Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: dubious law

  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: dubious law

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    That is an assumption. Certainly in my case I have used several Operating Systems before I ever used Windows and , for example, I do not store anything other than OS "helper" applications like defrag tools, virus killers and the like in "Program Files", every other file goes somewhere more sensible. Likewise I have never used the MyVideos / MyMusic type folders, ever - having already established a folder structure prior to windows adding its own folder layout. So "commonly used" is a complete guess on your part and "hidden" can only be used if there was an actual attempt to hid something - e.g. from using windows own inbuilt "hide" ability for a folder, encryption of some kind, changing the file extension, or even deleting the files to recover them later.
    That's sophistry, old chap. To return to my 'tie' analogy, not everyone uses a tie rack, so one might find ties in the dresser drawer or hanging from the trouser press but putting one in the kitchen is an attempt to hide it. Again, hidden does not mean 'invisible' or even 'well hidden', it just means, hidden. No-one is accusing the guy of being an IT guru so that he would know how to use encryption or other methods of spoofing the operating system, after all.

    Your argument might grow legs if he was an IT professional, like thee.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: dubious law

    [QUOTE=Dreadful Scathe;421841The file extension of course - a "*.doc" search would bring them ALL back regardless of folder. note there is no evidence that he attempted to hide the file by doing something as simple as changing the file extension.

    Apples and Oranges my good man. A file system is just one massive tie rack with labels, and all he did was put it in a certain place on that tie rack - under the "nice tie" label rather than the "garish tie" label that it deserved. Hiding ? I think not.

    Indeed there was compelling evidence that he was inclined to be a bomber based on what he said to others but its still a big jump to say he would actually do it. How many actual bombers go about explaining what they are planning? To people they KNOW are NOT going to agree. A cry for attention? A statement of "look at me" I'm a muslim and I am important. The hidden files thing is a red herring designed to sway the jury a bit. As you say though, why the defense let it stand I don't know.[/QUOTE]

    I think you are just putting too much emphasis on the question of whether the files were hidden.

    The critical factor is 'you have potentially unlawful videos on your hard disk'.
    Response: 'well, I'm curious about what motivates terrorists'.
    Prosecution: 'Here are a bunch of people who give evidence that you told everyone you wanted to be a terrorist, not that you were curious about what motivated them. Why do you have the videos?'
    Response: 'I have nothing to add to my previous explanation' (or) 'They're all lying! All of them! They've always hated me!'
    Prosecution: 'What's the usual place to keep video files?'
    Response: 'Er - I've no idea.'
    Prosecution: 'Very well. Here's an expert who testifies that they would usuall be in the root folder or in My documents or My videos. Where were yours kept?'
    Response: 'Er - in the windows/options/ folder.'
    Prosecution: 'You were trying to hide them'.
    Response: 'Not at all'.
    Prosecution: 'So why did you put them in such an unusual place?'
    Response: 'No reason.'
    Prosecution: 'You must have some reason to put them in this folder - they don't get there on their own, what reason did you have?'
    Response: '?' [whatever he said there, the jury didn't believe him]

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: dubious law

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    It could be. But by definition, if you want to watch them - they have to be on your hard drive. You may never get around to deleting them if you don't need the hard drive space. I have lots of DVDs Ive not even watched or watched once - yet they are still on my DVD shelf.
    If you don't watch them online, you have to tell Windows Explorer where to put them. If he had a reason for choosing a subdirectory of the windows directory (sorry, folders), it wasn't believed!

    E.g. if that's where IE stored those files, presumably all his other downloads would be there too. What? They weren't? Amazing!

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: dubious law

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Can be, but its highly dubious. "Google" and any other search engine will provide you with links to illegal content, which is probably where he got these links from in the first place. Who at google should get 8 years in chokey ?
    As I said though, so does Google. The websites are there for HIM to find before he added links to his site.
    That's just mischeivous. There are no links to any sites on Google's home page unless and until you make a query. You can't hold google responsible for what its search crawlers find otherwise we'd all be sitting here guessing at 256 character URLs for days at a time..

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: dubious law

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    Which is why I said right at the start that I didn't actually think the verdicts reached were wrong.

    But the only difference is the amount of effort. In neither case is the "provider" actually producing, duplicating or distributing the materials themselves. I do agree my paradigm isn't spot on either, but I think it's a lot closer than yours.

    There are forums I post on that don't like links to other 'competitor' sites, and this is the approach I generally take. Some will still take exception though. I wonder what the police would have said in this case, particularly if he'd provided a link to do the google search for them.

    Again, I agree with this. I just don't think that the mere existence of links should be sufficient. Way too easy to get someone else into trouble like that.
    Fair points (except the one about the paradigm - mine is closer)

    But there is nothing in the decision under discussion to suggest that somebody would even be charged for providing a link to a terrorist web site - never mind convicted - if there was nothing else to excite the provisions of the anti-terrorism Acts.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: dubious law

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    Talking of dubious laws... Because if you've forgotten the password, you're stuffed, basically.

    And after all, pretty much every website you use where a password is required has a mechanism for getting a password reminder. Because people do, routinely, forget passwords.

