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

461–470 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#461

Post by sobkas »

scotty79 wrote: post #372
remram wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having withheld evidence is the crime, they will be able to prove you did that. Even if you were otherwise innocent.

How could they tell if you withheld anything or genuinely forgot? It's a stressful situation. I'm not sure if I'll remember even my mother's name in such situation.

> How could they tell if you withheld anything or genuinely forgot? It's a stressful situation. I'm not sure if I'll remember even my mother's name in such situation.

You are not giving them password so you are withholding it from them. Law doesn't have exemption for whatever excuse you are trying to use. So it's jail time for you. There is no way to prove you forgot it. And this law logic is "guilty until proven innocent".

What bothers me even worse is situation when you think you knew password but it didn't worked. Had similar situation with LastPass, I was entering one password and no matter what it failed to open vault. Tried different spellings nothing, only after a month of frantic thinking I entered correct one. Most likely I would be accused of lying to cops

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#463

Post by dragonwriter »

shiroiuma wrote: post #401
hef19898 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egypt isn't getting the same crticism because: a) they never occupied Gaza to begin with b) they have yet to bomb Gaza Egypt gets the same criticism when it comes to the embargoe so. But you know who is stopping Egypt from annexing (interesting choice of words, by the way) Gaza? Israel. And you actually have not the slightest idea what apartheid is and how it works.

a) Egypt used to own Gaza (they lost it in a war they started, along with a big chunk of Sinai, which was later returned in a peace deal) b) Gaza doesn't shoot rockets into Egypt regularly, so of course they don't bomb them c) I've never seen it d) Last I heard, Israel tried to get Egypt to take Gaza back. How is Israel preventing Egypt from taking them? I do know what apartheid is: it's what happened in South Africa…

> I do know what apartheid is: it's what happened in South Africa, when two groups of people lived in the very same place (i.e., in the same towns and cities) and were treated differently by the state. It's just like how Black people were treated in the US during the Jim Crow era.

Apartheid was different, it combined a version of the forced relocation and reservation system that the US used for Native Americans (only with the pretense -- with very little substance, but merely as an excuse for the central government to disclaim responsibility -- that the reservations ("bantustans") were independent states rather than territories of subordinate sovereigns) with the racial discrimination in services and facilities within the rest of the country proper that Black Americans faced in the Jim Crow era.

> Egypt used to own Gaza

Egypt occupied Gaza, the same as Israel later did, but did not claim it, establishing a separate protectorate (it was merged into the UAR with Egypt and Syria, and from which Syria later rebelled, but even then it was considered distinct from Egypt, and it was formally transferred to the authority of the PLO (though practical governance was exercised by Egypt) after 1964.

> Last I heard, Israel tried to get Egypt to take Gaza back.

Egypt can't take it back, because Egypt never claimed it.

The UAR can't take it back, because the UAR has been disbanded.

Egypt could reoccupy it, but why would they want to? (Especially given that the people there don't want Egypt to do so, and have been rather...prickly...about occupations imposed on them.)

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#464

Post by sobkas »

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 is basically allowed to lie to you

> Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?

In court: You: They lied to me about my right to a lawyer Cop: No we didn't, also he admitted during this talk to being on the site of theft and taking of someone else property.

Now who will Jury or Judge believe, cop or a thief?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#465

Post by sobkas »

sobkas wrote: post #464
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?

> > Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you > Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing? In court: You: They lied to me about my right to a lawyer Cop: No we didn't, also he admitted during this talk to being on the site of theft and taking of someone else property. Now who will Jury or Judge believe, cop or a thief?

> > > Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you

> > Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?

> In court: You: They lied to me about my right to a lawyer Cop: No we didn't, also he admitted during this talk to being on the site of theft and taking of someone else property.

> Now who will Jury or Judge believe, cop or a thief?

And cops lie because no one is willing to prosecute them.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#466

Post by jjgreen »

acdha wrote: post #444
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

This is a legal problem, not a technical one. If you’re required to turn something over your choice is to do it or sit in jail (or worse if you get the full NYPD/Gitmo treatment). If you’re really lucky, you can convince them that whatever they’re looking for doesn’t exist but consider how hard it is to prove a negative like that. In most cases, that devolves to the second outcome above, possibly with some destructio…

This is a technical problem, not a legal one. Don't take your phone.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#467

Post by BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 »

KenArrari wrote: post #449
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…

I ran into a similar problem entering the US on a ferry from the Bahamas. I think I may have been misled but apparently if you're on the border you aren't allowed to refuse to talk/refuse searches/etc. So they forced me to search my phone and spent about 6 hours interrogating me about my political opinions, family history, etc.

If you're a US citizen, they have to let you in – eventually. In the meantime you may be sitting in a room without access to your phone.

With customs everywhere, you're usually better off answering their questions without asking why they want to know. Coming back from a visit to family, they wanted to know my three sisters' ages among other irrelevant stuff.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#468

Post by jjgreen »

junofan wrote: post #408
derivagral wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how formatting will go, from desktop twitter: Craig Murray - @CraigMurrayOrg To be entirely plain. I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation. But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support. If that is a crime, send me back to jail. 7:24 PM · Oct 14, 2023 · 167.9K Views

Dang, he forgot to mention that one in the article…

Section 1 extends the offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation in section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to cover expressions of support that are reckless as to whether they will encourage others to support the organisation;

according to https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism

So the question is whether "I will support Hammas" constitutes "inviting support". That's not clear-cut to me. Probably be able to get him on section 12 though, "reckless" is a movable feast.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#469

Post by BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 »

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)

If you are involved in causes frowned upon by the government of the country you are about to enter, you may want to wipe your phone on the plane.

It's more difficult for three letter agencies if you fill the memory with random stuff and encrypt before wiping.

If you don't want your phone used in impersonation while out of your hands, adb shell can be used to take out IMEI, BT and WiFi.

Simpler to just swap mainboards - available on Alixxxx

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#470

Post by golemiprague »

bhouston wrote: post #405
golemiprague wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judea and Samaria (aka west bank) were part of the land promised to the Jews by the league of nations in the San Remo convention, which is binding by international law and originally also included Jordan. Considering the Arabs have never agreed to the partition plan of 1948 it is well within Israel right to contest this area and the common definition of "occupied territories" is not that clear cut considering no coun…

What the hell is this wacky answer? People that argue that one side deserves the land because of x, y and z while the other side doesn’t are part of the problem. Your view of the world is a huge part of the problem. It is partisan and zero sum and justifies discrimination and ethnic cleansing using pseudointellectualism and cherry picked historical facts.

[dead]
Post reply on HN