Head of Globovision faces arrest again

[DC]

Most of us are intelligent enough to understand that there is a difference between a law and court procedure. Since you quoted me a law claiming it was a court procedure, I have to conclude you're in a minority.

Here's a clue, since you're missing it: the prosecutor would need to prove the said person knowingly ignored a notice. If he failed to do that, the accused would be free.

McHrozni

In the United Kingdom, statute law provides for criminal penalties for failing to decrypt data on request from the Police. If the suspect is unwilling (or unable) to do so, it is an offence. [6] Citizens can therefore be convicted and imprisoned without any proof that the encrypted material was unlawful. Further, the onus is on the defendant to decrypt the data, and having lost the key or the password is not considered reasonable excuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#cite_note-5

 

[McHrozni]

as i already said, Chavez claim was false, but not entirely. In a lot countries Bush would be able to go to court.

It was false to the point of absurdity. Admit it.

in what post was it? didn't see it sorry. just repost or link to the post pls.

Oh FFS, as you said Bush would be able to go to court, if the US laws were similar to those in some other countries. I pointed the links to that before, I see no reason to put them here again.

you seem to think the USA is the only other country beside venezuela on this planet.

No, it's not, but it's a very convenient example for the virtue of having easily accessible laws and a simple language that you marginally understand. It's also a very sensible comparison, given how strongly does 'US imperialism' play in Hugos' rhetoric and propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

And yet you agree Bush couldn't go to court over, say, a book outlining a trial for murder against him. Clearly the said defamation law is nowhere as strict as it would have to be for your point to have any validity whatsoever.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#cite_note-5

And?

Having encrypted data and being unwilling and unable to decrypt it is an offense. I fail to see where is the presumption of innocence violated. It certainly is strict, perhaps unreasonably so, but if you can find a better solution for the problem (having encrypted data and claiming you lost the key to decrypt it as a way to avoid investigation), I'll listen.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

It was false to the point of absurdity. Admit it.

yes it is laughably absurd, just as laughable absurd your claim is that nowhere else it would happen.

Oh FFS, as you said Bush would be able to go to court, if the US laws were similar to those in some other countries. I pointed the links to that before, I see no reason to put them here again.

i have shown you links with evidence that such laws exist, even in Switzerland and in 158 other countries.

you link to 2 books on amazon and think that refutes that?

laughably absurd that is.

No, it's not, but it's a very convenient example for the virtue of having easily accessible laws and a simple language that you marginally understand. It's also a very sensible comparison, given how strongly does 'US imperialism' play in Hugos' rhetoric and propaganda.

you don't even know the laws in your own country it seems

And yet you agree Bush couldn't go to court over, say, a book outlining a trial for murder against him. Clearly the said defamation law is nowhere as strict as it would have to be for your point to have any validity whatsoever.

McHrozni

so are you claiming those 146 people around the world are all rightfully jailed for criminal defamation and only that one guy in Venezuela that is now facing a trial for criminal defamation is innocent?

laughably absurd that is

 

[DC]

And?

Having encrypted data and being unwilling and unable to decrypt it is an offense. I fail to see where is the presumption of innocence violated. It certainly is strict, perhaps unreasonably so, but if you can find a better solution for the problem (having encrypted data and claiming you lost the key to decrypt it as a way to avoid investigation), I'll listen.

McHrozni

it is assumed without any evidence, that the encrypted data is unlawful.
does that sound like presumption of innocence to you?

you keep making such broad generalized claims that they just have to be wrong, and they are, just as Chavez's rhetorical and to broad claims are you laugh about

Hypocrite?

 

[McHrozni]

yes it is laughably absurd, just as laughable absurd your claim is that nowhere else it would happen.

I never claimed that. You're lying again

so are you claiming those 146 people around the world are all rightfully jailed for criminal defamation and only that one guy in Venezuela that is now facing a trial for criminal defamation is innocent?

laughably absurd that is

That's fairly irrelevant. Hugo claimed he would be in prison in any other country, and you're defending that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Plus in most countries his claims wouldn't warrant prosecution.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

I never claimed that. You're lying again

Hm. I guess he never heard of Freedom of Speech principle being applied, well, anywhere. I'll put it under stundies.

you are both wrong. Just as most to broad over generalized claims are.

That's fairly irrelevant. Hugo claimed he would be in prison in any other country, and you're defending that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Plus in most countries his claims wouldn't warrant prosecution.

McHrozni

i have seen your 2 links to amazon, i wonder where that overwhelming evidence is you claim to have presented.

