http//
Quite disturbing misuse of terrorist legislation. The man was the director of a legal firm, and said his iPhone and MacBook contained legally privileged material, which as anyone knows is exempt from search and seizure.
He was subject to an unwarranted search and would not hand out his passcode for those reasons.
He is now convicted of a terrorist offense and subject to all of the reporting and monitoring requirements of a terrorist.
I find this a real misuse of powers and understandable why people are angry that terrorist hysteria is being used to break people's privacy and other rights.
It is disturbing, but perhaps taking 30,000 privileged documents to the middle east for a wedding wasn't the best idea.
While digging deep into my non lawyer archives I'm thinking that the legally privileged area or material IS subject to search and seizure as long as it falls within the scope of the warrant. IF it were not then everyone would just put there illegal stuff in a "legally privileged" section and never worry again. I would think the Court would appoint a Special Master to review that section only to confirm that illegal material did not exist in those areas?
It is disturbing, but perhaps taking 30,000 privileged documents to the middle east for a wedding wasn't the best idea.
It's just a fact these days that people take their computer and phone with them when they are going away for a period of time. People have work and stuff they can't be away from for too long. I'm often on the move and take a laptop/tablet with me as well as my phone of course as most people do. I have privileged and sensitive documents on there that I could face legal or professional consequences for if I gave out freely - apparently I now face being prosecuted as a terrorist if I hesitate in doing so.
If it were a case involving a warrant and all the usual presumptions of innocence and rights against unreasonable searches without grounds for a suspicion then I might be slightly less disturbed by all this. But it seems now it just takes one person to say 'you could be a terrorist', then if you opt to stand your ground on your privacy rights and protect your private material they will make you a convicted terrorist as has happened here.
I hope his appeal is successful. Give me a petition and I'll sign it, but the way our rights are going even doing that will probably be a terrorist offense soon!
It is disturbing, but perhaps taking 30,000 privileged documents to the middle east for a wedding wasn't the best idea.
It's just a fact these days that people take their computer and phone with them when they are going away for a period of time. People have work and stuff they can't be away from for too long. I'm often on the move and take a laptop/tablet with me as well as my phone of course as most people do. I have privileged and sensitive documents on there that I could face legal or professional consequences for if I gave out freely - apparently I now face being prosecuted as a terrorist if I hesitate in doing so.
If it were a case involving a warrant and all the usual presumptions of innocence and rights against unreasonable searches without grounds for a suspicion then I might be slightly less disturbed by all this. But it seems now it just takes one person to say 'you could be a terrorist', then if you opt to stand your ground on your privacy rights and protect your private material they will make you a convicted terrorist as has happened here.
I hope his appeal is successful. Give me a petition and I'll sign it, but the way our rights are going even doing that will probably be a terrorist offense soon!
Its a slightly odd case as its using powers only available when someone is entering the country.
You couldn't stop a random person in the street and demand that they open their device or face arrest, in the same way that at Airports security have more rights to search your belongings.
The protection of the confidentiality of the documents doesn't hold up, police have a legal right to seize the documents but cannot review them until an independent barrister has reviewed them and confirmed they are LPP. If it was a case relating to the UK government it would probably hold more water.
and then what would you propose?
sit and wait for a terrorist to continue with his chats to organize an attack?
or let him share information about airport security or sensitive spotsI analyzed phones of unexpected people who then turned out to be pedophiles, with even 40 victims?
how do you think of discovering these things if you deny the chance of investigating random samples?
alternatives?
and then what would you propose?
sit and wait for a terrorist to continue with his chats to organize an attack?
or let him share information about airport security or sensitive spotsI analyzed phones of unexpected people who then turned out to be pedophiles, with even 40 victims?
how do you think of discovering these things if you deny the chance of investigating random samples?
alternatives?
No certainly not, but the point is there was nothing to suggest he did any of those things. See how you feel when you become a victim of that random sampling and have your rights invaded under the excuse that you could be a terrorist or pedophile or whatever, but with nothing to back it up.
i traveled a lot, i got sss on my boarding pass for about 1 year, every time it takes the double of time to pass the securty, but this makes me fell safer, if police asks me the password of my devices, i provide it. i know that the new security measures are not only for terrorism, but to track everybody and every penny.
personally i have no suggestion to avoid this measures, that's why i ask youwhat would you do?
It's simple, without grounds for a suspicion people's rights should be respected. What this is is the erosion of our rights and if we object we become a convicted terrorist. Shocking.