Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you

Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out.

He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to

Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored

In theory, but there are so many exceptions that it isn't really a thing in practice. Driving a car? You have to identify yourself. Crossing a boarder? You are open to total inspection. Using a credit card, your transaction is open to inspection and you need to identify. Called as a witness? You have to participate by answering questions. You can even be imprisoned, for years, as a "material witness" without any hint of accusation. They sometimes do need a "trip through the courts" but that doesn't mean you are going to be part of that trip, or even know about it until after the warrants have been issued. The list of exemptions from the default rules allowing silence are so long as to make them meaningless.

That's if you've been arrested which doesn't apply in this case. He was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act which allows up to 6 hours of detention without cause and up to an hour without legal advice.

> During that time, ...then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt

I don't believe that's true in the case where legal advice has been restricted by the police. As per PACE Code C. It is however true if you have legal advice or if you've refused legal advice.

(The 'Police Caution', see: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights )

This is, as I understand it, very different to the US right against self-incrimination where the courts are specifically not allowed to infer guilt from silence. (Although I suspect many juries may be influenced negatively by someone remaining silent, despite direction.)

In a very similar way, if I were ever detained in this manner in the UK, I'd be very likely to say "I am not refusing right now to answer your questions. However, since I cannot trust you to tell me the truth about my rights and responsibilities, and because of the power imbalance, I will wait until I have independent legal advice before participating any further in this interview".

Except if questioned under schedule 7 of the terrorism act of 2000, maybe.

IANAL. Ask an actual lawyer for advice!

The "we can infer guilt" seems to be more because there's a bunch of corner cases where an absolute right to silence CAN have kind of stupid outcomes. Many countries choose to accept those outcomes because they don't want to convict the innocent. Britain -otoh- seems to try to thread the needle here by giving the judge a bit of leeway.

But I'm not an expert on british law. I just online-searched the the heck out of it.

Edit more info from the Scottish police (the institution in question):

https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/how-we-do-it/schedul...

It's a feature they aren't afraid of ignoring

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo

Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 requires that if you know the information required and refuse to provide it, you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment.

However, the notice must be given properly in writing.

So, while these officers perhaps were deceitful in asking verbally for passwords rather than giving a written notice, the meaning of what they were saying was still correct - there is a legal requirement to hand over passwords.

Yeah, but that involves a charge, and you get a lawyer.

I would have refused to answer anything without first consulting a lawyer; I won't take legal advice from the investigating policeman. "You say I have to answer? Fine, I'll answer if my lawyer confirms that." What can go wrong? The worst that can happen is that they charge you (with something?) for refusing to answer. Voila: legal advice.

I guess Craig's devices didn't have much of interest on them; he travels a lot, and has been mauled by the law more than once. So he can give up the passwords with confidence. And presumably they already knew what meetings he'd attended, with whom.

That's the fucker about these laws; in a lot of constitutions (note that the UK does not have a constitution so I'm not sure how it works over there), you have the right to not provide evidence that may lead to your conviction. But rules like this go counter to those.

Worth calling their bluff, I reckon.

You're gonna leave your family, lose your job, have to explain to everybody you know that you were in jail for a while. For a good story?

Don't live in fear, that is not worth it.

For millions of people it would be a disaster that you don't just smile your way out of with some optimism and a laughingly good story. It's not just about "don't live in fear", Instead it's often a harshly practical matter of "oh shit, i'm going to jail for months, the bank will foreclose on my home, my job will fire me and my kids are fucked".... You might be okay with that, but it's no fucking joke for many, no matter how lightly they try to take the burden.

The system sucks but this is how it works

If they confiscate the device during the initial detention then them issuing written notice that they need the password doesn't really change much since they're going to be getting access to your device whether you like it or not.

So being given verbally with a tape recorder or note-taker recording the interaction is actually sufficient. Sounds like the police had exactly that.

And then they charge them with obstruction of justice and destruction of potential evidence.

See how power works?

You are not giving them password so you are withholding it from them. Law doesn't have exemption for whatever excuse you are trying to use. So it's jail time for you. There is no way to prove you forgot it. And this law logic is "guilty until proven innocent".

What bothers me even worse is situation when you think you knew password but it didn't worked. Had similar situation with LastPass, I was entering one password and no matter what it failed to open vault. Tried different spellings nothing, only after a month of frantic thinking I entered correct one. Most likely I would be accused of lying to cops

Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?

