UK Man Gets 12-Month Sentence For Refusing To Turn Over Passwords To Police
from the privacy:-the-new-terrorism dept
Here's how you can become a terrorist without actually participating in anything terror-related. Just hang out in the UK with locked devices until law enforcement develops an interest in you.
A director of a Muslim advocacy group has been convicted of failing to hand over passwords for an iPhone and a laptop, which he said contained sensitive information from a torture victim.
Muhammad Rabbani, 36, from London, was found guilty but walked free after being handed a 12-month conditional discharge at Westminster magistrates' court on Monday. He was ordered to pay £600 in costs.
The police may have failed to sweat passwords out of Rabbani during last November's three-hour detention, but they were instrumental in getting him charged under the UK's terrorism laws. Rabbani will be serving the UK equivalent of a suspended sentence. No jail unless "further violations" occur. This means all police have to do is stop him somewhere else and demand his passwords. Any refusal to do so will be a violation of his conditional discharge.
Unlike the US, there's no question of potential rights violations to be resolved. The UK's anti-terror laws enable this sort of law enforcement behavior. Rabbani said he had sensitive information on his devices he didn't feel comfortable sharing with police, especially when they had little reason to suspect him of being up to anything terroristic.
Rabbani is apparently investigating a torture case linked to the US, involving a citizen in one of the Brown Countries (a.k.a., a Gulf state). His trips back and forth have been greeted with much consternation and demands for device passwords. But it wasn't until last November UK law enforcement finally decided to move ahead with charges.
The court handing down the sentence was almost apologetic.
In sentencing, senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot said she believed Rabbani was protecting sensitive information but was bound by the law to find him guilty.
This is why bad bills should never be made law. They force people -- like judges -- to sentence someone for the crime of being uncooperative. Testimony during the case didn't clear anything up. The officer who performed the attempted search and actual arrest wouldn't say whether he was acting on specific information about Rabbani, or simply hassling someone UK police had hassled several times before without feeling the need to turn it into a terrorism case.
Passwords/pins are a foregone conclusion in the UK if the court can be convinced law enforcement demands were somehow related to national security. That's how the 2000 terrorism law was designed. And with Rabbani, we're being shown how it works.
Filed Under: muhammad rabbani, passwords, privacy, terrorism, terrorism act, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is where a good constitution functions as a failsafe. It allows the judge to instruct parliament to bring the terrorism-law in concord and discharge the suspect.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's right folks... none of this is your fault. Every time someone got fucked by the legal system as we all stood by and re-voted in the exact same bastards that made it or allowed it to happen.
Like Obama said, "you get the politicians you deserve"!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and yet you continue to wag your finger at them
this implies your above statement was intended to be sarcastic, is this the case?
"re-voted in the exact same bastards"
and gerrymandering has nothing to do with it ... you voted for them ... all of you did , every last one
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speak for yourself, as not everybody votes for the major parties, just not enough of us yet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Quotes doth not maketh man right
"Like Obama said, "you get the politicians you deserve"!"
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, his opinion, man.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell someone he is free long enough and often enough, and he'll get pretty militant against anyone telling him he's not. The USA isn't immune to this, but at least we have actual laws protecting rights that don't have automatic built-in national security waivers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are hardly being treated poorly, take for example my friend here, who was beaten bloody! You should feel like royalty with just a punch to the face and a broken tooth!
Don't get mad, get GLAD!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
At least it needs a Password/Pin
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least it needs a Password/Pin
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least it needs a Password/Pin
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least it needs a Password/Pin
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
better
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A conditional discharge is not the same as a suspended sentence. A discharge indicates that the court finds that the crime has been committed but further punishment is not appropriate at that time. Fines can still be imposed, however.
A conditional discharge is among the lightest possible sentences available to the court for the least serious of offences, and does not represent a criminal conviction unless a further breach of the discharge occurs.
Suspended sentences are much more serious and should be considered equivalent to custodial sentences, simply that the offender is not sent to prison to serve that time unless they commit further offences within a prescribed period of time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I remember correctly, failure to disclose your passwords under the UK's RIP (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) could bring about a maximum prison term of 5 years. So kudos to the judge for having at least some common sense.
I'm a little disappointed though that Rabbani was fined £600 (nearly $1000). That seems excessive; it's as though they want to put the costs of the trial on him. And that's unfair.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fortunately, the maximum sentence is only(!) 3 months imprisonment.
Unfortunately, it is also a terrible piece of legislation that gave too much power the police to stop and detain 'suspects' and 'evidence'. (Subsequently somewhat modified by other legislation.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Compel?
Wtf does this even mean? Can the judge not compel the officer to answer the question? He's not a reporter that gets to protect his sources. He's a law enforcement officer presenting evidence for the prosecution. If he can't or won't specify that there a) was evidence, and b) where he got it, then there isn't any evidence. Right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compel?
Does the UK actually have these protections? The media is regulated in the UK, which means they have zero freedom. They only have Privileges granted by government.
"He's a law enforcement officer presenting evidence for the prosecution."
Then he has done his job, they don't care much about its veracity... the problem is for your defense lawyer to sort out. Judges and Cops are often good friends, you will quickly find they have each others back and generally look the other way when one is abusing their position.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compel?
The evidence was that he asked someone for the password and they refused to provide it. That's all that's required to convict under this law. The judge might be able to compel an answer, but can't do anything with it. (We'll, they could, but that would require the courage to hold a law as unjust... which is evidently rare.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
what law , cops dont need ot follow no stinkin laws
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what law , cops dont need ot follow no stinkin laws
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure officer here you go password 1234 ......
what ???? you mean there's nothing on my phone ?
Sorry what were you detaining me for again ?
So sorry you have nothing to hold me on .
thanks have a good day
bye bye
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because if such an option existed you would be guilty of using it ( in the LEO's mind ) whenever they did not find what they wanted.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a feature, not a bug.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Morally Reprehensible
UK Man Gets 12-Month Sentence For Refusing To Turn Over Passwords To Police
Muhammad Rabbani and his refusal To Turn Over Passwords To Police has exposed the British Crown for what it has become a collection of petty authoritarians willing to arbitrarily destroy a persons life in order to further empower the state (ie themselves) under the guise of protecting you.
What the world needs are more persons of Muhammad Rabbani's caliber; those who are willing to stand and deny the morally reprehensible lickspittles of the state their demands.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply