Man Jailed For Refusing To Reveal USB Password 374
judgecorp writes "Syed Hussain, already serving time for helping to plot attacks against UK targets, got another four months for refusing to divulge the password of a USB stick the police and GCHQ wanted to examine. The USB was believed to contain data about a suspected fraud unconnected with national security, and Hussain claimed to have forgotten it under stress, He later remembered it and it turned out to be a password he had used on other systems investigated by the police."
Re:Cry me a fucking river... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, those libtard founding fathers and their prohibition against self-incrimination. What a bunch of moonbats.
Re:Cry me a fucking river... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is in the U.K.
Re:Cry me a fucking river... (Score:2, Insightful)
We are constitutionally protected against self-incrimination. While you are correct that in America, he'd probably get charged with obstruction of justice, that would just show how far outside its constutional authority the US government operates.
Re:So the USA is all libertard? (Score:4, Insightful)
It was a pretty obvious reference to the American Founding Fathers (the UK founding fathers would make no sense in this context) and the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. The fact that it's in the UK means that the American Founding Fathers and Constitution is irrelevant to this story.
Re:Cry me a fucking river... (Score:2, Insightful)
As the US government operates outside of my interpretation of its constitutional limits, it can only be considered by me to be a criminal organization.
FTFY.
Re:Cry me a fucking river... (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't broken, unless you can't think for yourself and need to be told what to think and believe.
Re:So the USA is all libertard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we do think those rights should apply outside the US. Mainly because we've thought those were natural (or god-given, depending on preference) rights, not privileges provided by government, since our country's conception.
Re:Cry me a fucking river... (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFS: "already serving time for helping to plot attacks against UK targets"
It is irrelevant to consider a past criminal record. This is a new case, and this case is not regarding terrorist activities but a fraud-related charge. This means that case-law is being created: "even in cases where the charges are only fraud-related, a defendant no longer has the right to remain silent in the UK".
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is why the UK has become a Police State: it started with the slippery slope of "protect the children against porn and terrorism", and now two things have happened:
- You no longer have the right to remain silent;
- Everything you do on the web can and will be censored by the Chinese^H^H^H UK Government;
No way that I am ever going to do business with a British entity. Once upon a time they were a symbol of courage and freedom, today they are the symbol of oppression and prime example for China and North Korea.
Re:So the USA is all libertard? (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no such thing as a natural or god given right, they are all rights we grant each other.
Re:Good news !! GCHQ couldnt crack the password (Score:2, Insightful)
"Really, it's not the worst law in the world": No, it just forces otherwise innocent people to lie.
Re:So the USA is all libertard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we do think those rights should apply outside the US. Mainly because we've thought those were natural (or god-given, depending on preference) rights, not privileges provided by government, since our country's conception.
Actually not quite. The American Constitution is a contract between american citizens (aka The People) of what you promise not to do to each other. The US Government is not conceived of as an independent entity with its own identity but an emergent property of The People consenting to collect their rights together for the benefit of all The People, based on the pooling of their individual sovereignty. 'We The People' refers to American citizens.
Consequently, since people in other countries didn't sign on to The American Constitution, they haven't made any promises to you of which of your rights they wont violate and you have absolutely no expectation of your contract with your fellow Americans being honoured, also you are not bound by the Constitution to respect the rights of foreigners.
There is however an expectation that anything the American Government has promised to do towards foreign nations it will honour, because The People of 1 nation can freely enter into an agreement with The People of another nation, which is why American Treaties actually form part of the law of the land (and it says this in the Constitution). This, for instance, means the US government must honour the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights inside the borders of any nation that is a signatory to it because the US is a signatory to it.
The bottom line is that the Constitution is a written contract between The People. The US government doesn't claim to be bound to always respect inalienable rights, but only whatever it expressly agreed to respect.
At the very most some foreign government can violate your so called inalienable rights and you could launch a civil lawsuit (or a revolution) against it for being wronged and a US court might agree with you. But nothing in the Bill of Rights claims that all of the rights contained therein are all inalienable rights.
Re:Cry me a fucking river... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's your wife or girlfriend the proper response is "Shake it!" you have now successfully avoided answering and changed the subject.
Whatever you do, don't break out with some rap "I like big butts and I cannot lie" it's the same as saying yes and it's kind of dorky.
Re:Cry me a fucking river... (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, no.
The Constitution cannot be amended by act of Congress. It can only be amended by the votes of 3/4 of the individual States.
Congess may PROPOSE Amendments, but the act of proposing such does not guarantee that they'll be enacted.
In addition, a Constitutional Convention may be called by the States to propose Constitutional Amendments. If those Amendments are then ratified by 3/4 of the States, then Congress and the rest of the Federal Government just has to suck it up....