What difference does it make if you call them creators or not? Call them turnips for all I care, the result that copyright is used to censor doesn't change. Why would anyone care who is using it to censor? Laws aren't "tools", they are rules. If they can be used for evil they aren't perfectly good.
I'm familiar, but the question doesn't have to be leading
it could be anything.
Sure, thats as part of a trial, but what about as part of an investigation. Say if the person who refuses to talk has a bad poker face and gives away where some real evidence is.. Is that inadmissable?
Sheesh no need to go all ad. hominem on me, insert some unsubtantiated belittling remark here.
No, I wasn't saying it is admissible, that depends on the current policy in your country. To some extent I'm playing devil's advocate but I just don't know that I agree that it should always be inadmissable/suppressed. It's relevent information and imo noone overstepped any bounds or did anything untoward to obtain it.
Sorry, so what I was trying to say is the "who" in my little example wasn't important to the point, the point was justto show that refusing to answer can be evidence in reality. You could just as easily use an example that your kid refusing to tell you what they have in their hand is evidence that they probably have something they don't want you to know about.
No one is saying you are admitting guilt, we are just talking about not suppressing the fact that you refused to answer the question when you are trying to find out the truth.
It's not my personal rule, but I think that would work be better than waiting for something you think might get you in trouble and then suddenly refusing to answer.. I mean even if they aren't allowed to use it against you officially, it can't be a good idea to tell them exactly what you don't want to answer.
Whether you consider it or not, it is still evidence.
If you ask someone if the kidnap victim is stashed in the
"Storage Locker?" No.
"At your work?" No.
"Your vacation cabin?" "shifty eyes/I Want a lawyer"
You can pretend there is no reason to look in the cabin if you want, but it's not going to help.
Both remaining silent and requesting a lawyer can be (circumstantial) evidence of guilt in some situations.. Pretending otherwise is just that. It's certain not rock solid evidence or anything though.
I'm not sure waiting for a "substantive" question is a great idea, since it tells them exactly what question you find substantive (ie: don't want to answer).
The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney do not include the right to make people pretend they don't know that you chose to invoke those rights (and when) if that information is relevent.
Re: No, Mike, it's about people taking what doesn't belong to them:
people taking what doesn't belong to them is irrelevent.
Assigning the responsibility of enforcing the law to Google is a bad move. They aren't cops.
This trend of forcing others to carry the burden of companies who want to deny reality is flushing all our efficiency down the crapper. We are going to get demolished by anyone who doesn't set up restrictions on progress every time Mickey Mouse snaps his fingers. Start moving back towards reality or inevitably crumble.