violence. That’s the theory anyway. They are not quite as murderous as American policemen, but French ones can also be violent and heavy handed.

For the same reason some protests can be forbidden. Usually, it is very difficult as the local government needs to demonstrate a significant risk of unacceptable violence. It is easier these days (in the last 2 decades or so) since there are “exceptional” measures in force to limit terrorism. And of course now there are public health restrictions because of COVID.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#179

Post by webmobdev »

akarma wrote: post #100
pc86 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not meaning to imply that the USC applies to anyone other than US citizens from a legal standpoint. Not only am I not a lawyer, but I'm meaning to draw a distinction between legal rights and human rights in this context. I'm saying that the rights codified in the USC are inalienable rights. The US government isn't granting the freedom of speech, and it can't take it away. The right exists because you're a human b…

As an American happy to live in a country with all our protected freedoms, there are some parts of the Constitution that other reasonable countries don't agree with, and that's fine. There are other cultures with other value systems and they're no less valid. (1) Freedom of Assembly, part of our 1st Amendment, is one example. A French court recently decided a protest in Paris could not take place. The court rationale…

    Right to bear arms, our 2nd amendment, is another example.
From what I've read about this arcane piece of legislation, some historians have suggested it stemmed from the fear of slave owners who believed that freed black man may choose to exact revenge on them and they feared that others in their country, who favoured abolition of slavery and criticised them for owning slaves, may not stand with them to offer protection against such revenge attacks. Thus, many spoke in favour of the right to bear arms, stoking fears of a future conflict between the white man and the black man.

Re: Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

#180

Post by kergonath »

pjc50 wrote: post #60
pc86 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not meaning to imply that the USC applies to anyone other than US citizens from a legal standpoint. Not only am I not a lawyer, but I'm meaning to draw a distinction between legal rights and human rights in this context. I'm saying that the rights codified in the USC are inalienable rights. The US government isn't granting the freedom of speech, and it can't take it away. The right exists because you're a human b…

Yes, that's the usual human rights rationale but it's practically a theological one - that the rights have always existed and exist even if you can't see or action them. Interestingly ECHR doesn't bother to define what a right is or where they come from, leaving the implicit position being simple legal realism that the rights exist because this document says they do and the parties agreed to it. https://www.echr.coe.…

> Interestingly ECHR doesn't bother to define what a right is or where they come from, leaving the implicit position being simple legal realism that the rights exist because this document says they do and the parties agreed to it.

That’s a strange take. It is basically a rewriting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. It even says so right there in the preamble. And it’s a law, part of an international treaty, not a history book. So where the origins of these rights are is beside the point and a legal description is not really surprising.

Post reply on HN