3 ms·

I feel like this advice, though not bad, always needs to have some sort of follow-up about how you procure "your" lawyer. Is it best to do it in advance (by hav

by Jach 9y ago

I feel like this advice, though not bad, always needs to have some sort of follow-up about how you procure "your" lawyer. Is it best to do it in advance (by having a list of local names and areas of expertise) or at the time of arrest (will you have access to Google?)? Should you take your chances with either a court-appointed one or whoever has the flashiest advertisements made available to you? Most of us don't have someone to call "my lawyer", so the prospect of invoking a non-existent figure makes it all the more tempting to simply answer the police's questioning.

valuearb 9y ago
If you are talking about the US, If you don't have a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. You still don't have to answer questions and should never answer questions until you can consult with a lawyer. The classic video from a law professor and former criminal defense attorney, with a response from an active police detective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE "I will never talk to a police officer under any circumstances"
- Jach 9y ago
  Yes, I know, I watched that around when it was first posted. But how effective is a court-appointed lawyer going to be, controlled for various types of legal hassle, controlled for (in the case of an accusation) actual guilt and innocence? In a case of refusing to disclose a password (or even admit the existence of a password, saying literally nothing), are you going to trust the court appointed lawyer or (if you could procure them) someone at the EFF to better represent you? All lawyers have to meet certain obligations but that doesn't mean they're all equal. Given that most people talk too much to the police most of the time without dire consequences (police have a lot of flexibility in what they can do with your volunteered information, it's a two-edged sword) a more careful cost-benefit analysis of saying nothing or saying certain things is irresistible to smart tech people. If you're going to take the principled 'never talk under any circumstances' approach you need to have thought of various situations so you can make that principle work the most for you and not let it become an unnecessary cost.

by Jach 9y ago

valuearb 9y ago

If you are talking about the US, If you don't have a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. You still don't have to answer questions and should never answer questions until you can consult with a lawyer. The classic video from a law professor and former criminal defense attorney, with a response from an active police detective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE "I will never talk to a police officer under any circumstances"

Jach 9y ago
Yes, I know, I watched that around when it was first posted. But how effective is a court-appointed lawyer going to be, controlled for various types of legal hassle, controlled for (in the case of an accusation) actual guilt and innocence? In a case of refusing to disclose a password (or even admit the existence of a password, saying literally nothing), are you going to trust the court appointed lawyer or (if you could procure them) someone at the EFF to better represent you? All lawyers have to meet certain obligations but that doesn't mean they're all equal. Given that most people talk too much to the police most of the time without dire consequences (police have a lot of flexibility in what they can do with your volunteered information, it's a two-edged sword) a more careful cost-benefit analysis of saying nothing or saying certain things is irresistible to smart tech people. If you're going to take the principled 'never talk under any circumstances' approach you need to have thought of various situations so you can make that principle work the most for you and not let it become an unnecessary cost.