It doesn't matter what country you are in - there is no such thing as a "friendly conversation" with any level of law enforcement - there are so many laws about everything and anything and you can be contributing to your own arrest and prosecution without even realizing it, doesn't matter if you are actually not guilty, why set yourself up?
Laws aren't necessarily logical or fair and you might never grasp the danger of that until you are on the wrong side of one. Unless you are purposely trying to get arrested to make a protest, stop chatting with cops! Their policy is typically "arrest anyway, get them in the system, let the courts sort it out later".
Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning.
What's really surprising in this case is only that this particular person didn't grasp the concept. He probably got to walk away only because they knew the ipad data could make much better evidence to arrest others than forced testimony. But they obviously used his arrest to leverage him giving it up without a fight.
Tell them what you have too by law (and make sure you know enough of your local law to be reasonably sure where you are required to answer and where you are not), and never ever ever "just chat".
It's not that "the cops are out to get _you_", it's mostly that the metrics and motivations they're operating under while doing their job will _very_ rarely end up even aligning with your civil rights, never mind aligning with your best interests...
They're not joking when they say "anything you say can _and will_ be used against you." That very much includes anything you say before they miranda you...
I strongly second this. Watch the videos linked in the article, which includes a former police officer. Unfortunately, your best bet is always to just shut up. It is too easy to incriminate yourself in something unrelated that you didn't even know was illegal.
Worse: it's easy to incriminate yourself in something that is not even illegal. You could say that you were not at the store that was robbed, but actually at your grandmother's place two hours away. However, if someone (incorrectly) believes that they've seen you, the police now has (incorrect) evidence that you are lying.
Excellent video. Also, print out the ACLU bust card and carry it with you. It's folds up into a wallet-sized cheat sheet to remind you of your rights when you're stopped by police:
Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning.
It's also easier for the cops to flat out lie on the police report once you start talking. If you refuse to talk and ask for your lawyer you have removed all opportunity for the cops to gather evidence directly from you and/or simply lie about it later. It's much easier to defend knowing you said nothing rather than you talked for an hour and can't quite remember just how you said something.
That may be true, but it's not a solution. Personally, I want to live in a world where law enforcement is the ally, not the enemy. And if this is not possible, that's the bigger problem.
The job of law enforcement is to prevent crime, to detain criminal suspects and to gather evidence.
If the police are talking to you then by definition they are trying to incriminate someone, that's their job. Police officers are obliged to use any legal means available to obtain evidence - anything less would be negligence. As they are obliged by law to tell you, anything you say or do can be held against you in a court of law. You have a legal right not to incriminate yourself, but you don't have the right to un-incriminate yourself in hindsight, even if you incriminated yourself only inadvertently. If you have evidence that proves you did not commit a criminal offence, then it is in your best interest to use your right to legal representation to ensure that you give that evidence as clearly as possible and do not say anything that could undermine that evidence.
Not talking to cops is a basic principle of privacy, like shredding your credit card bills or using a password on your e-mail account. Once information is out there, you can't get it back, so it's your duty to preserve it at all costs.
If talking to the cops made sense, the cops would be doing a lousy job.
>If talking to the cops made sense, the cops would be doing a lousy job.
This is a poor attitude and probably explains why dealing with police in the US is such a big deal. It doesn't have to be like this, and isn't in a lot of other countries.
It's like that in every country on earth, more so in most countries other than the US. Much of South America still operates under Napoleonic law in which there is a presumption of guilt. I'm British and would never dream of speaking to a police officer anywhere in Europe without legal representation. American police are slightly more corrupt than the first-world average and sentencing is unusually punitive (especially for drug offences), but by global standards the US legal system isn't exceptionally bad.
How could we possibly architect a legal system in which it doesn't make sense to speak to a lawyer before giving evidence? Unless we massively simplify the law and train every single citizen in the law to a fairly high standard, the benefit of representation will persist. The system recognises this and enshrines the right to legal representation.
>It's like that in every country on earth, more so in most countries other than the US.
This claim is even more extraordinary than the first. I'm living in Switzerland and I can tell you dealing with the cops is not a problem here because they use their heads (instead of just trying to close a case). Of course if they think you're a scum bag then you won't get the benefit of the doubt, but I can understand that.
>but by global standards the US legal system isn't exceptionally bad.
To be honest, I would trust the US system more than I would the UK system because at least if something stupid happens I would expect to be able to sue someone for lots of cash. The UK could just D-notice me away.
> Not talking to cops is a basic principle of privacy, like shredding your credit card bills
I'm shredding my credit card bills so that the "bad guys" don't get their hands on them. What we disagree on is whether law enforcement _has_ to be one of the bad guys. I certainly do not disagree on whether they are right now - I've downloaded my share of music and smoked the occasional pot.
