h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Az. Yep, thanks. Scary at the time though. Coupla guys broke in at 1:30 and opened the door to this room. Suspected drunken vigilantes. Turned out to be opportunists who didn't know of me from earlier. Thing is, they wouldn't go away, so I had to call the cops. Fortunately, they were kinda deterred by all the obstacles to movement I keep about the place. So I got time to phone.

One of them was arrested and is now out on police bail.

toxx

Obstacles to movement? What is that?

I'm glad you weren't hurt again, though it must have been quite frightening.

What's the deal on the court case stuff?

az

Yes I've skimmed the record. Not the best condition for self defence with your pot. Not the best situation. Tough call.

az. I keep obstructions lying about as a last line of defence. Doors don't open fully etc. Court stuff awaits my ability to travel. Can't realistically be expected to go far in my present state.

toxx

toxx

Please excuse my having read all this - I, too, was concerned about the latest escapade.

Everything you say is all horribly like another case I know. Quick version: my partner enjoys porn on the internet. Not kiddie stuff (he knows of David Hamilton's work, though it's not to his taste) and not S&M, but otherwise wide ranging.
He was subjected to a police raid on an unrelated matter. As soon as one plod found a porn image in the raid he attempted to frighten my partner, presumably to get him to cough to the charge they were interested in. My partner doesn't blackmail. They took his computer and a lot of his property. Later, they claimed to have found a few images of KP (kiddie porn) on the computer. At the time this baffled my partner and he attributed it to their having planted it on his computer. Since, knowing me (who knows about computers), and experiencing interference when on other porn sites from adware, he's realised it was probably adware for sites he wasn't interested in. The police admitted he never downloaded it i.e. it wasn't put into a directory on the hard drive, but was in the temp internet cache. he had not even looked at the adware and had got rid of it, not realising the temp internet cache would save the images. Local magistrates would never understand the technicalities (he didn't) nor believe plod had planted, and his solicitor didn't, either. So he pleaded guilty, partly in distress from the long battles over the other matter, which were worse (that case was eventually dropped, too). He was cautioned. As a result, his name went on the sexual offences register for 5 years (solicitor only told him this outside the police station on his way to receive the caution). The plod in charge of the local sexual offences register is amazed - it is the only case he has ever come across of someone going on the register who wasn't even convicted in court. His (the plod's) immediate concern was about vigilante action, but there was none of that.

I feel for you. You, are, indeed, the subject of modern hysteria. What with parents in this country now being forbidden to video their children in nativity plays in case one of them is a paedophile, and the local police lighting on any man of middle age or older out alone late at night as it's obviously suspicious (my father was recently harassed), the hysteria is serious stuff.

I hope the police and the local authority will get you rehoused asap to give you some safety.

In the meantime, take a look at this: http://www.lawreports.co.uk/qbmar0.2.htm
It's the only case we're aware of which shows some understanding of the subject.

Take care

HS. It's great to hear from someone who understands this kind of thing. I've done a vast amount of research and I'm now more competent at the law in this area than any of my advisors! Very recent case law has shown juries accepting the fact that computers can be taken over by maliciously inserted Trojans, rather as in the case of viruses. The Trojan can 'phone home' and allow one's computer to be taken over by someone else.

It is also clear to me that the relevant law is in violation of Article 7 of the Human Rights Act. The leading academic expert on this is Dr Yaman Akdeniz. I got a reply when I emailed him but he wasn't interested in participating. I thought he might have got a publication out of it. Anyway, I reckon I'm ahead of even him now!

Thanks again, toxx.

toxx

I understand about trojans, and keep the firewall up. Some of the adware (now have protection against that, as well as anti-virus, a shredder and a cleaning kit) is getting vicious. The two latest examples we picked up are:
(a) adware which inserts an icon on the quick launch bar plus a desktop icon which masqerades as an innocent quick dial up and a new dial up in your connections
(b) adware which changes your internet home page, houses pop-ups on your hard drive to come up at predetermined intervals if you're online and inserts a half a dozen sites into your 'favourites' - including KP sites.
That last was a bugger to track down before I downloaded 'spybot' (free and highly recommended). I had to reset the computer to a previous day to eliminate it.

Tell me how you think the latest law contrvenes the HRA.

