Murder Suspect Jailed Over Refusing To Reveal Password In the UK (bbc.co.uk) 165
A man suspected of murdering a teenager in England has been arrested for failing to hand over his Facebook password to authorities. The BBC reports: Lucy McHugh, 13, was found stabbed to death in woodland last month, a day after she disappeared. Stephen-Alan Nicholson, 24, pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an order under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, requiring him to disclose the Facebook password. He was sentenced to 14 months in jail.
He was first arrested on July 27 on suspicion of murder and sexual activity with a child and subsequently bailed. But he was also charged under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The court heard the charge related to a court order that Nicholson disclose his Facebook password protecting any private communications with Lucy McHugh. Passing sentence, Judge Christopher Parker did not accept Nicholson's "wholly inadequate" excuse that providing his password would expose information relating to cannabis.
He was first arrested on July 27 on suspicion of murder and sexual activity with a child and subsequently bailed. But he was also charged under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The court heard the charge related to a court order that Nicholson disclose his Facebook password protecting any private communications with Lucy McHugh. Passing sentence, Judge Christopher Parker did not accept Nicholson's "wholly inadequate" excuse that providing his password would expose information relating to cannabis.
laws in the uk? (Score:2)
Re:laws in the uk? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judge: Do you know what the penalty is for not complying with RIPA?
Accused: No, but I bet it's a lot less than the penalty for murder.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, since the contempt embodied by non-compliance with RIPA will occur before trial can take place, you'd serve this punishment before trial (and possible acquittal) fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, eventually you'd probably be able to build a human rights case, but that'd take a lot longer than 2 years.
Re:laws in the uk? (Score:4, Informative)
They don't need the password. They can just subpoena the evidence directly from Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: laws in the uk? (Score:1)
uk jails are full of people who hate sodomites. The sidomites are all outside running the shithole country.
Re: laws in the uk? (Score:2, Informative)
I have no idea what my facebook password is. i have to change it everytime chrome forgets it.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't they just look at Facebook for the girl? Messaging is similar to email, the posts are on both sides - unless she took effort to delete them.
They can't ask her for her password, but they could certainly exercise power of attorney to get access.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they want to see what else in his Facebook account, not just any messages he sent to her. And yes, she might well have deleted them. He might have told her to.
But who knows what else he might have in there - photos that place him in certain places at certain times, messages to other potential victims, and so on.
It's called "gathering evidence" and you don't just look in the most obvious places.
It'd be the equivalent of that Stormtrooper who goes "This door's locked; move on to the next one" when the
Re: laws in the uk? (Score:1)
"He's an Imperial Stormtrooper! He could just bust the door down!"
Well hold on a minute. Not in all circumstances. On their own ships they get in a lot of trouble just busting doors down. Stormtroopers were blasting doors off their hinges if they forgot their keys or for other trivial reasons and after a while Facilities complained to the Captain. Now if they don't have a Designated Master Key Holder in the squad they have to call in for permission from an senior officer and then fill in reports afterwa
Re: laws in the uk? (Score:2)
Re: laws in the uk? (Score:5, Informative)
so they could waterboard the corpse until it coughs up the password
Look, it is a password, used to get past Facebook's login page. It is not an encryption key.
The girl's family can email a photo of the death certificate to Facebook, along with proof that they are the next-of-kin, and Facebook will give them access to the account. No waterboarding is necessary. Alternatively, the police can get a warrant or subpoena.
Re: laws in the uk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why go to the effort of doing their damn jobs, when they can string up suspects for not cooperating, instead? That'll learn em.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely easier to access why? I guess dead bodies don't have human rights any more, so they could waterboard the corpse until it coughs up the password, but is that really easier than a court order against a living being?
At least in the US, reasonable expectation of privacy does not apply to the dead so a court order if necessary is easier to get.
To me it sounds like they are just using this as a fishing expedition for crimes unrelated to her which would be standard procedure in the US to force a guilty plea.