But can't their incentives be changed?
I think they can. Dropping prosecution on a handful of "crimes" would most likely instantly slash over 90% of the problem. Instituting a number of well-thought policies would most likely chip away at the rest 10%. I don't really see any reason why it'd be a futile endeavor...
"The job of law enforcement is to prevent crime, to detain criminal suspects and to gather evidence."
Unfortunately, the job of law enforcement is in fact to enforce the law. The same law which is written by people you don't know and are not asked your opinion on. The same law which is influenced by people richer and more connected than you. A government consists of a group of people who threaten other people with violence (through the police) when they do not agree with their actions. The only way to have real justice is to not have a police force, or a government, for that matter.
It's simply a lack of contradiction. If murder is considered bad then murdering to prevent murder is an injustice. If kidnapping is considered negative then taking people away and putting them in cages is an injustice. In other words, it's taking away all of the "if's" and "buts" in what we decide is right. It's a pure (as in pure functional programming) approach to morality. When you get rid of side-effects then things become far more elegant. We'll never stop all of those bad things from happening but the least we can do is to not do them ourselves.
Yes, get rid of punishment. In the context of the bigger picture, people commit crimes either out of a need for resources or because of mental illness. The former is easily solved if we pull our collective heads out of our collective asses and pay for the transportation costs associated with getting food to people who need it. The latter tends to become worse when it is punished, it is best treated with that word beginning with 'L' which everyone seems to be so afraid of. To put it another way, crime is a symptom and the current legal system treats the effects and not the cause.
And the job of every corporate employee -- and especially corporate officers -- is to maximize profit, however that is achieved.
Two scenarios that have serious, counter-productive effects upon society.
Police used to non infrequently be called "peace officers" ("officers of the peace").
We used to use the term, with at least some genuine meaning, "good corporate citizen".
Assign skewed metrics, and you'll get skewed results. Judging someone solely on their arrest record, or on the financial profit they acquire, misses much of what people contribute in life -- or don't.
Law enforcement is tasked with enforcing the laws. Until there are no laws on the books that you disagree with or that could be used to suppress you, then you can never claim them as an ally. More like a fair-weather friend.
>I want to live in a world where law enforcement is the ally, not the enemy.
well, we know that the law enforcement is ally to some, it is just not to you or to me. Everybody wants to have the Power on their side, just not everybody can by definition.
Think of every other job in the world where people cut corners and slack and get corrupt. Everyone from the guy who has to flip burgers to brain surgeons. Now imagine them with the ability to completely screw up your life at their whim, from arrest to prosecution to judging.
Law enforcement is a massive, for-profit industry. Everyone is out to improve their arrest/prosecution record. If you can't afford to defend yourself, you are an easy target. Even if you win, you still lose for having to go through the process.
Personally, I want to live in a world where law enforcement is the ally, not the enemy.
I would like that too, the problem is that because a cop wields so much power one bad apple really does ruin the bunch. As a citizen you never know if you're going to get the cop who does his job well and isn't out to get people or the cop who is drunk with power and can't wait to flex on someone.
One strange aside to this is from the journalists perspective. My mom was a reporter for many years in a small town and talked frequently to the cops. She was good friends with some of them and not so good friends with others—due to politics in a small town. Through this prospective, I understand why the reporter was talking with the cops, because he was thinking as a report instead of a suspect.
I understand you pointing it out. Unfortunately, the article and arrest was made in Australia. Different laws and cultures apply differently. Refusal to comply may indicate guilt.
I guess it depends on what a "friendly conversation" entails. Speaking to a cop outside the club or in front of the bar has been pretty friendly. Speaking to a cop that was interested in finding the whereabouts of a friend wasn't friendly at all.
Once they get their bead on you it can be very uncomfortable situation. And this has been in a few different countries.
This is a very good example of why you should never, under any circumstances, use a proprietary computing device that cannot be fully encrypted where you alone hold the decryption key.
The convenience these devices provide comes at the cost of your personal privacy and security. You basically give up control of your data when you decide to use an iPad. Most people just don't realize it.
I really wish the device manufactures would allow, open-source, transparent whole device encryption that can be externally validated (Droids may have the capability already thanks to Linux and dm-crypt). In general, user's don't demand it, so the Apples of the world have no incentive to do it. All the while, they provide full access to the device's secret/undocumented data recovery/snooping features to governments leaving their user's private, personal data easily accessible.
Apple has had FileVault for a while, and Lion will have whole disk encryption when it's released. Corporations of the world demand these things and you'll start seeing them once they can start dictating feature demands more and more. Apple does add encryption here and there, but only in small bits unfortunately.