This doesn't mean everything has to be true : an example from an earlier comment of mine is lying about which evidence they actually have.

edit: https://nieuws.nl/algemeen/20180203/de-politie-in-nederland-...

Good question.

The thing is, this doesn't just work against suspects. This works when prosecutors lie in court in order to protect the informants that they have been using in an illegal manner to commit crimes against non-criminals.

And every single person in all of the parts of government will just roll over to allow the injustice to continue. Except for Peter Omzigt...

Do you have a source for that? I live in The Netherlands, and I have never heard of this.

And it's not just a current events thing

It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country.

One example, Sweden:

> 23 kap. 12 § rättegångsbalken (https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K23P12S1)

> Under förhör må ej i syfte att framkalla bekännelse eller uttalande i viss riktning användas medvetet oriktiga uppgifter, löften eller förespeglingar om särskilda förmåner, hot, tvång, uttröttning eller andra otillbörliga åtgärder [...]

Meaning, the one who is doing the interrogation is not allowed to "use deliberate misrepresentation, promises or promises of special benefits, threats, coercion, hardship or other improper measures.", basically not allowed to lie.

How it works usually works out in practice, is most likely different though. I've only been to one interrogation with Swedish police and they definitely lied about a bunch of stuff.

I'm sure there are other countries where the police isn't allowed to lie either.

Probably because humans are not formal proof automata. When the parent said universal they meant "it is a thing across the world and across periods", and not "no X exists, where X is a country, and in X it's against the law".

So I could accurately say "English language is universal" even though there are countries where people generally don't speak English at all?

In math or formal logic, no. In casual english all the time.

Here is an example from the dictionary for universal, that's not actually formally universal:

(a) One reason for the author's success is that her novels have a universal appeal.

Obviously not everyone, even if they do read a lot of novels, would like the author's novels, or even the genre they are in. Some will also just hate them.

Or how about:

(b) Love and relationships will always be a topic of universal interest.

(c) Music is often thought of as a universal language.

There are of course absolutely people who don't care for "love and relationships" or are totally indifferent to music.

Or here's an example from a blog:

https://www.thelanguagegallery.com/blog/why-has-english-beco...

"According to statistics shared by Babbel Magazine, the English language is spoken by 20% of the world’s population. Apart from being one of the most popular languages in the world, English is also the most commonly studied foreign language. Before we learn how it became a universal language"

Note how they call it "universal" even though just spoken by 20% of the people at best.

In general universal in such contexts means "quite common or prevalent, within different population groups (even if the groups belong to a specific type)", e.g.:

"the Latin language (qua Medieval Latin) was in effect a universal language of literati in the Middle Ages"

"In a more practical fashion, trade languages, such as ancient Koine Greek, may be seen as a kind of real universal language, that was used for commerce" (note that the Koine "universal" language was just spoken in the regions around the Mediterranean, North Africa, and Middle East).

(both examples from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_language )

While absolutes shouldn't be used for formal writings, English speakers will very often use them in casual settings. I itallicized some spots where I could have used absolutes, and if you replace those words with "never" or "always", I think you'll understand what I'm saying better.

> "English language is universal"

This is an absolute or hypberbole, but most native speakers will understand what the author meant by that.

The sentence you refer to seems to refer to 'pressurization'.

There are two truths:

1. It is forbidden by law in many places (including the US).

2. They will get away with it regardless, in nearly every case. So often that practically speaking it's allowed

Well, be more clear and maybe we could avoid it :) In some US states, the police are legally allowed to lie, it's not forbidden for them to do so. In some other states and outside countries, they are allowed, in others, they're not.

If you don’t know, just don’t answer.

In hindsight we can see that police are very dishonest, lying, thugs. They have no real ethics. FBI was caught sleeping with female “suspects”’for intelligence. Think about that. Fucking for intelligence. They were exploiting women.

NSA has intelligence analysts that were using and still are using a program called “section 702” of the intelligence act to spy on women they want to have sex with, ex girlfriends, others. Intimate details of their lives. It was written up in Wired. It looks to be renewed.

So you have power hungry cops, FBI, NSA Analysts who are ugly, fat and corrupt. Can’t get laid, ethical issues. Who the Supreme Court says can lie straight to your face. But they can arrest you if they think you are lying? Stop trying to help them. Let them drown. They are the real threat. The real terrorists. If we did this we be in jail.

I assume you're talking about Mark Kennedy[1], but it's even worse! He was dating one of the people of interest for over a year while undercover, and I believe he was married at the time too

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/epxbpj/kate-wilson-mark-kenn...