Re:That's Terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall a story that likely has a grain of truth to it. It goes something like this...
Benjamin Franklin was seen leaving the chambers on where they were debating the creation of a new United States government. A lady on the street asked, "What have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" His reply, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
He should be allowed to keep his privacy. His loss of privacy due to the government prying into it is the loss of a republic.
I know this is a story from the UK but the rules on keeping a republic is universal. Requiring the revelation of a pass code upon demands of the government violate many basic rights needed to maintain a republic.
The guy is being punished for inconveniencing the government. Well, sometimes law enforcement is inconvenient. They know they can get what they seek from FaceBook, as does the suspect. The suspect also knows he's likely to get a very long sentence if he's caught. So, it's only in his best interest to keep his mouth shut. This kind of punishment serves no purpose but to erode people's rights to be free from government coercion.
People can keep their privacy only if they defend it. By defending privacy against the government they are defending the concept of a republic. It's disconcerting to think that this kind of law exists in what is considered a free nation. Just by asking for the pass code they are violating the suspect's rights.
Re: (Score:2)
When the efficiency of the police is more important than the rights of the people, we can call that a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
May I differ? The interests of other party's, including swift justice for the victim of a murder, are just the sort of factors for which a warrant or a subpoena can be be demanded. The teenager has a trial process, where the demand for a subpoena can be objected to the decision compared with British law, with precedents of the court, and with There has been enough evidence to seize his computer records.
The case is interesting because it is setting precedents in the UK. But the legal principals seem clear a
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that there is quite likely enough evidence to seize the computer records from FaceBook. Where I have a problem is he was asked for evidence that can be used against him, and then punished when he refused.
He was punished without due process. He was required to offer evidence to use against him. This is potentially a search without a proper warrant or cause. It's a case like this that gave us the Miranda Warning.
I agree that this is something that could set precedent. The way I see it there's eno
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we have a 5th Amendment. And yes, such cases have been tried here in the US. You may not be compelled to reveal a password, even at the border or in a court of law.
But you do need to INVOKE your 5th Amendment rights. Some stupid court somewhere decided it wasn't automatic.
Republic??? (Score:1)
You're confusing republic with democracy. These are two separate areas.
Republic vs. monarchy. Democracy vs. autocracy.
Re: (Score:1)
The real story here is facebook is a safe place to put stuff? I don't understand why they even need his password. I don't think Facebook says that all your data is safe with us, in fact that's really not what they're about.
He should have given it to them. What could be out there that if it was that bad they couldn't get anyhow. He's probably in this situation in the first place because he doesn't know how to assess risk.
Re: (Score:2)
This was written by James McHenry; he recorded it in the notes he took when he was the Maryland delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It's unclear the specific date, but Dr. McHenry clearly attributed the quote directly to Franklin.
Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... [wikiquote.org]
weylin
Re: That's Terrible (Score:1)
Wrong. Britain is a parliamentary democracy with a monarch as head of state.
Missing piece to this puzzle (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't the authorities just ask Facebook for all private communications as part of the investigation? I'm sure Facebook works with authorities on other things. Maybe because the victim was a minor there is some special detail to this case?
To me it makes sense from his part if he did kill her, to take 14 months over however long he might get for murder.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missing piece to this puzzle (Score:4, Informative)
Why can't the authorities just ask Facebook for all private communications as part of the investigation?
They are, it just takes a lot of time. The BBC article says:
Re: (Score:3)
Matthew Lawson, prosecuting, said police were following a "lengthy procedure" to get the information from Facebook itself.
Why is it a "lengthy procedure" that takes longer to convict this man and sentence him to 14 months in prison? Why don't they raid the offices of Facebook? Why do megacorps have more rights than individuals?
Re: (Score:3)
"Lengthy procedure" is code for "you made me fill out some paperwork so I'm going to punish you".