A few years ago Rio Tinto (a massive mining company) flat out banned staff from using iPhones because they weren't encryptable. This came about because an executive based in China was arrested and his iPhone taken.
The Queensland police have form for overzealous prosecution. A couple of years ago they arrested and charged a man with publishing child-abuse material after passing on a viral video that had already been shown on national TV: http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/net-video-crime-e...
Moral of the story: don't use the Internet in Queensland.
I'm just posting this recount
because discussion on the previous article (and assertions by the tweeting police) suggested he wasn't arrested.
and I read here
http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-story-arrest-disp...
that the queensland police thismorning tweeted again:
"Our bad @bengrubb was arrested for questioning briefly Our tweet last night was based on information provided at the time Apologies,"
its absolutely infuriating that cops can be so drunk with power that they can be so publicly blasé with the fact that they are fucking with someone's life and liberty.
Detective Superintendent Brian Hay today likened the issue to receiving stolen goods, but refused to go into details of Fairfax journalist Ben Grubb's case.
"Let me give you an analogy. Someone breaks into a house and they steal a TV and they give that TV to you, and you know that TV is stolen, and you apply it to your own use ... that's receiving stolen property," he said. [0]
And that's EXACTLY why talking to the police about IP cases in particular is such a catastrophically bad idea.
Most of these guys have absolutely no understanding of the law, which is hardly their fault. After all, IP law was established decades ago, in the pre-digital world. For most of its evolution, it functioned as a highly obscure branch of industrial law, used almost exclusively to govern relations between corporate publishers with large legal and clearance departments. It was manifestly NOT designed to govern the conduct of private individuals.
In other words, police are as well-equipped to deal with this as they are to handle international trade disputes, which is why 'additional training' isn't the solution, since no amount of training can turn a blue collar union guy into the kind of highly educated corporate lawyer whose domain this really is.
I agree with every other poster here - if you really want to balance your desire to be a good citizen with a measure of intelligent self-preservation, say you're happy to help with their investigation. Ask them to leave a number where they can reach you, and let them know that your legal representative will be contacting them there. Your lawyer can start by insisting that your cooperation is contingent upon a grant of total immunity. If there's any hesitation here, you'll know that actually, their request wasn't so friendly after all, and that they were, in fact, viewing you as a possible suspect the whole time.
There's a great lecture by a law professor on YouTube called "Don't Talk to Police". Watch it for some great insight on this.
A key concept to understand is the phrase "Anything that you say can be used against you." That's a key phrase because of what isn't stated -- that words you say will be not be used to help you. A prosecutor has broad discretion to prosecute, and can (and will) cherry-pick information to use against you.
Most cops and prosecutors are great people to have a beer with, and are not corrupt. But sometimes their position gives them a myopia and they see things or make connections are convenient or expedient. They are also invested with powers that make them extremely dangerous to interact with in many scenarios.
Lots of advice about stonewalling police. Then you get robbed, and imagine your frustration when the neighbors, who witnessed the van pull up while you were away and empty your house, turn their backs and walk back into their houses.
You get the world you're willing to participate in. Enlightened self-interest may be in play here.
To some extent, yes; but in that case the neighbours have much better reasons to think that they are not a suspect than when a police officer starts chatting to them for no apparent reason.
[EDIT: make it clear that I'm referring to the neighbours, was "To some extent, yes; but in that case it's a much more reasonable assumption that you're not a suspect."]
Missed the point: the neighbors are ignoring the police, and you suffer. Now you are frustrated at the advice "don't talk to the police for any reason". Just an example.
Unless, of course, your neighbors consider themselves potential victims as well, and cooperate based on a sense of self-interest, rather than concern for your well-being.
This would also make sense, and just goes to show how the "never talk to the police for any reason" meme is just plain silly, not to mention antisocial and dickish (if nobody ever talked to the police for any reason, then no criminals would ever get locked up). It's just part of a paranoid mindset which gets you karma on the internet but probably doesn't do you any good in the real world.
By all means have your wits around you when talking to the police, especially if you think they suspect you of something, but the police are not out to get their jollies by locking up innocent folks for no reason, and your chance of winding up in prison for a crime you didn't commit based on a random off-hand innocent remark to a police officer is... much lower than other things you hardly ever think about.
Hey, did you know that you have a one in eight hundred chance of getting multiple sclerosis? Go worry about that for a while instead.
As a white, thirty-something, short-haired, middle-class, Prius-driving, native-born American citizen, I would feel okay answering questions. However, I would still be on a hair trigger to lawyer up, no matter what was at stake for the greater good.
I wonder if it's legal to remote wipe your iPad with MobileMe after they've taken possession of it. Or what about "Oh, you're going to arrest me? Can I have one second before you read my rights?" and then wipe it?
