5 ms·

Which means that someone who forgets their passcode because of the stress of being arrested and threatened with years in prison could easily be wrongfully convi

Which means that someone who forgets their passcode because of the stress of being arrested and threatened with years in prison could easily be wrongfully convicted. It's a horrible law, even for those who don't care about privacy.

blibble 3y ago
I am not a fan of the RIP Act (and there's plenty more badness in there) but playing devil's advocate, without this specific offence the disclosure sections would be completely ineffectual (remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be made from silence, it is not the US)
- flangola7 3y ago
  If you can't remain silent then what are you supposed to do to not accidentally incriminate yourself?
  - tristor 3y ago
    This is one of the reasons why other countries outside the US aren't as free as the US, even though the US is a complete mess too in different ways. Freedom of both speech and silence are not really respected in law anywhere outside the US to the extent that they are in the US.
    - kspacewalk2 3y ago
      Many many countries have rules against drawing adverse inferences from silence, including event Scotland, which is part of the UK.
      - midoridensha 3y ago
        Scotland really should leave the UK, and then rejoin the EU. They'd be better off.
        TeaDude 3y ago
        They also have apecific devolved laws that you can be arrested for illegal speech in your own home and your children can be interrogated about it.
        1827162 3y ago
        https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/29/sending-the-thought-polis-into-scottish-homes/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/29/sending-the-thought... Yes, the Scottish Hate Crime bill. And as expected, they are trying to expand it to cover misogyny. So someone's going to end up serving time for a silly joke they made in a pub. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-give-backing-to-make-misogyny-a-hate-crime-0lcfx6wtl https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-give-backing-to-mak... https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/11/why-misogyny-must-not-become-a-hate-crime/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/11/why-misogyny-must-n... https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/16/dont-make-misogyny-a-hate-crime/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/16/dont-make-misogyny-...
        flangola7 3y ago
        I'm not going to get upset if sexist jerks get a little readjustment.
        tristor 3y ago
        > I'm not going to get upset if sexist jerks get a little readjustment. If we break down what you're saying, you're saying it's acceptable for the government to punish and "readjust" (euphemism for re-educate?) someone for mere speech, including /in the "privacy" of their own home/? Attitudes like this are unfortunately prevalent in Europe, or these types of laws wouldn't pass. I reiterate my earlier comment, that only the US has any real protection for freedom of speech.
        midoridensha 3y ago
        It's not just the US: Japan has freedom of speech too, encoded into its constitution. Arguably, speech is more free here than in the US. Many other things are much more free too, such as being able to drink beer outside, or being able to build what you want on your own land without NIMBYs shutting you down. The only big "freedom" we don't have is being able to carry guns around, but I don't miss that at all.
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      The US has guilty pleas, plea bargaining and entrapment. Next to that the right to avoid self-incrimination, which also exists in a lot of Western country, feels like a footnote.
    - vintermann 3y ago
      The US laws against self-incriminating aren't unique, and many countries go much further. In Norway, you can't be convicted for lying to police and court at all, if it concerns accusations against you or your closest ones (I think that means your spouse and kids/parents in practice), or if it would cause considerable loss of social reputation or welfare of other kinds.
      - georgeplusplus 3y ago
        Define 'many countries'.
        vintermann 3y ago
        Is it really important? I gave an example.
  - barney54 3y ago
    You say nothing about the alleged crime and instead ask for an attorney. Remember this important advice—shut the fuck up. https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o
    - flangola7 3y ago
      That video is about US law. The above comment says shutting the fuck up can be used as a negative inference against you in court.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Not if you get a lawyer, because as soon as your lawyer shows up, they say "My client invokes his/her right to remain silent."
        flangola7 3y ago
        What right to remain silent are you referring to? Can you link it?
- miles 3y ago
  > remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be made from silence, it is not the US Even in the US, the law has changed rather drastically[0]: “The only way to prevent the government from introducing evidence of the suspect's silence at trial is to explicitly invoke (assert) the right to say nothing. In other words, without being warned by the police or advised by a lawyer, and without even the benefit of the familiar Miranda warnings (which might trigger an ‘I want to invoke my right to be silent!’), the interviewee must apparently say words to the effect of, ‘I invoke my privilege against self-incrimination.’” [0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your...
yongjik 3y ago
IANAL but it sounds like this defense would be received about as well as "Your honor, the defendant was in grave stress of being arrested and threatened with years in prison. That's why he completely forgot why and how he parked his car next to Crosby Lake and was walking in the shallow water, carrying an identified bag, at 3am."
- mike_hock 3y ago
  So basically that just proves the parent poster's point because the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was carrying a bag containing a body and the defendant is under no obligation to remember or justify parking his car by the lake at 3am and walking around.
- bippihippi1 3y ago
  The defendant didn't admit to a crime and wouldn't open their house to unreasonable search. how suspicious

