Coup in the USA?

Arkady Arkright · Jan 20, 2021

Soen Eber said:
So now we've established that McConnel knows ~~the difference between good and evil~~ when the side on which his bread is buttered changes.

FIFY

Arkady Arkright · Jan 20, 2021

Innula Zenovka said:
The default here, and I assume in the US too, is that you don't normally need to talk to the authorities if you don't want to, unless a court tells you there's a reason in law why you must, even though your unwillingness to cooperate may justifiably raise their suspicions (and may even given them reason to take you temporarily into custody).

I thought your refusal to answer could now be brought up in a UK court, and used against you ?

Free · Jan 20, 2021

This is the standard Republican way of doing things: Do it, and if it in any way reflects badly on them, blame Democrats. Why does it seem there are no Republicans with the courage of their own convictions?

Innula Zenovka · Jan 20, 2021

Arkady Arkright said:
I thought your refusal to answer could now be brought up in a UK court, and used against you ?

Yes, it can, and the jury can take it into account when reaching their decision.

But giving a no-comment police interview is not generally a criminal offence on its own, even though it may well make it more likely the defendant is convicted of the offence about which he's unwilling to comment.

However, if you suspect someone is preparing an act of terrorism, even though you are not yourself involved in it, then it is, or can be, an offence not to report this to the authorities, while it would not be if you suspected they were preparing another type of crime, because the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it one.

Arkady Arkright · Jan 20, 2021

Innula Zenovka said:
Yes, it can, and the jury can take it into account when reaching their decision.

But giving a no-comment police interview is not generally a criminal offence on its own, even though it may well make it more likely the defendant is convicted of the offence about which he's unwilling to comment.

However, if you suspect someone is preparing an act of terrorism, even though you are not yourself involved in it, then it is, or can be, an offence not to report this to the authorities, while it would not be if you suspected they were preparing another type of crime, because the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it one.

Isn't a refusal to answer a demand for a password a criminal offence these days ?

Aribeth Zelin · Jan 20, 2021

Free said:
This is the standard Republican way of doing things: Do it, and if it in any way reflects badly on them, blame Democrats. Why does it seem there are no Republicans with the courage of their own convictions?

Fox 'Business' might want to be careful. Lying on business news is like to get them in a whole heap of trouble.

Bartholomew Gallacher · Jan 20, 2021

This is why the better file encryption tools support nested encryption today following the principles of plausible deniability.

Bartholomew Gallacher · Jan 20, 2021

Oh the pain!

Chalice Yao · Jan 20, 2021

Trump revokes lobbying executive order - Washington Examiner

President Trump revoked an executive order in the final hours of his administration that banned executive branch employees from lobbying the agency in which they served until five years after leaving government.The White House shared the executive action around 1 a.m. on Wednesday, shortly after...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

TL;DR:
Trump put an order in place in 2017 that "directs executive branch employees on a ban from becoming a lobbyist for five years."
He has now revoked it in his last minutes of presidency.

Innula Zenovka · Jan 20, 2021

Arkady Arkright said:
Isn't a refusal to answer a demand for a password a criminal offence these days ?

It's an offence under S53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to fail to comply with a demand for a password issued under S49 of the Act.

To be valid, that demand must be issued in writing by a judge or district judge (though the police sometime present suspects with documents that look like demands for passwords which they themselves have issued, intended to scare the recipient into complying, so always show the document to your solicitor before disclosing anything).

So, in effect, it's like refusing to comply with a warrant -- a police officer in the UK can certainly demand that you give them your password but, unless they've got a court order to back it up, you commit no offence by refusing to do as they ask.

Bartholomew Gallacher · Jan 20, 2021

Innula Zenovka said:
So, in effect, it's like refusing to comply with a warrant -- a police officer in the UK can certainly demand that you give them your password but, unless they've got a court order to back it up, you commit no offence by refusing to do as they ask.

Which sounds good on paper, but in reality is bad considering the fact it's far easier for an judge to just greenlight such an enquiry compared to denying it. Aside that most police officers just know how to word such an appeal so that it will be approved anyway.

Innula Zenovka · Jan 20, 2021

Bartholomew Gallacher said:
Which sounds good on paper, but in reality is bad considering the fact it's far easier for an judge to just greenlight such an enquiry compared to denying it. Aside that most police officers just know how to word such an appeal so that it will be approved anyway.

Yes, but the question was "Isn't a refusal to answer a demand for a password a criminal offence these days ? "

The answer is "No it isn't, not without a demand issued by a judge or district judge."

Whether or not judges issue such demands too readily, or not readily enough, is a separate question -- in the UK, if someone is being questioned by the police and they demand the password to their phone or computer, the suspect isn't committing any offence by refusing to tell them until a judge tells them they have to disclose it.

Veritable Quandry · Jan 20, 2021

Arkady Arkright said:
Isn't a refusal to answer a demand for a password a criminal offence these days ?

Not clear in the US. Most courts have held that providing a password is self incriminating and therefore covered by the fifth amendment, just like providing a combination to a safe. The exception has been for electronic devices presented at border inspections.

Biometrics are not protected, so a face or fingerprint unlock can be compelled since it is physical and not testimony.

If a prosecutor can prove you possess specific evidence (as opposed to just wanting to look at the contents) then you can be held in contempt until you produce that evidence.

Chalice Yao · Jan 20, 2021

Veritable Quandry said:
Most courts have held that providing a password is self incriminating and therefore covered by the fifth amendment, just like providing a combination to a safe. <...>

Biometrics are not protected, so a face or fingerprint unlock can be compelled since it is physical and not testimony.

This distinction amuses me way more than it should. It's so hilariously illogical.

Free · Jan 20, 2021

Police: Give me your 4 digit code.

Suspect: No.

Police: OK, then give me your index finger.

Suspect:

Innula Zenovka · Jan 20, 2021

Chalice Yao said:
This distinction amuses me way more than it should. It's so hilariously illogical.

That, I suspect, is because the legal reasoning has to be based on the US Bill of Rights rather than the European Convention on Human Rights, which is a far more sensible document, to my mind.