You don't accidentally end up in a situation where cops tell you that you don't have the right to a lawyer. The west still isn't Iran.

> Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?

In court: You: They lied to me about my right to a lawyer Cop: No we didn't, also he admitted during this talk to being on the site of theft and taking of someone else property.

Now who will Jury or Judge believe, cop or a thief?

> > Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?

> In court: You: They lied to me about my right to a lawyer Cop: No we didn't, also he admitted during this talk to being on the site of theft and taking of someone else property.

> Now who will Jury or Judge believe, cop or a thief?

And cops lie because no one is willing to prosecute them.

Conducting an examination 34. The examining officer must explain their role to the person and that Schedule 7 is a part of counter-terrorism policing at the port/UK border, but that this does not mean that they are suspected of being involved in terrorism. The purpose of the examination is to determine whether the person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. If requested, the examining officer must provide sufficient information, such as an identification number and location, to the person or his or her representative to enable the officer to be identified in the event of any query or complaint.

35. The examining officer will explain how the examination will be conducted and must offer a Schedule 7 Public Information Leaflet. The Public Information Leaflet is available in multiple languages, and outlines the purpose and provisions of Schedule 7, duties under Schedule 7, key points of the code of practice, including an individual’s rights, and relevant contact details (including those needed to provide feedback or make a complaint).

39. Where an officer decides it is necessary to examine a person for longer than an hour, then questioning under paragraph 2 and 3 of Schedule 7 may only continue beyond the hour point if the person has been detained under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7. Any period of examination, including detention, must not exceed six hours from the commencement of the examination.

At least then you get a lawyer, and don't have to say anything, and don't have to give any passwords

That's an offence.

Is that actually true in the UK though? I was once "detained" in far less intimidating circumstances. I had a meeting in Bradford(UK) at 9am at some business client's place and I arrived by car half an hour early so I parked my car in an empty parking lot overlooking one of the main streets and I was sitting there waiting. Then a policewoman appears out of nowhere and asks me what am I doing there etc. I answered, and next she's asking if I have any id. When I asked what for, she used that phrase that "I was detained (but I forgot the reason why, something about assessing what I'm doing there)".Fine,I gave her my drivers license. She wrote the details down and then filled and gave me a piece of paper with various things along the lines of "you were detained today for the following reason..., you can complain here if you want etc.". She said thank you and walked away.

Later I learned some important person was visiting Bradford and they were doing security in advance. I wonder if they had a right to stop people like that prior to the" terrorist act".

> Who can be examined?

> The examining officer may only stop and question a person for the purpose of allowing a determination of whether that person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of “terrorism” as defined in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000

I guess that makes sense... But then in the end of the same paragraph:

> An examining officer may stop and question a person whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that the person is or has been concerned in terrorism.

So, essentially anyone can be examined for any reason (or no reason at all)?

Basically, the officer must currently be working on a terrorism case to be able to use these powers.

I mean how am I supposed to know if you don't intend to use that banana you didn't pay for as part of a phalic terrorism display without getting access to your text messages?

So, while they deliberately ignored an honest explanation, they also had a legitimate point.

No one sincerely thinks Craig Murray might be a terrorist. Those who would say such a thing are in fact not sincere. They just say it as a political loyalty statement, or to psych themselves up to abuse him/gloat in his abuse.

Spot on.

Governments in Asia, Africa, and South America routinely ignore laws for petty reasons.

If you're down that road and eroded that seperation, getting that thing back into the bottle is really hard without revolutions or massive public uproar. If you never had that seperation to begin with, even worse.

TL;DR: evil governments can ignore laws if the justice system is not independent. Hence the inportance of keeping it independent.

Step two; redefine everything as terrorism.

For the record, Israel is killing medics and press members, and have done so for their entire existence. Their status as a state, and the US's backing of them at any cost including threats of violence and terrorist accusations if we don't just 'fall in line'.

Maybe you should realize the character of who you're supporting. Israel is not a legitimate country and the US has no right instigating more bullshit in that region.

There are no correct sides in this conflict except with innocent civilians which nobody seems to genuinely care about.

Accuse me of whatever you want, the alternative is being okay with one side raping and pillaging, which imo is worse.

Strange that favoring peaceful civilians, of any ethnicity btw, means hatred. People are so binary in their thought that they assume only two sides exist.

The surveillance programme, codenamed Phantom Parrot, is designed to copy the personal data of individuals at airports and border crossings.