blibble 3y ago

I am not a fan of the RIP Act (and there's plenty more badness in there) but playing devil's advocate, without this specific offence the disclosure sections would be completely ineffectual (remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be made from silence, it is not the US)

flangola7 3y ago
If you can't remain silent then what are you supposed to do to not accidentally incriminate yourself?
- tristor 3y ago
  This is one of the reasons why other countries outside the US aren't as free as the US, even though the US is a complete mess too in different ways. Freedom of both speech and silence are not really respected in law anywhere outside the US to the extent that they are in the US.
  - kspacewalk2 3y ago
    Many many countries have rules against drawing adverse inferences from silence, including event Scotland, which is part of the UK.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      Scotland really should leave the UK, and then rejoin the EU. They'd be better off.
      - TeaDude 3y ago
        They also have apecific devolved laws that you can be arrested for illegal speech in your own home and your children can be interrogated about it.
        1827162 3y ago
        https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/29/sending-the-thought-polis-into-scottish-homes/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/29/sending-the-thought... Yes, the Scottish Hate Crime bill. And as expected, they are trying to expand it to cover misogyny. So someone's going to end up serving time for a silly joke they made in a pub. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-give-backing-to-make-misogyny-a-hate-crime-0lcfx6wtl https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-give-backing-to-mak... https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/11/why-misogyny-must-not-become-a-hate-crime/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/11/why-misogyny-must-n... https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/16/dont-make-misogyny-a-hate-crime/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/16/dont-make-misogyny-...
        flangola7 3y ago
        I'm not going to get upset if sexist jerks get a little readjustment.
        tristor 3y ago
        > I'm not going to get upset if sexist jerks get a little readjustment. If we break down what you're saying, you're saying it's acceptable for the government to punish and "readjust" (euphemism for re-educate?) someone for mere speech, including /in the "privacy" of their own home/? Attitudes like this are unfortunately prevalent in Europe, or these types of laws wouldn't pass. I reiterate my earlier comment, that only the US has any real protection for freedom of speech.
        midoridensha 3y ago
        It's not just the US: Japan has freedom of speech too, encoded into its constitution. Arguably, speech is more free here than in the US. Many other things are much more free too, such as being able to drink beer outside, or being able to build what you want on your own land without NIMBYs shutting you down. The only big "freedom" we don't have is being able to carry guns around, but I don't miss that at all.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    The US has guilty pleas, plea bargaining and entrapment. Next to that the right to avoid self-incrimination, which also exists in a lot of Western country, feels like a footnote.
  - vintermann 3y ago
    The US laws against self-incriminating aren't unique, and many countries go much further. In Norway, you can't be convicted for lying to police and court at all, if it concerns accusations against you or your closest ones (I think that means your spouse and kids/parents in practice), or if it would cause considerable loss of social reputation or welfare of other kinds.
    - georgeplusplus 3y ago
      Define 'many countries'.
      - vintermann 3y ago
        Is it really important? I gave an example.
- barney54 3y ago
  You say nothing about the alleged crime and instead ask for an attorney. Remember this important advice—shut the fuck up. https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o
  - flangola7 3y ago
    That video is about US law. The above comment says shutting the fuck up can be used as a negative inference against you in court.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      Not if you get a lawyer, because as soon as your lawyer shows up, they say "My client invokes his/her right to remain silent."
      - flangola7 3y ago
        What right to remain silent are you referring to? Can you link it?
miles 3y ago
> remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be made from silence, it is not the US Even in the US, the law has changed rather drastically[0]: “The only way to prevent the government from introducing evidence of the suspect's silence at trial is to explicitly invoke (assert) the right to say nothing. In other words, without being warned by the police or advised by a lawyer, and without even the benefit of the familiar Miranda warnings (which might trigger an ‘I want to invoke my right to be silent!’), the interviewee must apparently say words to the effect of, ‘I invoke my privilege against self-incrimination.’” [0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your...

yongjik 3y ago

IANAL but it sounds like this defense would be received about as well as "Your honor, the defendant was in grave stress of being arrested and threatened with years in prison. That's why he completely forgot why and how he parked his car next to Crosby Lake and was walking in the shallow water, carrying an identified bag, at 3am."

mike_hock 3y ago
So basically that just proves the parent poster's point because the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was carrying a bag containing a body and the defendant is under no obligation to remember or justify parking his car by the lake at 3am and walking around.
bippihippi1 3y ago
The defendant didn't admit to a crime and wouldn't open their house to unreasonable search. how suspicious