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

I face investigation for terrorism

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#431

Post by boppo1 »

coolThingsFirst wrote: post #387
boppo1 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No country is free anymore. I was just thinking about this, imagining being indefinitely detained for terrorism because 4chan is in my browser history[0]. I'd take the fifth, and they would charge me with a crime, and so, the US Constitution is basically void. But then I wondered: was it ever really not? Was there ever a time I could have relied on legal justice if I happen to be in an unsympathetic jurisdiction? Be…

Why is 4chan so dangerous? Isnt it just an image board?

It's kinda like reddit in that there's multiple boards with a broad array of topics. A few of the boards regularly have threads with pretty extreme racism/hate. Recently the president of a Detroit synagogue was stabbed to death outside her home and there were multiple threads openly celebrating the murder. But elsewhere on the site people are sharing clips of cute cows doing cute cow things.

As a more specific example of why it's 'dangerous', a recent meme I've seen a bunch tells the reader that if they are drafted (in a theoretical future US draft), the moral thing to do is to shoot officers as soon as you get a rifle.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#432

Post by stef25 »

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #364
kypro wrote: post #4

> I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act > I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer. > I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information. > I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this. This is what I find so terrifyin…

Is there any 'legal' way to get around sharing a password if asked to? I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else. Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL

VeraCrypt has a plausible deniability feature.

May not be tight enough for the NSA but could work for some glorified traffic cops at the airport.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#433

Post by pcthrowaway »

darksoulpants wrote: post #420
skrebbel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?

I think it’s universal. It started in the United States though. Look at this case: Frazier v. Cupp (1969). That is what started it all. Many other nations picked up on it. This case was argued before the Supreme Court. In hindsight we can see that police are very dishonest, lying, thugs. They have no real ethics. FBI was caught sleeping with female “suspects”’for intelligence. Think about that. Fucking for intelligen…

> They have no real ethics. FBI was caught sleeping with female “suspects”’for intelligence. Think about that. Fucking for intelligence. They were exploiting women

I assume you're talking about Mark Kennedy[1], but it's even worse! He was dating one of the people of interest for over a year while undercover, and I believe he was married at the time too

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/epxbpj/kate-wilson-mark-kenn...

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#434

Post by stef25 »

skrebbel wrote: post #28
fullarr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an FYI Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out. He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored

> Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?

Law enforcement isn't a big cuddly teddy bear that's there to protect and serve. It can be, but it can also not be ...

You don't accidentally end up in a situation where cops tell you that you don't have the right to a lawyer. The west still isn't Iran.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#435

Post by pcthrowaway »

woooooo wrote: post #424
shiroiuma wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it Israel's fault that they're embargoed by other neighboring states? And what's been keeping all the other states from supplying those basic essentials? Last I heard, they got a lot of humanitarian supplies from many other countries worldwide, even as far away as Japan. AFAICT, Israel would rather just not deal with them at all. Countries shouldn't be forced to annex their neighbors and administer them. Didn'…

The only other neighboring state is Egypt and they get billions of dollars a year from the US as a condition of their peace with Israel. Between that and the blockade of their coast, they're 100% sealed off from any trade, fishing or immigration that Israel doesn't choose to allow. Maybe "occupation" isn't the right word but they don't get to act like an independent state.

I'm not arguing that Gaza has been occupied, but was there anything stopping from leaving by sea, besides access to boats and not having recognized passports?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#436

Post by marcus_holmes »

Terr_ wrote: post #381
lmm wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same as any other large organisation. Someone at the top says "oi, so-and-so has been a real pain lately huh". Someone one level down says "is there anything we can do about so-and-so?". Someone the next level down says "well, let's start a file on so-and-so, see if he's up to anything, no harm in that". And then since UK antiterrorism law is terribly written (or brilliantly written, depending on your perspe…

I wonder if something for just this scenario exists in the archives of the political comedy Yes [Prime] Minister . It feels like there should be.

See also Private Eye. Just because it's funny doesn't mean it's not true.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#437

Post by crote »

hcfman wrote: post #197
the-dude wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in The Netherlands it is the same. I always assumed it to be universal.

More than that. In the Netherlands the prosecutors are allowed to lie under oath in court. You might then ask "Well what value has the court then? Good question. The thing is, this doesn't just work against suspects. This works when prosecutors lie in court in order to protect the informants that they have been using in an illegal manner to commit crimes against non-criminals. And every single person in all of the pa…

> In the Netherlands the prosecutors are allowed to lie under oath in court.

Do you have a source for that? I live in The Netherlands, and I have never heard of this.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#438

Post by zardo »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #395
OhioMan2943 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any 'legal' way to get around sharing a password if asked to? I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else. Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL

They'll just imprison you until you unlock the device (or for up to 5 years, if you'd prefer to just wait it out)

Is that per password?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#439

Post by zardo »

mnw21cam wrote: post #127
semanticist wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." (The 'Police Caution', see: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights ) This is, as I understand it, very different to the US right against self-incrimination where the courts are specifically not allowed to infer guilt from silen…

Except (as I hear it) that's not even true in the US. Apparently, it's not enough to stay silent - you actually have to say that you are exercising the right to be silent, otherwise they are allowed to infer guilt from silence. In a very similar way, if I were ever detained in this manner in the UK, I'd be very likely to say "I am not refusing right now to answer your questions. However, since I cannot trust you to t…

Even the right to a lawyer has been denied because a judge chose to endorse a police interpretation of "I want a lawyer dawg" as a nonsense request for a dog-attourney.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#440

Post by fooker »

atoav wrote: post #353
greggsy wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re deliberately ignoring an honest explanation.

With every law that is as... vague.. as this, I always ask myself one question: "If the Nazis would rise to power, how badly could they abuse it by doing only slight changes to how it's interpreted?" Here the answer is: Pretty bad Your laws don't have to survive a well meaning democratic government. They have to survive one that is cunning, evil and tries to actively abolish the Rule of Law and democracy. This is a b…

An evil government is not going to obey the laws anyway, so might as well make the well meaning government more effective to prevent the other one.
Post reply on HN