Home Forums |
|
|
Topic History of: Greetings and a news item Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
veritas |
what a creep of a cop :
""It sends a robust message out to those intent on trying to mask their online criminal activities that they will be taken before the courts with the ultimate sanction, as in this case, being a custodial sentence."
while the guy obviously broke the law by not disclosing the key (and that's a suspect law)..there isn't a shred of proof he broke the law with on-line activities.
the cop quotes the court as the 'ultimate sanction'..his superiors should put him through school again so he can learn the difference between the offense committed and those that may be in the officer's feverish imagination. |
JK2006 |
So much for the "never give your password to anyone" advice! |
DJones |
This case is also very strange:
"Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation. Police seized his computer but could not access material on it as it had a 50-character encryption password. Drage was convicted of failing to disclose an encryption key in September. He was sentenced at Preston Crown Court on Monday"
Teenager jailed over computer password refusal |
JK2006 |
Agree SJB - a very strange case; more to it than meets the eye. |
SJB |
Hello to all here. I've read the site for a little while and agree with the concerns expressed about police misconduct, legal and social problem phenomena etc. I wish the best of luck to all those embroiled in any adverse circumstances.
This story interested me
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news...-sex-86908-22591150/
It's not clear to me what this chap has actually done to warrant years of imprisonment. He's invited two girls into his car - not a crime as far as I'm aware (or is the law different in Scotland?). However, he seems to have been sentenced on the basis of what might have happened in the future - but didn't.
He "...admitted committing a breach of the peace..." and could serve a life sentence for this purely because of the sexual element. Hmmm something's not quite right here.
In this case, the individual does seem to wish to address some of his personal preferences, but the power the state has to apply such a penalty in such loosely circumscribed circumstances worries me greatly. |
|
|
|