There's a trailer for it here: https://youtu.be/8QzZteMWbww

Simple: power balance determines what's legal and what's not.

I don't think we can call them "laws", because are clearly against the most fundamental values of any democracy.

No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world".

Any freedom you enjoy in a democratic state nowadays is merely circumstantial and can disappear instantly at any moment.

(George Carlin)

But it's fine because it's the most powerful country in the world that does it. If anyone objects, they get dropped. If it comes to a vote in e.g. the UN security councel, they use their veto power.

I don’t want to be partisan but the most striking example I remember was when Comey weighed in on Secretary Clinton’s email server saying “there was no criminal intent”

If you’re ignorant of the law, you cannot have a criminal intent, or am I missing something?

In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. So ignorance is a shield if you have a shield.

This is a misstatement of the rule. Qualified immunity applies if the alleged action would not have violated a "clearly established Constitutional right", which does not depend on the personal knowledge of the individual being sued. (It's also applies to all public employees/officers, not just police, though its application in the domain of policing has frequently been controversial.)

> Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws.

Unless I misunderstand the legislative history, the law that was used here (Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000) dates from July 2000, so before 9/11.

Still part of the same trend as what happened after 9/11, of course, but we shouldn’t pretend 9/11 was the beginning of this, especially not in the UK.

For US readers who weren't taught this in history class, the UK suffered a number of terrorist attacks by the IRA from the 1970's til roughly 2001.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-bombings...

I was just thinking about this, imagining being indefinitely detained for terrorism because 4chan is in my browser history[0]. I'd take the fifth, and they would charge me with a crime, and so, the US Constitution is basically void.

But then I wondered: was it ever really not? Was there ever a time I could have relied on legal justice if I happen to be in an unsympathetic jurisdiction? Before there was an unconstitutional terrorism act, there would still probably have been DAs willing to look the other way on a police beating and willing to add bogus criminal charges because I'm uncooperative.

Has justice ever been reliable? Right now it seems like maybe it has always been a psychological blanket.

[0]hyperbolic obviously. Hopefully. Just a thought experiment, as that's the only/closest activity of mine that could be construed as terrorism.

As a more specific example of why it's 'dangerous', a recent meme I've seen a bunch tells the reader that if they are drafted (in a theoretical future US draft), the moral thing to do is to shoot officers as soon as you get a rifle.

You aren't responsible for what people post online. Anyone can post anything on a forum and you may be looking at it because of other interesting stuff doesn't mean you have bad intentions.

I think it's mainly paranoia, I still think the odds of falsely being charged with terrorism are incredibly low.

Right now, sure. I'm merely speculating about the future.

They might be referring to a couple decades ago when 4chan users were referred to as "domestic terrorists" in a hyperbolic fox news report

Rights are arbitrary limits made up by people which can be changed or eliminated by people. Nothing more, nothing less.

Especially the US. My government has no rights to do anything like that. Please don't project your non freedom to the world.

It's legal because Parliament passed the legislation. Anything Parliament passes is legal. It's the very definition of legal.

Those who don't like that need to get the relevant people elected and change the law.

It's not a difficult system. We all have a vote.

There is no legal god in the British system and we recognise no external one. It's all down to the British people and their representatives.

That's why an appointed chamber works. They have no mandate and no legitimacy to do anything other than suggest.

And which then stops the stalemate you get in other systems with multiple conflicting mandates.

Far better we are all involved, even if just notionally, than have it handed down by self-appointed betters.

I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else.

Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL

It's more difficult for three letter agencies if you fill the memory with random stuff and encrypt before wiping.

If you don't want your phone used in impersonation while out of your hands, adb shell can be used to take out IMEI, BT and WiFi.

Simpler to just swap mainboards - available on Alixxxx

May not be tight enough for the NSA but could work for some glorified traffic cops at the airport.

At least that's the theory, I haven't messed with it to see.

If you’re really lucky, you can convince them that whatever they’re looking for doesn’t exist but consider how hard it is to prove a negative like that. In most cases, that devolves to the second outcome above, possibly with some destruction of evidence charge.

I think I may have been misled but apparently if you're on the border you aren't allowed to refuse to talk/refuse searches/etc. So they forced me to search my phone and spent about 6 hours interrogating me about my political opinions, family history, etc.

Ie. It can be very broadly abused.

With customs everywhere, you're usually better off answering their questions without asking why they want to know. Coming back from a visit to family, they wanted to know my three sisters' ages among other irrelevant stuff.