BTW, in view of the fact az had never encountered any of this, and of her own past problems, I think she was superb in her care about you.

HS. Yep, az has been a gem - always expressing her reservations so giving me a chance to explain my points.

Yep, I already have SpyBot and the rest of the kit. This case has been dragging on since the summer of '01 when I didn't.

Not the 'latest law' but the one that the police tend to charge under because it has the stiffest penalties: Protection of Children Act, 1978 but also applies elsewhere. My sources include www.cyber-rights.org

Article 7 of the HRA has been interpreted as requiring that any law be sufficiently explicit as to enable people to regulate their behaviour so as to avoid violating it. Contrast a jury deciding what the law means after the fact. The latter amounts to retrospective legislation!

The PoCA 1978 refers to 'indecent' images. This is an incredibly elastic concept and also culture-relative (in a multi-cultural society!). Clearly it doesn't meet the minimum standard required by Article 7. More details and references on request, but that's the gist of the argument.

toxx

Gist of argument understood (I'm partly trained in Employment and Financial Law - BTW, POCA means 'Proceeds of Crime Act' to me )

As "your" POCA has been around since 1978, and HRA for a few years now, there is presumably case law and obiter dicta on this interaction? I'd be interested in a few relvant references.

The POCA of immediate interest to me is creating havoc among solicitors and accountants, but that's another story altogether and not relevant to your tale.

Any idea when your hearing will be?

HS. The HRA dates only from 1998, and was not implemented until late in 2000. Sentencing advice has included reference to it, but as far as I'm aware there is no directly relevant case law. It would be easier to check this if I had a copy of Archbold, without having to take a bus trip to the nearest reference library that has a copy.

Case law includes some reference to the principle of other laws with overly general wording, but not this one. I think one case concerned a 'disorderly house' (possibly a lap dancing club where prostitution was apparently taking place), but I carried on looking for something more relevant to my particular line of research and didn't keep a reference to it.

There has been some legal precedent attempting at least a partial characterisation of 'indecent' including the principle that a photograph isn't necessarily indecent just because it was taken surruptitiously.

Sorry about the delay. Only just spotted your message.

toxx

how's the legal thing going, toxx? Any advance?

hi toxx,

Didn't you mention something the other day on the god thread about having had an important legal appointment?

az

*waves to Heathen*

Hi there both of you. I had a meeting with my barrister to discuss the affadavit I've had to sign to attempt to change my plea back to 'not guilty'. There's no guarantee that I'll be allowed to do this. I changed to 'guilty' in a fit of panic that I regretted almost immediately.

The affadavit had now been signed (hand on book) and delivered. The next step will be to attend court to plead for the change of plea to be accepted.

toxx

toxx,

When did you join hootoo? Come and tell us on my anniversary thread if you like. Alji seems to know the date of when everyone joined except for you.

Yesterday was my first anniversary here.

az

az. Many happies to you. As far as I can see and recall, I joined hootoo in September 2002.

toxx

toxx

any advance on the court thing? Have they accepted your affadavit?

Hi there, az. Yep, I've been given permission to change back to a NG plea. Had to go to court just over a week ago while they had a hearing about it. My barrister did all the work, although I offered to speak and was refused.

The judge said he felt he was doing me no favours, but he couldn't be expected to protect me from myself. I know what he meant, but I'm not anything like as dumb as he must assume I am!

Hope you are doing OK. I happened to notice elsewhere that you've had some skeletal problems of late. I hope you're getting the best advice.

toxx

skeletal problems?

Actually, that posting was from Heathen, and you replied to 'az' so maybe it's Heathen with the skeletal problems?

I mean, I've got the HUMP but . . .

How's the new/old computer doing?

az

HS. Sorry, most of that message was intended for you but I must have been thrown by the heading relating to az.

as. Yep, it was that hump thing that I thought was literal in some way. Maybe I got that wrong too. New/old machine is doing fine with modem from it's predecessor. Came with more accessories than you can shake a mouse at. Monitor and speakers set up; priter when I get round to it. Then my own CD writer and scanner I already had. Only prob is that my existing memory doesn't fit. Hard drive should though so I'll have two when that's done.

toxx

"Actually, that posting was from Heathen, and you replied to 'az' so maybe it's Heathen with the skeletal problems?"

Nope, not me! Toxx obviously has two other people in mind!