So then the Police entered the building ostensibly to break up an illegal party, and then decided to confiscate the computers while they were there? That sounds like a fishing expedition to me. I don't know what the law is in Sweden, but in the US there are 4th amendment protections against that sort of thing.
Sweden does not have any such protections. All evidence is admissible in court no matter how it was obtained, legally or illegally. Of course if you can prove that the evidence was obtained illegally you can file charges for that, but the evidence will still be used.
Sweden does not have any such protections. All evidence is admissible in court no matter how it was obtained, legally or illegally. Of course if you can prove that the evidence was obtained illegally you can file charges for that, but the evidence will still be used.
Does this include statements made under duress?
Yes. There are two parts to this: parties in a trial are free to present any evidence to the court, no matter how it was obtained.
However, the court alone decides the value of the evidence presented, and thus the weight it places in such evidence.
Obviously statements from people suspected to be coerced in some way is not considered high-value evidence.
Example: 2009 April FBI raid on Core IP Dallas data center http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=546067 > [Core IP CEO] Simpson added that there were 50 businesses without access to email and data due to the raid. "If you run a datacenter, please be aware that in our great country, the FBI can come into your place of business at any time and take whatever they want, with no reason," he wrote. Bruce Sterling foreshadows…
In case of encrypted data, can't the US government legally force one to disclose passwords following a raid? In other words they might raid a company, they find encrypted hard drives so they ask for passwords. Then does revealing passwords fall under "self-incriminating" or not revealing them fall under "obstructing justice"?
Theoretically, a password is protected by the fifth amendment only in very limited circumstances, basically when the mere knowledge of it would be evidence against you. If your equipment is seized legally with a court issued warrant, you'd normally be expected to disclose it. However, if your defense is that your system was compromised and encrypted files were put there by an attacker, there is an issue of self-incrimination and fifth amendment protections may apply. It would then be up to the judge to rule on it.(corrections welcome, IANAL)
It's nice how they don't mention that the police found 6 pipebombs.
I seriously doubt that those were in the hackspace. Sounds more like a serious case of having the hackspace in the wrong building with the wrong neighbours.
Well, I don't know who had them, but Sydsvenskan (Swedish newspaper) published the list of impounded goods, and there were 6 pipeboms on there.
Why do they have cut away locks to practice lock picking and blank keys and stuff like that? Sounds kind of shady.
I don't think that's fishy, it sounds like normal hackerdom to me. I have a nice set of lock picks and have enjoyed messing around with opening locks for years and years. For me, it's a perfectly normal part of exploring the man-made world.
In case of encrypted data, can't the US government legally force one to disclose passwords following a raid? In other words they might raid a company, they find encrypted hard drives so they ask for passwords. Then does revealing passwords fall under "self-incriminating" or not revealing them fall under "obstructing justice"?
Theoretically, a password is protected by the fifth amendment only in very limited circumstances, basically when the mere knowledge of it would be evidence against you. If your equipment is seized legally with a court issued warrant, you'd normally be expected to disclose it. However, if your defense is that your system was compromised and encrypted files were put there by an attacker, there is an issue of self-incri…
I wonder if stating that the password it's self is incriminating information would also allow it to fall under Fifth Amendment protection. AKA, the password is a sentence that contains incriminating information.
I it could be argued that pleading the fifth for every single question is allowed under the Fifth Amendment because what information you think might be incriminating is also incriminating information. AKA where on December 2, 1952 and you plead the fifth. But you are willing to say where you where on the December 1, 1952 and December 3, 1952.
It's nice how they don't mention that the police found 6 pipebombs.
As you seem so concerned with the "facts", a more accurate description would be a "hose bomb" as it's made with a garden hose or similar tubing. The effect is more of a firecracker than an actual bomb.
