3 ms·

Since I was one of the ones doubting that he'd really been arrested in the previous thread I should throw in a mea culpa at this point. It seems like they arre

by hugh3 15y ago

Since I was one of the ones doubting that he'd really been arrested in the previous thread I should throw in a mea culpa at this point. It seems like they arrested him primarily because they wanted the evidence on that iPad to charge the other guy. I assume that the actual one-on-one demonstration had taken place on that iPad? The details aren't given, but it kinda makes sense. The justification they used to arrest him is iffy, and I suspect they know it, but it's just strong enough that it doesn't count as a false arrest (though they're certainly not going to bother to charge him with receiving stolen goods). While some people are using this as an opportunity to spread the "don't talk to police" meme, I'd like to use it as an opportunity to spread the "don't do illegal stuff with your computer or let other people do illegal stuff with your computer" meme, as this seems to be an easier way to avoid running afoul of the law.

dkarl 15y ago
You seem pretty determined to give the police the benefit of the doubt; why? It's a lot easier to believe that someone at Facebook called them up and made a lot of scary noises about "information about the commission of a crime" and "threat to the personal safety of our customers" and "possible dissemination of proprietary data and trade secrets in the form of illegal hacking techniques." (Maybe that's not impressive, but I'm just an amateur; a lawyer could sound much more scary while being a lot less specific.) Maybe whoever was in charge of the investigation was too easily cowed, too scared of bad PR, too easily panicked by vague specters of anarchy, or simply too trusting of a successful and established business. That seems pretty believable to me, and I haven't heard an equally plausible explanation. (I agree its a little silly that "don't talk to the police" dominates this page so much it's a pain to find the posts about the actual article.)

by hugh3 15y ago

dkarl 15y ago

You seem pretty determined to give the police the benefit of the doubt; why? It's a lot easier to believe that someone at Facebook called them up and made a lot of scary noises about "information about the commission of a crime" and "threat to the personal safety of our customers" and "possible dissemination of proprietary data and trade secrets in the form of illegal hacking techniques." (Maybe that's not impressive, but I'm just an amateur; a lawyer could sound much more scary while being a lot less specific.) Maybe whoever was in charge of the investigation was too easily cowed, too scared of bad PR, too easily panicked by vague specters of anarchy, or simply too trusting of a successful and established business. That seems pretty believable to me, and I haven't heard an equally plausible explanation. (I agree its a little silly that "don't talk to the police" dominates this page so much it's a pain to find the posts about the actual article.)