4 ms·

> When someone gets questioned by the police, you expect the person to tell the truth. If the police gets a hint that your smartphone might have significant evi

> When someone gets questioned by the police, you expect the person to tell the truth. If the police gets a hint that your smartphone might have significant evidence of some sort of crime, isn't it reasonable to comply with the request? A person does not have to testify against oneself. This principle stands in the USA and Finland for sure (that I know of), I'd expect it to stand in Norway as well.

sweden 9y ago
Well, if you saw something happening and you tell the police that you didn't see anything happening, isn't that obstruction of justice? We could apply the same thing to your smartphone: if you were taking pictures of some view and you happened to catch something on camera which you didn't reveal to the police, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice as well?
- Retra 9y ago
  Those are quite different, as it is very easy to take a picture without seeing it, or take a picture and not notice something in it. You'd have to intentionally fail to reveal information. And for that to carry any weight, the police should have to show that you had that information in the first place. If they knew you were filming a crime and you said you saw nothing, that should not be obstruction. It's just suspicious. It should be grounds for a warrant, which could be used to establish that you had captured the evidence and lied. Then it's obstruction.
- noinsight 9y ago
  I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Norway As a third party witness it is different, at least in Norway. > In general, anyone is required to appear before the courts and give testimony, except dictated otherwise by the law Nonetheless: > §123: A witness may refuse to answer questions leading to self-incrimination either for the witness itself, or for anyone related to the witness as described by §122

sweden 9y ago

Well, if you saw something happening and you tell the police that you didn't see anything happening, isn't that obstruction of justice? We could apply the same thing to your smartphone: if you were taking pictures of some view and you happened to catch something on camera which you didn't reveal to the police, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice as well?

Retra 9y ago
Those are quite different, as it is very easy to take a picture without seeing it, or take a picture and not notice something in it. You'd have to intentionally fail to reveal information. And for that to carry any weight, the police should have to show that you had that information in the first place. If they knew you were filming a crime and you said you saw nothing, that should not be obstruction. It's just suspicious. It should be grounds for a warrant, which could be used to establish that you had captured the evidence and lied. Then it's obstruction.
noinsight 9y ago
I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Norway As a third party witness it is different, at least in Norway. > In general, anyone is required to appear before the courts and give testimony, except dictated otherwise by the law Nonetheless: > §123: A witness may refuse to answer questions leading to self-incrimination either for the witness itself, or for anyone related to the witness as described by §122