Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut...
by cryptarch on Friday May 05, 2017 @08:51AM
(#14273003)
What if you think it's a private investigator because they're plainclothes officers?
Your points relating to Uber stand, I'm just wondering how it'd work in the case of an individual feeling like they are being shadowed.
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut...
by amyjess on Friday May 05, 2017 @12:51PM
(#14274846)
> What if you think it's a private investigator because they're plainclothes officers?
Then you have your lawyer make that argument in court and try to convince the jury.
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut...
by dorgo on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:54AM
(#14271813)
So it doesn't really matter what I do. If I have the intention to obstruct justice then I can stay at home and act criminally by doing so? Nice one. At this point I'm sure I'm a criminal. I don't know what my crime is, but I'm sure layers will tell me before they throw me into jail.
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut...
by ForHackernews on Friday May 05, 2017 @04:58AM
(#14272054)
It does matter what you do. Criminal law recognizes two elements to a crime:
mens rea ("guilty mind") and actus reus ("guilty act")
http://law.jrank.org/pages/22506/Criminal-Law-Elements-Crime...
If there's no actus reus in your example, then there's no crime.
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut...
by TeMPOraL on Friday May 05, 2017 @04:50AM
(#14272015)
Intent is a factor.
Also, even though law is like computer code in being pretty specific and executable, it's unlike computer code in being executed by humans.
Or, like XKCD puts it, https://xkcd.com/1494/.
Or, more simply, judges are not stupid and can figure out if you're playing games with them.
If you put into action a plan that's intent is to mislead investigators that you believe are attempting to investigate you, then how do you claim that this can't be obstruction of justice? They are attempting to obstruct the investigation.
What you are doing to trying to evaluate the action separate from the intent, and claim that it's innocuous because there could be many explanations for the action.
Obviously at trial, the DoJ would be trying to prove intent, so trying to ignore it doesn't really make sense.