This is also why I automatically encrypt all of my incoming email with my public pgp key on the mail server. So any mail sat on my phone/laptop/server is encrypted with my password protected private pgp key (https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_E...)
I'm in the UK, so unfortunately they can demand that I give up my encryption keys and passwords and charge me if I choose to refuse, but at least it will slow them down enough so I can get a lawyer involved. And at least I have the choice of refusing.
>I'm in the UK, so unfortunately they can demand that I give up my encryption keys and passwords and charge me if I choose to refuse
do they have the right to scan your brain if you forgot the password or produce the wrong one under the stress of the arrest (my hands shake, heart races and i have hard time finding insurance card lying in plain view in glove compartment even when i'm having a traffic stop, less hard to imagine how i'd feel when/if i'd be "arrested for questioning")?
No but they will send someone to jail if they refuse to give up the password. Think of it as a contempt charge. If they still can't remember after a few weeks or months, they can be charged again, go back to jail, and then repeat the process until they don't feel like dealing with the situation anymore (theoretically, it could turn into a life sentence composed of multiple smaller sentences).
For example a former Novell executive always emptied his email inbox daily and deleted email after handling said email..he still works for Google
Nothing says that when they get hold of the device that you have to give access to data on that device..however that enters contempt of court grounds if they do not believe the excuse you give for not remembering a password.
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.
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.)
More evidence that the police (and the governments behind them) are out of control. Makes me think you should never answer questions without a lawyer of your own present. Of course, that presents serious problems for the poor.
"the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him."
Fair enough. In the last month I was part of an attempt to empanel a jury (in Texas) for a misdemeanor. We were told that the defendent was defending himself and that in Texas there was no right to an attorney in such cases (I think because the maximum punishment was a fine).
It's been said, but it bears repeating: NEVER talk to police without a lawyer present. Ever. The fact is that the the people interviewing know you law better than you do and know how to gain information they can use against you without you being aware of what's happening. There are people who contend that "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide" but frankly, the risk is too high of having something I said misconstrued. I'd rather look guilty and be free, than know I'm innocent and be in jail.
How long have Australian police been in the habit of reading suspects their Miranda rights (or are they required to)? I'm really curious how that made it from our law to theirs.
1. Always assume that police and computers are a disaster waiting to happen and thus that law officers are often overwhelmed by complexities of computers.
2. Always fight any request to impound any computer device. Its taking control of your property under somewhat shady if not illegal circumstances.
3. Have a business card with someone reachable 24-7 that will go to bat for you and claim that the device in question if company property and cannot be confiscated or impounded.
4. Be a little less naive, as breaking into two FB accounts that I won or control is not illegal, breaking into someone else's is somewhat illegal even for demo purposes. However, what saves this journalist's ass is its just a photo that does not have large company copyrights attached to it.
> 4. Be a little less naive, as breaking into two FB accounts that I own[sic] or control is not illegal, breaking into someone else's is somewhat illegal even for demo purposes.
FaceBook's TOS specifically states that anything uploaded onto their site, including the text of a status update, pictures, videos and comment text, is the irrevocable ownership of FaceBook. This gives them the ability to use your friend's pictures inside targeted ads, as well as take general screenshots of the site that may contain your comments or pictures as marketing tools for their own benefit and not yours.
I wonder if unauthorized access to a FaceBook account is deemed theft of stolen property with the owner of the account as the victim, or if this was to go to court, would FaceBook be in the prosecution chair claiming their property was stolen†. If the latter, does anyone besides FaceBook have any say on how an unauthorized entry to some account should be treated?
†Stolen in this context just means the "downloading" of page assets that occurs when one visits a web page.
Not totally correct. FB wouldn't be able to legally republish your photos on your friend's profiles were it not for a legal grant permitting them to do so. While you are giving them the unrestricted right to do pretty much anything they want with material uploaded to their site, they are not going so far as to claim that you're transferring clear title as well. You remain the copyright holder, they remain a (very privileged) licensee.
The way I understand the story, it's not the researcher who got arrested but an unrelated journalist who covered the story.
The police abused their power and then right out lied about it, only when they get caught in their lie they say oops our bad. This stinks.
Austrialian police just lost a lot of trust and they will have to work hard on getting that back. A first step would be to give the iPad back they stole.
Laws aren't necessarily logical or fair and you might never grasp the danger of that until you are on the wrong side of one. Unless you are purposely trying to get arrested to make a protest, stop chatting with cops! Their policy is typically "arrest anyway, get them in the system, let the courts sort it out later".
Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning.
What's really surprising in this case is only that this particular person didn't grasp the concept. He probably got to walk away only because they knew the ipad data could make much better evidence to arrest others than forced testimony. But they obviously used his arrest to leverage him giving it up without a fight.