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

Tommy Robinson arrested under Terrorism Act for not unlocking phone

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Tommy Robinson arrested under Terrorism Act for not unlocking phone

#31

Post by yawpitch »

blibble wrote: post #23
fakedang wrote: post #11

Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. Media should call this waste of oxygen by his real name on the headline.

there is no such thing as "real name" or "legal name" in the UK the independent have used the name people would recognise in their headline

In the UK “real name” and “legal name” are just aliases for “your name” which is the identity you’re known by on documents issued by the government and its Home Office, ie your National Insurance record or your UK Passport. Your aliases are not your name unless and until you change that name by deed poll or through marriage / divorce. Your aliases, no matter how well recognized they may be, are not your name.

The idiot whose name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is also known by the alias Tommy Robinson, amongst others. The aliases exist to protect the identity from the legal and moral consequences of the idiot’s speech. While I’m not sure there is value in always reminding every audience of the real identity every alias refers to, in this case he’s got a history of intentional name obfuscation.

Re: Tommy Robinson arrested under Terrorism Act for not unlocking phone

#32

Post by tharant »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22
eschaton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination.

> it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination No? If we do that we render the term meaningless as any incriminating evidence could be termed self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is about speech. Violations of privilege are not self incriminating. Neither is murder. Both are b…

> Self-incrimination is about speech.

Seriously? So,what, mutes can’t incriminate themselves?

Even if you wanna stick to that shaky narrative, consider that text messages are speech. Notes to myself are speech. Pictures in my phone are a form of my self-expression—which is speech. Emails? Speech. Voice recordings? Speech. My ChatGPT history? Speech. My Siri interactions? Speech.

The concept of protection against self-incrimination is deeply rooted in protecting our privacy; I don’t see how they can be separated like you seem to have suggesting here.

Re: Tommy Robinson arrested under Terrorism Act for not unlocking phone

#33

Post by eschaton »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22
eschaton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination.

> it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination No? If we do that we render the term meaningless as any incriminating evidence could be termed self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is about speech. Violations of privilege are not self incriminating. Neither is murder. Both are b…

The right against self-incrimination is about more than speech. The philosophical underpinning is that a person has the right not to be compelled to aid in their own prosecution.

That’s why evidence is seized as a result of a warrant that cannot just be a “fishing expedition.” “We suspect you commit a crime but have no specific evidence or knowledge of specific evidence, let us search for anything that might be evidence” doesn’t fly under such a theory. And a search warrant doesn’t compel the subject to disclose hiding places etc. either (though it probably can compel one to disclose hazards like traps, for safety in the moment).

Re: Tommy Robinson arrested under Terrorism Act for not unlocking phone

#34

Post by pvaldes »

griffzhowl wrote: post #9
pvaldes wrote: post #3

The last phrase shows an interesting problem. Can you be forced to unlock your phone if it contains something that is legally protected as secret, so unlocking your phone you would be breaking the law?.

What information would the state forbid the state to know? The only thing I can think of is if the information is classfied at a higher level than the investigators are authorised to know, but that would be quite an exceptional situation. There's a funny story that Bill Binney tells, the former technical director of the NSA who blew the whistle on the spy programs following the patriot act, about when a couple of FBI…

Documents related with the defense strategy on another trial, or proofs disclosing facts under secrecy of summary maybe.

Re: Tommy Robinson arrested under Terrorism Act for not unlocking phone

#35

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tharant wrote: post #32
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination No? If we do that we render the term meaningless as any incriminating evidence could be termed self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is about speech. Violations of privilege are not self incriminating. Neither is murder. Both are b…

> Self-incrimination is about speech. Seriously? So,what, mutes can’t incriminate themselves? Even if you wanna stick to that shaky narrative, consider that text messages are speech. Notes to myself are speech. Pictures in my phone are a form of my self-expression—which is speech. Emails? Speech. Voice recordings? Speech. My ChatGPT history? Speech. My Siri interactions? Speech. The concept of protection against self…

> text messages are speech

Yes. If an officer tells you to admit guilt in a text message, that’s self incrimination. If they find an incriminating text, that’s just incrimination. It may also be an illegal search. But that’s orthogonal. (The closest they come to each other is in entrapment.)

Re: Tommy Robinson arrested under Terrorism Act for not unlocking phone

#36

Post by JumpCrisscross »

eschaton wrote: post #33
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination No? If we do that we render the term meaningless as any incriminating evidence could be termed self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is about speech. Violations of privilege are not self incriminating. Neither is murder. Both are b…

The right against self-incrimination is about more than speech. The philosophical underpinning is that a person has the right not to be compelled to aid in their own prosecution. That’s why evidence is seized as a result of a warrant that cannot just be a “fishing expedition.” “We suspect you commit a crime but have no specific evidence or knowledge of specific evidence, let us search for anything that might be evide…

> philosophical underpinning is that a person has the right not to be compelled to aid in their own prosecution

No, you have to cooperate with subpoenas. Protections against self incrimination are much more narrow. Legally and historically.

Re: Tommy Robinson arrested under Terrorism Act for not unlocking phone

#37

Post by blibble »

yawpitch wrote: post #31
blibble wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no such thing as "real name" or "legal name" in the UK the independent have used the name people would recognise in their headline

In the UK “real name” and “legal name” are just aliases for “your name” which is the identity you’re known by on documents issued by the government and its Home Office, ie your National Insurance record or your UK Passport. Your aliases are not your name unless and until you change that name by deed poll or through marriage / divorce. Your aliases, no matter how well recognized they may be, are not your name. The idi…

> In the UK “real name” and “legal name” are just aliases for “your name” which is the identity you’re known by on documents issued by the government and its Home Office, ie your National Insurance record or your UK Passport. Your aliases are not your name unless and until you change that name by deed poll or through marriage / divorce. Your aliases, no matter how well recognized they may be, are not your name.

this is simply not true

this is the official position of the foreign office: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Re: Tommy Robinson arrested under Terrorism Act for not unlocking phone

#38

Post by fakedang »

imperial_march wrote: post #21
fakedang wrote: post #11

Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. Media should call this waste of oxygen by his real name on the headline.

Were you also cheering on the locking up of assange? The revelations of governments breaking laws and people being crushed - and the high price for people revealing it - always seem to attract an 'INGSOC'esque discreditation campaign

Assange is not comparable to Yaxley-Lennon in any way.
Post reply on HN