Computers and the legal system don't get along.
Just recently there was a conviction of one David C. Kernell, a college student who has been found guilty of of obstruction of justice and a misdemeanor count of unauthorized access to a computer. While I agree completely with the second ruling, even if I think the penalty for that crime is still too high, I completely disagree with the first.
He was found guilty of the felony obstruction because he deleted 'evidence' off of his computer. I have three reasons why this is wrong.
First: It is his computer after all, why should he be restricted as to what and what not he can delete? Do we not enjoy liberty in this country?
Second: Does not the fifth amendment protect us from self incrimination? Forcing him not to delete something from his computer is the same as forcing him to testify against himself. It would be different if he unlawfully accessed another persons computer to do this, but it was his own. And as such he should have the right to throw it into a vat of molten metal should he choose without having to worry what someone else at some time in the future might deem to be evidence.
Third: If you are emailed an illegal image, and you then proceed to delete it, you will be guilty of obstruction of justice according to this ruling. Yet, if you don't delete it you are guilty of possession of said image. A big catch-22. Making anyone who wants to comply with the law a felon or a criminal. You choose.
Thanks to the Register for the facts in the matter: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/30/palin_jury_convicts/
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- nick's blog
- Add new comment
- 128 reads
Comments
Book-slapped by Dinosaurs of the Late Telephonic Period?
Ok, cracking open Sarah Palin's yahoo account is rude. But it's probably also about as technically difficult as as picking the lock on your bathroom door. Or, to put the simile in context: equivalent to picking the lock on the bathroom door at the gas station Sarah Palin frequents in her home town. There is probably nothing there you wanted, and it's not a place renowned for its privacy or security. And eww.
But, that "obstruction of justice" claim sounds absurd. Like a blanket claim made by the dinosaurs of the Telephonic Period who couldn't pull any actual crime from their antiquated handbooks. As one vaguely familiar with things computer related, I'd say they should have a "That was Rather Rude" charge. You know, the kind where mommy takes away the video games for a couple months? (...And maybe take away his phone for a few months for venturing anywhere near something spewed forth from a 4chan server.)
But ok. You can't delete something from your own computer?!? Who thought that gem of wisdom into existence? A murderer who melts down the murder weapon wouldn't be charged with "obstruction of justice." No, he'd be punished for murder! A kid who sells stolen bikes isn't charged with obstruction of justice; he's charged with theft (and whatever that thing is called where you sell someone else stuff...sorry, nounal vacationcy).
Is there, then, no substantial, criminal claim against this fuddy-duddy Kernell? Because all I gather is a bunch of bureaucrats misapplying law in a highly complicated bout of revenge. (But I must admit, I don't know much about this case, and was mostly just ranting like I did in the "good" old days.)
The real crime he was charged
The real crime he was charged with was unauthorized access to a computer. Nothing major as far as computer crimes go (there are some hacking crimes that carry more jail time then killing a fist full of local vagrants would.)
And I think you could get hit with obstruction of justice if you melted down the gun after there was a search warrant put out to get it, but not immediately after the crime. Though I am no lawyer, and never will be.
Meeee neither. And "yeahhhh".
Meeee neither. And "yeahhhh".