 

[McHrozni]

it is assumed without any evidence, that the encrypted data is unlawful.
does that sound like presumption of innocence to you?

No, it sounds like a red herring to me. The penalty is there to force everyone to disclose their encrypted data on request and to ensure encrypted data cannot be kept encrypted from the investigators by claims such as "lost key". It has nothing to do with any presumption of legality of encrypted data. The law is similar to subpoena laws, for the same reason.

As I said, if you can find a better way to solve this, I'm listening.

you keep making such broad generalized claims that they just have to be wrong, and they are, just as Chavez's rhetorical and to broad claims are you laugh about

Hypocrite?

No, I'm just trying to debate an utterly incompetent person.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

No, it sounds like a red herring to me. The penalty is there to force everyone to disclose their encrypted data on request and to ensure encrypted data cannot be kept encrypted from the investigators by claims such as "lost key". It has nothing to do with any presumption of legality of encrypted data. The law is similar to subpoena laws, for the same reason.

As I said, if you can find a better way to solve this, I'm listening.



No, I'm just trying to debate an utterly incompetent person.

McHrozni

you debate yourself? Argumentum ad hominem are the first sign of enormous competence.

 

[McHrozni]

you debate yourself? Argumentum ad hominem are the first sign of enormous competence.

And a fail on your part again. Calling you incompetent wasn't an ad hominem for two reasons: one, it wasn't used as a refutation for any of your points and, two, it's a statement of fact, similar to stating "the sky is blue", just a bit more relevant.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

And a fail on your part again. Calling you incompetent wasn't an ad hominem for two reasons: one, it wasn't used as a refutation for any of your points and, two, it's a statement of fact, similar to stating "the sky is blue", just a bit more relevant.

McHrozni

yeah statement of facts

as if you knew a fact if it bite you in your butt.

so far your claims have been refuted with evidence, and your 2 links were able to refute a claim not made by me.

very competent

 

[DC]

would you not keep making such absurd claims, we would long be in agreement that Chavez is abusing his power against Zuloaga. you don't often find a Chavez "fan-boy" doing that.

 

[McHrozni]

so far your claims have been refuted with evidence

Really? Name one.

As a side note, I couldn't help but noticing you again completely dropped the main discussion and prefer to bicker on the side again. That should be seen as an admission of defeat.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

Really? Name one.

claim in OP

Hm. I guess he never heard of Freedom of Speech principle being applied, well, anywhere. I'll put it under stundies.

Evidence refuting the claim

http://www.article19.org/advocacy/defamationmap/overview.html

As a side note, I couldn't help but noticing you again completely dropped the main discussion and prefer to bicker on the side again. That should be seen as an admission of defeat.

McHrozni

haha funny, thats why i had to take care you didn't keep derailing the other thread where i agreed that Chavez stole Oil rigs rather than Nationalized them as he called it. And thats why i just before you posted this, i tried to bring the debate back on topic. that Chavez is abusing his power against Zuloaga.

 

[McHrozni]

http://www.article19.org/advocacy/defamationmap/overview.html

And how does that refute the statement? Do you realize that just one country without defamation laws ensures my statement is accurate?

haha funny, thats why i had to take care you didn't keep derailing the other thread where i agreed that Chavez stole Oil rigs rather than Nationalized them as he called it. And thats why i just before you posted this, i tried to bring the debate back on topic. that Chavez is abusing his power against Zuloaga.

That must be why you ignored so many of my points.

Oh wait...

McHrozni

 

[DC]

And how does that refute the statement? Do you realize that just one country without defamation laws ensures my statement is accurate?

no, you seem to believe that Venezuela is the only country with criminal defamation laws. But fine when you accept the fact that indeed many countries have criminal defamation laws.

That must be why you ignored so many of my points.

Oh wait...

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

no, you seem to believe that Venezuela is the only country with criminal defamation laws. But fine when you accept the fact that indeed many countries have criminal defamation laws.

With dodging skills like this you should be in the military, or a professional fencer. Answer the question already.

You seem to believe that Hugo's interpretation of his criminal defamation laws is somehow correct. As demonstrated, this is obviously false. Many leaders worldwide have been accused of murder, and very, very few, if any, of those people were ever prosecuted. But you consistently ignore that. How come?

Iran has plenty of expat dissidents, whom it claims spreads lies. How many did they ask Interpol to arrest over criminal defamation?

McHrozni

 

[funk de fino]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g53

well i think most would count the UK as Civilized. But i didn't know you didn't

That does no say what you think it says. It does not support your claim.

Just sayin...........