They won't screw with Facebook because Facebook has enough money to push back hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the only offices Facebook have in the UK sell advertising, and do management shit. Which country their server farms are in is not known (to me), but one would infer they're not in the UK. And you can bet that the "management shit" of Facebook will have enough legal horsepower in the office that the RoTW management of Facebook will know about the raid before the officers start to try to force passwords out of the arrested, so the Facebook internal security
Re: (Score:3)
Read the article - they are working with Facebook on that, but it takes a lot longer. Now, though, they should have 14 months to get it done.
What I wonder, though, is what sort of stuff could be in the account that would incriminate him? Surely the parents of the victim cooperated and provided *her* FB password, which would have given them access to any mutual communication?
Re:Missing piece to this puzzle (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article - they are working with Facebook on that, but it takes a lot longer. Now, though, they should have 14 months to get it done.
What I wonder, though, is what sort of stuff could be in the account that would incriminate him? Surely the parents of the victim cooperated and provided *her* FB password, which would have given them access to any mutual communication?
The parents don't necessarily have the password. There are plenty of young kids with accounts that parents don't have passwords to. Most parents don't do a good job monitoring their kids activities otherwise they would likely detect a groomer long before something bad happened.
As far as what's on his phone, if he had something like child porn on his phone he would likely be convicted of the murder even if he had nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely the parents of the victim cooperated and provided *her* FB password
As a parent of teenagers, I can assure you that they don't tell us their social media passwords.
Re: (Score:2)
As a parent of teenagers, I'm surprised you let them piss on you like that.
Do they give you a weekly allowance, and tell you off if you are home late also?
Trust is them giving you the password, and you not using it unless you need to, NOT them keeping it from you.
Re: (Score:2)
A better reality would be having a monthly ("weekly" is also defensible) ceremony of them (all, assuming multiple kids) changing their passwords for all their online accounts in front of you, you writing down the passwords into a notebook, then locking the notebook into a box which is bolted into the wall of a public room. After all
Re: Missing piece to this puzzle (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't sound like a "problem" to me.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't sound like a "problem" to me.
Quite so.
The standards for such things aren't enormously high, so I'm surprised they can't get a court order anyway. Or who knows. we don't refer to them as "Her Majesty's Finest" for no reason you know.
Kendall is a moron, officially, again, perpetually (Score:1)
He did not get out of the murder charge by refusing to unlock his phone and getting 14 months, Kendall you fucking moron.
it is not either or , it is in addition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't the authorities just ask Facebook for all private communications as part of the investigation? I'm sure Facebook works with authorities on other things. Maybe because the victim was a minor there is some special detail to this case?
To me it makes sense from his part if he did kill her, to take 14 months over however long he might get for murder.
They can. And Facebook will hand everything over. This is just a way to stack charges and convictions on him.
What a stupid system (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead this kid, guilty of murder or not, only gets 14 months. He's doing the very thing the laws say is smartest to do, and because of it it's possible a murderer may get away with their crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that at the end of his sentence, they can ask for his password again and if he refuses he can be jailed again.
Re: (Score:2)
He could say he forgot it since he hadn't typed it in for 14 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. He is getting 14 months now while the police gets the Facebook access another way. If there is evidence in there, he may still get the murder conviction on top.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, we do not. But it is not the case that he can get 14 months for murder instead of something more appropriate as implied. Anyways, being able to force people to hand over something they know (passwords, e.g.) is hugely problematic and incompatible with a free society. People must be allowed to keep everything in their minds secret that they wish to. It is the job of the police to find physical evidence or witnesses, not to force confessions of whatever things an accused person knows. Because if they
Re: (Score:2)
Long-term, you are certainly right.
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence is he knows her? IDK I'm just glad I don't live in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
Good grief, you're saying not only that refusing to disclose your password should get you jail time, but it should get you more than 5 years? WTF is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:1)
Presumption of guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
Possession of cannabis is punishable by up to 5 years in the UK.
Doesn't your country have laws against incidental incrimination for an unrelated crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Possession of cannabis is punishable by up to 5 years in the UK.