    I've never heard of anyone using PGP without using way more bits than needed for security (barring unpublished breaks in the algorithms, of course). People who use PGP tend to go for overkill, basically.
    It's prolly safe to say this guy was no geek - he had a whole week to delete files on his PC and they recovered the lot. Probably thinks PGP is angel dust.
    If they thought it worth it, I dare say they'd go for rubber hose decryption just as readily. Or, to parallel a recently published and then "classified" case in the US, they might tell him they'd make sure the Egyptian security forces would give his family there hell unless he cooperated.
    I think it fair to say that extrapolating from the Bush regime's disgusting record on human rights erosion and torture to how it's done her in the UK is a tad unreasonable...

  7. #27
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: dubious law

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    It's prolly safe to say this guy was no geek - he had a whole week to delete files on his PC and they recovered the lot. Probably thinks PGP is angel dust.
    Seeing as I was talking about the law in general, not its application to one individual, this isn't exactly relevant.

    I think it fair to say that extrapolating from the Bush regime's disgusting record on human rights erosion and torture to how it's done her in the UK is a tad unreasonable...
    Absolutely. Here in the UK, we'd never consider that someone might have less rights because they're a suspected terrorist. Heavens, go down that road, and you might end up shooting innocent people who happen to be on the wrong tube at the wrong time.

  8. #28
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: dubious law

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    That's sophistry, old chap. To return to my 'tie' analogy, not everyone uses a tie rack, so one might find ties in the dresser drawer or hanging from the trouser press but putting one in the kitchen is an attempt to hide it.
    But it has to go somewhere in the file system..and...nah you're right...

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I think you are just putting too much emphasis on the question of whether the files were hidden.
    Prosecution: 'What's the usual place to keep video files?'
    Response: 'Er - I've no idea.'
    Prosecution: 'Very well. Here's an expert who testifies that they would usuall be in the root folder or in My documents or My videos. Where were yours kept?'
    Response: 'Er - in the windows/options/ folder.'
    Prosecution: 'You were trying to hide them'.
    Response: 'Not at all'.
    Prosecution: 'So why did you put them in such an unusual place?'
    Response: 'No reason.'
    Prosecution: 'You must have some reason to put them in this folder - they don't get there on their own, what reason did you have?'
    Response: '?' [whatever he said there, the jury didn't believe him]
    Thats just it - there is nothing "unusual" about putting files in a directory separate from other files - whatever it's called. The "expert" is only saying that HE wouldn't put the files there. To use your own analogy, putting a tie in a kitchen drawer may be "odd" ...but hiding ? maybe thats where you were standing when you took it off, its evidence of nothing at all and certainly won't back up "terrosit" claims.

    Incidentally i got called up for jury duty, well the initial "available" letter anyway I hope its a computer related case Are you allowed to heckle expert witnesses ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    If you don't watch them online, you have to tell Windows Explorer where to put them. If he had a reason for choosing a subdirectory of the windows directory (sorry, folders), it wasn't believed!
    Folder/Directories, matters not 2 random clicks and he was there, no reason needed.

    E.g. if that's where IE stored those files, presumably all his other downloads would be there too. What? They weren't? Amazing!
    If it asks you every time, it makes sense he would be consist even if it was a random dir he had used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    That's just mischeivous. There are no links to any sites on Google's home page unless and until you make a query. You can't hold google responsible for what its search crawlers find otherwise we'd all be sitting here guessing at 256 character URLs for days at a time..
    But google are clearly even more evil, they Do block sites for communists regimes so surely if ANY terrorist sites come up they are liable for each one

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: dubious law

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    Seeing as I was talking about the law in general, not its application to one individual, this isn't exactly relevant.
    The law always comes down to applying a set of general principles to a particular set of facts.
    What I was adverting to was the fact that I read some of DS' observations as being unreasonable in the context of this guy, who clearly wasn't as PC-savvy as him (or even me). For such a person, hiding might well constitute putting the files where you wouldn't normally expect them to be. So his degree of IT knowledge is relevant to the degree of disguise he employed.
    Absolutely. Here in the UK, we'd never consider that someone might have less rights because they're a suspected terrorist. Heavens, go down that road, and you might end up shooting innocent people who happen to be on the wrong tube at the wrong time.
    There's a difference between (at worst) some rogue policemen and (at best) a bunch of incompetent policemen - that's us in the UK - and getting the White House legal counsel to write an opinion that strapping people to a plank and then dipping them under water until they suffocate, or making them take up a stress position for several hours, 'does not constitute torture'.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: dubious law

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Thats just it - there is nothing "unusual" about putting files in a directory separate from other files - whatever it's called. The "expert" is only saying that HE wouldn't put the files there. To use your own analogy, putting a tie in a kitchen drawer may be "odd" ...but hiding ? maybe thats where you were standing when you took it off, its evidence of nothing at all and certainly won't back up "terrosit" claims.
    On its own, it's not good evidence of anything. But taken along with the rest of the evidence, I would certainly accept that (without explanation) it corroborates, in a minor way, the rest of the evidence.
    But google are clearly even more evil, they Do block sites for communists regimes so surely if ANY terrorist sites come up they are liable for each one
    That's an excellent point. But since they have gazillions of dollars to fund legal action I don't think we'll see it argued in court any time soon.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Jokes
    By TheTramp in forum Fun and Games
    Replies: 3144
    Last Post: 1st-October-2012, 03:31 AM
  2. A new law has been expounded
    By Barry Shnikov in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 6th-March-2007, 08:31 PM
  3. Employment law
    By straycat in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 13th-October-2006, 03:52 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 1st-July-2005, 05:58 PM
  5. Murphy's Law of dance...
    By Franck in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10th-May-2002, 01:49 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •