What is insane is not really his specific case, but the last paragraph of the article about the law in UK:
Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, police are allowed to stop anyone passing through a UK port “to determine whether they may be involved or concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
The person who is detained can be held for up to six hours, is legally obliged to answer questions and must provide the password or access number for electronic devices, or be held to have committed a criminal offence if they refuse.
So, basically, just because you pass the border, English citizen or not, you have to provide the password to all your devices on request, without even a probable cause or any justice decision or oversight. And if you don't comply, you will be sentenced as a terrorist...
Every single country on Earth has these same rules.
It is a core characteristic of a nation that it is able, if it chooses, to inspect every single person and item entering it.
Even countries with open borders reserve the right, and have often exercised that right, to close their borders and enforce strict customs, immigration, and security laws.
It doesn't matter where. Europe, Asia, Africa, "good" countries, "bad" countries-- if you cross their border you can be compelled to unlock your phone.
If you think you live in a country that cannot do so, you are wrong. The only differentiating characteristic among all nations is the nature of the reaction if you refuse to comply.
The last phrase shows an interesting problem. Can you be forced to unlock your phone if it contains something that is legally protected as secret, so unlocking your phone you would be breaking the law?.
What information would the state forbid the state to know? The only thing I can think of is if the information is classfied at a higher level than the investigators are authorised to know, but that would be quite an exceptional situation.
There's a funny story that Bill Binney tells, the former technical director of the NSA who blew the whistle on the spy programs following the patriot act, about when a couple of FBI agents were sent to his house to arrest him. He wryly says "I caused a problem for them" by telling them something they weren't cleared to know. The FBI guys radioed their superiors, and then were immediately ordered to get away from Binney
I hate to defend such a despicable human being, but it’s a legitimate point: Not only does he have a right not to self-incriminate, he also has a right to hide his defense strategy against the crimes with which the state has charged him from the state.
(Note that I’m speaking broadly when I say “right,” in the sense that these are human rights that should be universally respected. The UK certainly doesn’t seem to respect the right against self-incrimination, given that it charges people with a crime for not allowing a border agent to rifle through their phone.)
> UK certainly doesn’t seem to respect the right against self-incrimination, given that it charges people with a crime for not allowing a border agent to rifle through their phone
You're describing a violation of privacy, possibly privilege, not self-incrimination doctrine. Self incrimination relates to compelled speech [1].
I think it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination.
> it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination
No? If we do that we render the term meaningless as any incriminating evidence could be termed self-incrimination.
Self-incrimination is about speech. Violations of privilege are not self incriminating. Neither is murder. Both are bad. But just because something is bad doesn't make it every specific type of bad.
The right against self-incrimination is about more than speech. The philosophical underpinning is that a person has the right not to be compelled to aid in their own prosecution.
That’s why evidence is seized as a result of a warrant that cannot just be a “fishing expedition.” “We suspect you commit a crime but have no specific evidence or knowledge of specific evidence, let us search for anything that might be evidence” doesn’t fly under such a theory. And a search warrant doesn’t compel the subject to disclose hiding places etc. either (though it probably can compel one to disclose hazards like traps, for safety in the moment).
Seriously? So,what, mutes can’t incriminate themselves?
Even if you wanna stick to that shaky narrative, consider that text messages are speech. Notes to myself are speech. Pictures in my phone are a form of my self-expression—which is speech. Emails? Speech. Voice recordings? Speech. My ChatGPT history? Speech. My Siri interactions? Speech.
The concept of protection against self-incrimination is deeply rooted in protecting our privacy; I don’t see how they can be separated like you seem to have suggesting here.
Yes. If an officer tells you to admit guilt in a text message, that’s self incrimination. If they find an incriminating text, that’s just incrimination. It may also be an illegal search. But that’s orthogonal. (The closest they come to each other is in entrapment.)
He exposed an organised totalitarian system taking over both gov and legal system, with anyone resisting being arrested/crushed with lawfare.
Go see the documentary he created, it's eye opening, scary, true.
> see the documentary he created, it's eye opening, scary, true
How can you trust him given his personal history of violence, fraud and lying? Are his accounts corroborated by someone reputable?
From his record on Wikipedia and the facts in this article, he's either an idiot with impulse-control issues, or a provocateur who repeatedly gets himself in trouble to play victim for views. Neither suggests a reliable narrator.
> more established there is a smear campaign against him
A smear campaign forced him to assault "an off-duty police officer in a drunken argument," "illegally [enter] the United States using a friend's passport," repeatedly violate simple court orders, repeatedly libel people including children and stalk journalists [1]?
> it's pretty hard to refute what he says
I literally asked for reputable corroboration of his accounts.
> the new UK where free speech is nonexistent and people are imprisoned for opposing 'the party'
I'll file this under the category of people whose speech we are discussing because it's available, been amplified and is being reported on yelling into a microphone and/or on TV that they're being silenced. (Reminds me of South Park's "The Worldwide Privacy Tour" [2].)
Looking deeper, the guy is an entertainer. He says provactive stuff--some of it racist, some of it stupid, a little of it true (though never novel)--to an audience that wants to believe it's edgy and oppressed by supporting someone cosplaying a martyr. The role isn't unique to the right or left, but it is the domain of extremists.
In the UK “real name” and “legal name” are just aliases for “your name” which is the identity you’re known by on documents issued by the government and its Home Office, ie your National Insurance record or your UK Passport. Your aliases are not your name unless and until you change that name by deed poll or through marriage / divorce. Your aliases, no matter how well recognized they may be, are not your name.
The idiot whose name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is also known by the alias Tommy Robinson, amongst others. The aliases exist to protect the identity from the legal and moral consequences of the idiot’s speech. While I’m not sure there is value in always reminding every audience of the real identity every alias refers to, in this case he’s got a history of intentional name obfuscation.
> In the UK “real name” and “legal name” are just aliases for “your name” which is the identity you’re known by on documents issued by the government and its Home Office, ie your National Insurance record or your UK Passport. Your aliases are not your name unless and until you change that name by deed poll or through marriage / divorce. Your aliases, no matter how well recognized they may be, are not your name.
Were you also cheering on the locking up of assange?
The revelations of governments breaking laws and people being crushed - and the high price for people revealing it - always seem to attract an 'INGSOC'esque discreditation campaign
“Robinson served four prison terms between 2005 and 2019. In 2013, he illegally entered the United States using a friend's passport. In 2018, he violated a court order by publishing a Facebook Live video of defendants entering court...
In 2021, he was found to have libelled a 15-year-old refugee at a school in Huddersfield and was ordered to pay £100,000 plus legal costs. In 2021, he was subjected to a five-year stalking prevention order for harassing journalist Lizzie Dearden and her partner.”
Wow. Makes his alleged crime in this case, violation of an injunction, far more believable.
I guess if a government wants to manufacture consent/support for a terrible law, they need to enforce it against the least sympathetic defendants they can find.
> if a government wants to manufacture consent/support for a terrible law, they need to enforce it against the least sympathetic defendants they can find
Not everything is a conspiracy. He libelled a person. A court said stop libelling. He violated that injunction.
The takeaway from this guy’s history is he’s a liar and serial lawbreaker. The outrage in this story is reliant on his account. As a result, this is a nothingburger without more information, in the same category as sovereign citizens claiming repression for drunk driving without a license.
His argument against being charged with a crime for refusing to provide access to his phone contents is actually reasonable. (Unlike virtually every other argument he has ever made, whether in court or out of it; he’s an idiot and a racist.)
If his planned defense against his other criminal charges was documented on the phone, that would make it information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess. And that’s not even considering his inherent right to privacy.
What is insane is not really his specific case, but the last paragraph of the article about the law in UK:
So, basically, just because you pass the border, English citizen or not, you have to provide the password to all your devices on request, without even a probable cause or any justice decision or oversight. And if you don't comply, you will be sentenced as a terrorist...Every single country on Earth has these same rules.
It is a core characteristic of a nation that it is able, if it chooses, to inspect every single person and item entering it.
Even countries with open borders reserve the right, and have often exercised that right, to close their borders and enforce strict customs, immigration, and security laws.
It doesn't matter where. Europe, Asia, Africa, "good" countries, "bad" countries-- if you cross their border you can be compelled to unlock your phone.
If you think you live in a country that cannot do so, you are wrong. The only differentiating characteristic among all nations is the nature of the reaction if you refuse to comply.
This is a strange take
> The only differentiating characteristic among all nations is the nature of the reaction if you refuse to comply.
You mean the nature ranging from to going to jail to you wasting a few hours more in the airport?
> if you cross their border you can be compelled to unlock your phone.
Do you have a source for this?
LOL, what? Most countries will take your away your phone but not criminally charge for refusing to unlock your phone.
So they've brought back the Star Chamber then.
Such a shame to see that country go from what it was to what it is now.
It's like they've all decided "ok so we've done being strong and great, now let's try be the biggest pieces of shit we can be".
The last phrase shows an interesting problem. Can you be forced to unlock your phone if it contains something that is legally protected as secret, so unlocking your phone you would be breaking the law?.
What information would the state forbid the state to know? The only thing I can think of is if the information is classfied at a higher level than the investigators are authorised to know, but that would be quite an exceptional situation.
There's a funny story that Bill Binney tells, the former technical director of the NSA who blew the whistle on the spy programs following the patriot act, about when a couple of FBI agents were sent to his house to arrest him. He wryly says "I caused a problem for them" by telling them something they weren't cleared to know. The FBI guys radioed their superiors, and then were immediately ordered to get away from Binney
That's the top secret information equivalent of playing copyrighted music with someone near streaming on twitch so that their stream gets blocked
Documents related with the defense strategy on another trial, or proofs disclosing facts under secrecy of summary maybe.
I hate to defend such a despicable human being, but it’s a legitimate point: Not only does he have a right not to self-incriminate, he also has a right to hide his defense strategy against the crimes with which the state has charged him from the state.
(Note that I’m speaking broadly when I say “right,” in the sense that these are human rights that should be universally respected. The UK certainly doesn’t seem to respect the right against self-incrimination, given that it charges people with a crime for not allowing a border agent to rifle through their phone.)
> UK certainly doesn’t seem to respect the right against self-incrimination, given that it charges people with a crime for not allowing a border agent to rifle through their phone
You're describing a violation of privacy, possibly privilege, not self-incrimination doctrine. Self incrimination relates to compelled speech [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination
I think it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination.
> it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination
No? If we do that we render the term meaningless as any incriminating evidence could be termed self-incrimination.
Self-incrimination is about speech. Violations of privilege are not self incriminating. Neither is murder. Both are bad. But just because something is bad doesn't make it every specific type of bad.
The right against self-incrimination is about more than speech. The philosophical underpinning is that a person has the right not to be compelled to aid in their own prosecution.
That’s why evidence is seized as a result of a warrant that cannot just be a “fishing expedition.” “We suspect you commit a crime but have no specific evidence or knowledge of specific evidence, let us search for anything that might be evidence” doesn’t fly under such a theory. And a search warrant doesn’t compel the subject to disclose hiding places etc. either (though it probably can compel one to disclose hazards like traps, for safety in the moment).
> philosophical underpinning is that a person has the right not to be compelled to aid in their own prosecution
No, you have to cooperate with subpoenas. Protections against self incrimination are much more narrow. Legally and historically.
> Self-incrimination is about speech.
Seriously? So,what, mutes can’t incriminate themselves?
Even if you wanna stick to that shaky narrative, consider that text messages are speech. Notes to myself are speech. Pictures in my phone are a form of my self-expression—which is speech. Emails? Speech. Voice recordings? Speech. My ChatGPT history? Speech. My Siri interactions? Speech.
The concept of protection against self-incrimination is deeply rooted in protecting our privacy; I don’t see how they can be separated like you seem to have suggesting here.
> text messages are speech
Yes. If an officer tells you to admit guilt in a text message, that’s self incrimination. If they find an incriminating text, that’s just incrimination. It may also be an illegal search. But that’s orthogonal. (The closest they come to each other is in entrapment.)
He exposed an organised totalitarian system taking over both gov and legal system, with anyone resisting being arrested/crushed with lawfare. Go see the documentary he created, it's eye opening, scary, true.
> see the documentary he created, it's eye opening, scary, true
How can you trust him given his personal history of violence, fraud and lying? Are his accounts corroborated by someone reputable?
From his record on Wikipedia and the facts in this article, he's either an idiot with impulse-control issues, or a provocateur who repeatedly gets himself in trouble to play victim for views. Neither suggests a reliable narrator.
Do you need to trust your own eyes? You can validate claims made yourself can't you
It's more established there is a smear campaign against him, with bots and shills trying to smear him as it's pretty hard to refute what he says.
Guy been put through hell, in the new UK where free speech is nonexistent and people are imprisoned for opposing 'the party'.
Mind you, I'm not English nor do I live there, but it's scary seeing what is happening there and how it seems to be spreading
> more established there is a smear campaign against him
A smear campaign forced him to assault "an off-duty police officer in a drunken argument," "illegally [enter] the United States using a friend's passport," repeatedly violate simple court orders, repeatedly libel people including children and stalk journalists [1]?
> it's pretty hard to refute what he says
I literally asked for reputable corroboration of his accounts.
> the new UK where free speech is nonexistent and people are imprisoned for opposing 'the party'
I'll file this under the category of people whose speech we are discussing because it's available, been amplified and is being reported on yelling into a microphone and/or on TV that they're being silenced. (Reminds me of South Park's "The Worldwide Privacy Tour" [2].)
Looking deeper, the guy is an entertainer. He says provactive stuff--some of it racist, some of it stupid, a little of it true (though never novel)--to an audience that wants to believe it's edgy and oppressed by supporting someone cosplaying a martyr. The role isn't unique to the right or left, but it is the domain of extremists.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson#Early_and_per...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worldwide_Privacy_Tour
> I'm not English nor do I live there
What a shock.
Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon.
Media should call this waste of oxygen by his real name on the headline.
there is no such thing as "real name" or "legal name" in the UK
the independent have used the name people would recognise in their headline
In the UK “real name” and “legal name” are just aliases for “your name” which is the identity you’re known by on documents issued by the government and its Home Office, ie your National Insurance record or your UK Passport. Your aliases are not your name unless and until you change that name by deed poll or through marriage / divorce. Your aliases, no matter how well recognized they may be, are not your name.
The idiot whose name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is also known by the alias Tommy Robinson, amongst others. The aliases exist to protect the identity from the legal and moral consequences of the idiot’s speech. While I’m not sure there is value in always reminding every audience of the real identity every alias refers to, in this case he’s got a history of intentional name obfuscation.
> In the UK “real name” and “legal name” are just aliases for “your name” which is the identity you’re known by on documents issued by the government and its Home Office, ie your National Insurance record or your UK Passport. Your aliases are not your name unless and until you change that name by deed poll or through marriage / divorce. Your aliases, no matter how well recognized they may be, are not your name.
this is simply not true
this is the official position of the foreign office: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Were you also cheering on the locking up of assange? The revelations of governments breaking laws and people being crushed - and the high price for people revealing it - always seem to attract an 'INGSOC'esque discreditation campaign
Assange is not comparable to Yaxley-Lennon in any way.
Quick link if like me you have no idea who this bloke is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson
“Robinson served four prison terms between 2005 and 2019. In 2013, he illegally entered the United States using a friend's passport. In 2018, he violated a court order by publishing a Facebook Live video of defendants entering court...
In 2021, he was found to have libelled a 15-year-old refugee at a school in Huddersfield and was ordered to pay £100,000 plus legal costs. In 2021, he was subjected to a five-year stalking prevention order for harassing journalist Lizzie Dearden and her partner.”
Wow. Makes his alleged crime in this case, violation of an injunction, far more believable.
I guess if a government wants to manufacture consent/support for a terrible law, they need to enforce it against the least sympathetic defendants they can find.
> if a government wants to manufacture consent/support for a terrible law, they need to enforce it against the least sympathetic defendants they can find
Not everything is a conspiracy. He libelled a person. A court said stop libelling. He violated that injunction.
The takeaway from this guy’s history is he’s a liar and serial lawbreaker. The outrage in this story is reliant on his account. As a result, this is a nothingburger without more information, in the same category as sovereign citizens claiming repression for drunk driving without a license.
His argument against being charged with a crime for refusing to provide access to his phone contents is actually reasonable. (Unlike virtually every other argument he has ever made, whether in court or out of it; he’s an idiot and a racist.)
If his planned defense against his other criminal charges was documented on the phone, that would make it information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess. And that’s not even considering his inherent right to privacy.
> argument against being charged with a crime for refusing to provide access to his phone contents is actually reasonable
Sure. We have no evidence that is (a) true or (b) what happened.
> that would make it information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess
It might make some of it privileged. That's miles apart from "information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess."
Wow. That is an impressively long sequence of "activities."