Instead this kid, guilty of murder or not, only gets 14 months. He's doing the very thing the laws say is smartest to do, and because of it it's possible a murderer may get away with their crime.
Except they will get a warrant (if necessary, I'm not sure if it is in the UK) for his Facebook content anyway and then add a cannabis conviction as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Possession of cannabis is punishable by up to 5 years in the UK.
However unlike the US, the UK does not lock up drug users. Dealers, sure, but users end up getting a misdemeanour fine and possibly an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO).
Cannabis is practically defacto legal in the UK. Cops have better things to do over here.
Get used to it (Score:2)
This will not be the only time this happens. It will happen more as time goes on and Law Enforcement has to rely upon technology to gather evidence needed to convince a jury of someone's guilt in any matter before a court of law.
In all honesty, you really shouldn't be putting anything you don't want any one in particular to see on the internet. Period. Because this will happen. Best defense against this is just don't put any compromising information on ANY website. Hell, don't put it on any 'device' yo
Re: (Score:3)
At the same time, why do the authorities think on a computer should give them special access. If I write a diary entirely in a cipher of my own devising, I am under no obligation to teach it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
If I write a diary entirely in a cipher of my own devising, I am under no obligation to teach it to them.
People have gone to jail for refusing to disclose encryption keys.
Re: (Score:2)
Electronic ones, yes. Hence my comment about authorities thinking "on a computer" is special.
Re: (Score:2)
It falls under the 5th Amendment.
Re:Get used to it (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus here in the US we're supposed to (and some other courts have recognized) have the 5th Amendment, which prevents you from using the contents of your mind to assist in your own prosecution. In the most well known precedent, the court explained that while you were obligated to turn over a key to a safe, you could not be made to disclose the combination to one. They're trying to argue a password is more like a key than a combination, which is absurd. If it's something you can forget, it's the contents of your mind, and should be off limits. Computers don't become some magic space exempt from that just because police don't have any other way to get the information.
Re: (Score:2)
Second and even more important, you do realize people forget passwords right? Fortunately in the UK it appears if you don't remember the password to every encrypted item or account the police want you only get 14 months, in the US you can effectively get life (they hold you on contempt of court until you enter it, one man is approaching 3 years in for this).
Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go.
I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to h
Re: (Score:2)
Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go. I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to help get it reset or whatnot.
Honestly, I think you're blissfully naive. If you manage to decrypt it somehow, you're off the hook. If for any reason you can't because you've forgotten the password or your "password storage thing" is corrupt or the stress of facing years in prison is causing you to mind blank then they're likely to slam you double for pretending to know it and wasting everybody's time.
Re: (Score:2)
Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go.
I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to help get it reset or whatnot.
But if someone is lying, those steps are easily faked, and someone telling the truth would have to admit they could in fact access it. Courts don't ask for the password itself, they ask you to sit at the computer/phone and decrypt/unlock it.
Writing in a language (ie cypher text) the reader doesn't understand, I don't think a judge would find you in contempt in this case either. Unless of course, in the case of cypher, you refuse to assist in reading it. That's what contempt of court means, you refuse to do what the court instructs you to do. And when you decide to behave with contempt in a court, you can expect to be punished for your behavior, and rightly so.
But how is this not self-incrimination? The 5th Amendment has been interpreted to mean using information in your mind to assist in your own defense, and there's no universe where that doesn't qualify. The court can't order you to waive one of your rights. You have comple
Re: (Score:2)
Second and even more important, you do realize people forget passwords right?
He has already admitted that he knows the password, and has pled guilty to refusing to disclose it.
That may have been a stupid admission, buy you have to admire his honesty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In all honesty, you really shouldn't be putting anything you don't want any one in particular to see on the internet.
But the whole point of Facebook is to self promote. It doesn't do any good to brag to your buddies about your upcoming date with a 13 year-old if you do it behind an alias.
Is FB Data at Rest encrypted by *user* password? (Score:2)
Wonder why the Facebook chat logs aren't already with law enforcement. Surely, there's a warrant by now.
