5 ms·

In the UK, somebody can send you an obscene file over Whatsapp, unsolicited, and get you convicted without you even opening it. [0] We have sleepwalked into b

by J-dawg 10y ago

In the UK, somebody can send you an obscene file over Whatsapp, unsolicited, and get you convicted without you even opening it. [0] We have sleepwalked into being a police state and barely anyone seems to care. Police have also started trawling Reddit to look for thought crimes. [1] [0] http://m.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/05/whatsapp_smut_conviction/ http://m.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/05/whatsapp_smut_convicti... [1] https://m.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/53y1wi/a_redditor_was_arrested_and_fined_for_an/ https://m.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/53y1wi/a_reddi...

kbart 10y ago
From article no. 0: "<...> police stopped them for unrelated matters and discovered the shock images upon inspecting their mobile phones" What?? So police in UK can now ask to inspect inside your phone without any warrant or even reason?
- J-dawg 10y ago
  It looks that way. Does anyone know what the UK legal position is about forcing someone to unlock their device? I know you can be jailed here for refusing to hand over an encryption key. I don't know whether your passcode / fingerprint counts as an encryption key in they eyes of the law.
  - kbart 10y ago
    If you refuse to hand over encryption keys in court, after you'd been officially charged that's one thing (though not saying that it's justified either), but if you've been stopped for i.e. mundane traffic check and asked to hand over your phone for inspection, that's totally wrong and oppressive.
threeseed 10y ago
You should try reading what you post first. 1. They weren't convicted of any crime. 2. The person was charged because he racially slandered someone. Not because of a thought crime.
- bpodgursky 10y ago
  The phrase "thought crime" refers to opinion without action, not literally thinking. You're just being pedantic. "Oh it's not a crime to think, just to let other people know what you're thinking". Do you seriously think that makes any sense?
- J-dawg 10y ago
  1. The first sentence in the article is "Two UK men have been convicted of possessing extreme pornography". Am I missing something? 2. Why should this be illegal? Yes, it's offensive. But I don't think offending someone should be a crime.
ensignavenger 10y ago
I can't believe they both pled guilty! Is it possible in the UK to appeal a conviction if you plead guilty? IANAL, but I think their are some narrow cases where it can be done in the US, for example if you can show that your legal counsel did not provide competent representation.
- J-dawg 10y ago
  It is puzzling that they both pleaded guilty. They also both represented themselves in court, so it seems they weren't getting any legal advice at all. Perhaps they weren't entitled to legal aid? I was under the impression that anyone charged with a criminal offence was entitled but perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe they just wanted to get the whole thing over with quickly and not face further embarrassment? It's a good example of how these types of charges could easily be used by the authorities to intimidate people. The damage is done whether they are convicted or not. To answer your question, it seems you can appeal regardless of how you pleaded [0]. But you have to do it within 28 days. [0] https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sentence-conviction/crown-court-verdict https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sentence-conviction/crown-...
whamlastxmas 10y ago
The UK is all sorts of fucked up. You're not lawfully allowed to withhold passwords to encrypted data you're in possession of, meaning someone can slip an encrypted USB drive in your bag, you get arrested, and sent to jail for god knows how long because you're unable to give a password to a drive that isn't yours (and maybe doesn't have any password).
- J-dawg 10y ago
  I'd never considered that set of circumstances before. The politicians who voted it into law probably didn't consider it either. And that's exactly the problem: we have layer upon layer of vague and badly-written legislation, which ends up creating terrifying loopholes like the one described above. My tinfoil hat paranoia is not quite at the level of thinking they're doing it on purpose (although I wonder sometimes). But it's easy to see that indiscriminate surveillance combined with these vague laws create a situation where anyone could be victimised by the authorities. It's a totalitarian dictator's dream.

by J-dawg 10y ago

kbart 10y ago

From article no. 0: "<...> police stopped them for unrelated matters and discovered the shock images upon inspecting their mobile phones" What?? So police in UK can now ask to inspect inside your phone without any warrant or even reason?

J-dawg 10y ago
It looks that way. Does anyone know what the UK legal position is about forcing someone to unlock their device? I know you can be jailed here for refusing to hand over an encryption key. I don't know whether your passcode / fingerprint counts as an encryption key in they eyes of the law.
- kbart 10y ago
  If you refuse to hand over encryption keys in court, after you'd been officially charged that's one thing (though not saying that it's justified either), but if you've been stopped for i.e. mundane traffic check and asked to hand over your phone for inspection, that's totally wrong and oppressive.

threeseed 10y ago

You should try reading what you post first. 1. They weren't convicted of any crime. 2. The person was charged because he racially slandered someone. Not because of a thought crime.

bpodgursky 10y ago
The phrase "thought crime" refers to opinion without action, not literally thinking. You're just being pedantic. "Oh it's not a crime to think, just to let other people know what you're thinking". Do you seriously think that makes any sense?
J-dawg 10y ago
1. The first sentence in the article is "Two UK men have been convicted of possessing extreme pornography". Am I missing something? 2. Why should this be illegal? Yes, it's offensive. But I don't think offending someone should be a crime.

ensignavenger 10y ago

I can't believe they both pled guilty! Is it possible in the UK to appeal a conviction if you plead guilty? IANAL, but I think their are some narrow cases where it can be done in the US, for example if you can show that your legal counsel did not provide competent representation.

J-dawg 10y ago
It is puzzling that they both pleaded guilty. They also both represented themselves in court, so it seems they weren't getting any legal advice at all. Perhaps they weren't entitled to legal aid? I was under the impression that anyone charged with a criminal offence was entitled but perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe they just wanted to get the whole thing over with quickly and not face further embarrassment? It's a good example of how these types of charges could easily be used by the authorities to intimidate people. The damage is done whether they are convicted or not. To answer your question, it seems you can appeal regardless of how you pleaded [0]. But you have to do it within 28 days. [0] https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sentence-conviction/crown-court-verdict https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sentence-conviction/crown-...

whamlastxmas 10y ago

The UK is all sorts of fucked up. You're not lawfully allowed to withhold passwords to encrypted data you're in possession of, meaning someone can slip an encrypted USB drive in your bag, you get arrested, and sent to jail for god knows how long because you're unable to give a password to a drive that isn't yours (and maybe doesn't have any password).

J-dawg 10y ago
I'd never considered that set of circumstances before. The politicians who voted it into law probably didn't consider it either. And that's exactly the problem: we have layer upon layer of vague and badly-written legislation, which ends up creating terrifying loopholes like the one described above. My tinfoil hat paranoia is not quite at the level of thinking they're doing it on purpose (although I wonder sometimes). But it's easy to see that indiscriminate surveillance combined with these vague laws create a situation where anyone could be victimised by the authorities. It's a totalitarian dictator's dream.