Does a Facebook user password also encrypt data at rest on Facebook servers? So, unless the user logs in and their password provides the decryption key, not even Facebook can decrypt stored chat history?
Re: (Score:2)
What if you have undiagnosed stress anxiety? (Score:2)
And the pressure of being forced to produce your password or be put in jail for not producing it only makes it worse so that you can't accurately remember it? While certain types of meds might alleviate some of that if everything goes according to planned expectations, it could just as easily make things even worse.
Memory is a tricky thing sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can be imprisoned for forgetting a password. Any password.
Blair's Govt wrote terrible laws, including two which can abolish elections without debate.
I am very surprised (Score:1)
....that the court didn't make a one time offer to give him an absolute discharge on all cannabis offenses that might be revealed by his Facebook messages, with the warning that if he didn't disclose the password in the light of this offer he would be charged with making a false statement (to a court) which carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment, same as murder.... :)
Easy (Score:2)
He gets married. Tells his FB password to his wife, she changes it. she can be forced to testify against him.
Re: (Score:2)
she can['t] be forced to testify against him.
In most circumstances yes, she can. And in any case, demanding the password, which she knows, is unlikely to count as testifying against him.
Robert Smith we hardly knew ye (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for hanging murderers and rapists, but I think the burden of proof is on the accusers (government, I assume, in this case) not the accused.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you sure that is true in South Brexitville?
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea of the laws in play there in the UK, hence my use of the term "I think". I would hope that most civilized folks would agree that just being accused of a crime, and unable to prove your innocence, does not make you guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, it does appear that presumption of innocence ("innocent until proven guilty") is a part of English law:
https://www.quora.com/In-the-U... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They got it from Roman law: ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).
Re: (Score:2)
From the Greek: Don't do what they did to Socrates!
Re: (Score:3)
Many elements of US law are drawn from where our nation originated (as colonies of England) - yes - but we also have a lot of legal protections which are not provided to citizens of other countries by their laws. The extent of our free speech rights, for example, or the right to keep and bear arms. I wasn't sure off the top of my head if presumption of innocence might have been another element that was added on top of or increased from what was brought over from England.
Moreover, I would point out that it i
Re: (Score:2)
The American colonies were first developed as a place for the UK government to put criminals instead of hanging them, and potentially convert them to tax payers instead of tax-users (it costs money to dig that hole in the ground, or more holes because of infection from the unburied corpse). The big difference with Australia was that it was relatively cheap to cross the Atlantic and establish profitabl
Re: (Score:2)
That is complete nonsense, you couldn't send anybody there for a long time, they had to exist first as farming colonies before you could expand them into any of that other stuff, and it took years.
Indentured workers were often not criminals, and if fact most workers who required transportation to the work site would be "indentured." It doesn't mean they weren't paid, it means they were paid a contracted rate, and were already contracted so they couldn't quit! In many cases they paid for their passage with m
Re: (Score:2)
What nonsense is this? The first colonies of Europeans in what is now the United States were a combination of business ventures (like Jamestown) seeking wealth and religious groups (like the Pilgrims at Plymouth and the Puritans at Massachusetts Bay) seeking a different way of life and belief. Later colonies, and especially those further south (below New England) did indeed have large populations of indentured labor... but even then, it wasn't like there were whole colonies of criminals - which is what the
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, you can spot a human at the low end of the intelligence spectrum that much easier when they start bragging about how much smarter than other animals they are.
Pigs always have way more knowledge than whatever humans know that the pigs know. It is much easier to know something than to know somebody else doesn't know anything, and if you don't share a language, it leaves you mostly clueless about their knowledge.
Dogs are often smarter than their human companions, and pigs are usually smarter
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it's just over shared interests in comic books, stargazing, and calligraphy.
What do you think they were talking about? If the suspect was at least half honest about his cannabis habit then I have one shared interest down, and the other isn't comic books.
Re: (Score:1)
to jail with you until you remember your password