Privacy intrusion or Justified crime fighting?

[manifold]

It looks like Neil Entwistle is guilty as sin. But do you think it is acceptable to have one's internet surfing history admitted as evidence? That is, acceptable from the standpoint of your personal philosophical leanings, not according to your interpretation of the US Constitution, common law, or case law precedent.

WOBURN - The defense team for Neil Entwistle suffered a series of setbacks yesterday, including testimony from a computer specialist that the British man used his laptop to research "how to kill with a knife" four days before he allegedly shot his wife and baby in their rented Hopkinton home.

Entwistle defense team faces setbacks - The Boston Globe

 

[Ravi]

Why not if it's pertinent to the case?

 

[Shattered]

Sure. Why not? Don't do anything that can come b ack to haunt you later, and you won't have a problem.

 

[dilloduck]

It looks like Neil Entwistle is guilty as sin. But do you think it is acceptable to have one's internet surfing history admitted as evidence? That is, acceptable from the standpoint of your personal philosophical leanings, not according to your interpretation of the US Constitution, common law, or case law precedent.



Entwistle defense team faces setbacks - The Boston Globe

How is that any different from getting a search warrant to go through your underwear drawer ?

 

[Gunny]

How is that any different from getting a search warrant to go through your underwear drawer ?

Did you read the link? This dude is a done deal, computer or no, IMO.

I wasn't aware this was a question. I thought law enforcement had been searching PCs for years for just such evidence.

 

[Diuretic]

There are a couple of questions here. The first is the admissibility of evidence (no, I'm not taking a narrow legalistic view). My personal view is that all evidence should be admitted if it's relevant. Its probative value can be weighed up by the court later but if it's even remotely relevant it should be put in front of the jury.

The second question is how far police should be able to go in terms of searching for evidence. Personally I have no problem with police being able to search his computer. The crime alleged is the most serious. I think the police should be allowed to search anything of his for evidence as soon as he becomes a suspect.

If anyone is familiar with the differences between common law and European civil (ie derived from Roman Law) systems they'll see on which side I fall.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

It looks like Neil Entwistle is guilty as sin. But do you think it is acceptable to have one's internet surfing history admitted as evidence? That is, acceptable from the standpoint of your personal philosophical leanings, not according to your interpretation of the US Constitution, common law, or case law precedent.



Entwistle defense team faces setbacks - The Boston Globe

I can't believe most everyone here got the question wrong. But there you are...saying how wonderful they all are.

<*grin>

my answer is "no" ... final answer

 

[dilloduck]

I can't believe most everyone here got the question wrong. But there you are...saying how wonderful they all are.

<*grin>

my answer is "no" ... final answer

okie dokie

 

[indago]

Originally Posted by Linked Story
WOBURN - The defense team for Neil Entwistle suffered a series of setbacks yesterday, including testimony from a computer specialist that the British man used his laptop to research "how to kill with a knife" four days before he allegedly shot his wife and baby in their rented Hopkinton home.

This evidence would have to declared inadmissable. He researched "how to kill with a knife", and he used a gun. If he had researched "how to kill with a gun", then I would say go for it.

 

[Diuretic]

Why inadmissible? I would think there's sufficient relevance to render it admissible due to relevance. What exclusionary rule would see it booted?

 

[editec]

We who use the net, ALL live in glass houses.

Is it right?

Of course not.

Every word we write on these board is stored, for future reference, folks.

I know that makes me sound like a paranoid, but it is the truth.

Based on my eclectic surfing patterns you could make the case (if that was your agenda) that I am a right wing fantatic, a left wing fanatic, or just about anything you chose to prove about me by the specious logic of innudendo and insinuation.

I say specious logic because evidence that you read about something surely does not PROVE anything except that you can read.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We who use the net, ALL live in glass houses.

Is it right?

Of course not.

Every word we write on these board is stored, for future reference, folks.

I know that makes me sound like a paranoid, but it is the truth.

Based on my eclectic surfing patterns you could make the case (if that was your agenda) that I am a right wing fantatic, a left wing fanatic, or just about anything you chose to prove about me by the specious logic of innudendo and insinuation.

I say specious logic because evidence that you read about something surely does not PROVE anything except that you can read.

It is though, in this case, valid because it proves that he was researching what could have been means to kill his now dead wife. Reasonable search and reasonable inference for a Jury to decide based on all the evidence if it means anything.

 

[dread]

I can't believe most everyone here got the question wrong. But there you are...saying how wonderful they all are.

<*grin>

my answer is "no" ... final answer

Well if the ONLY proof that a child molester was actually producing child porn on the internet then I guess by your stadards a child molester should go free.

 

[editec]

Reasonable search and reasonable inference for a Jury to decide based on all the evidence if it means anything.

Not really having enough information about this case, I can't decide what is a reasonable inference in this case.

But I understand you point, well enough. It has validity.

My objection is really about the wholesale invasion of our internet privacy generally, not specifically directed at this case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not really having enough information about this case, I can't decide what is a reasonable inference in this case.

But I understand you point, well enough. It has validity.

My objection is really about the wholesale invasion of our internet privacy generally, not specifically directed at this case.

But in THIS case they had a valid search warrant. No invasion at all. The man was accused of murder and the cops had enough probable cause to get a warrant. His computer and his actions on said computer are not somehow safe from that process. Anyone that thinks so is sorely lacking in facts on how our system should and does work.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

okie dokie

you have no clue, do you? the question asked is different than the one answered before that post.

better luck next time, eh?


have you figured IT out yet?

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Well if the ONLY proof that a child molester was actually producing child porn on the internet then I guess by your stadards a child molester should go free.

I see you've missed the point too. Is it the drinking water around here or is stupid the new in-thing?

But do you think it is acceptable to have one's internet surfing history admitted as evidence? That is, acceptable from the standpoint of your personal philosophical leanings, not according to your interpretation of the US Constitution, common law, or case law precedent.

the question is a philosophical one and is not meant to be about the law as I or you see it. read the question..." acceptable from the standpoint of your personal philosophical leanings, not according to your interpretation of the US Constitution, common law, or case law.precedent"

what is it about child molesters that peaks your interest? the only people I know who mention that one out of context are ex prisoners and creepy adults with far too many secrets...usually drunks or drug addicts.

 

[editec]

But in THIS case they had a valid search warrant

Yes, excellent point.

I do not object to searches, or for that matter even survellience of somebody's internet activity if a valid search warrant is in place.

 

[Gunny]

Well if the ONLY proof that a child molester was actually producing child porn on the internet then I guess by your stadards a child molester should go free.

Or shot. Seems to me natural resources are at a premium worldwide now due to overpopulation. Pedophiles are wast of any and all of them.

 

[Gunny]

I see you've missed the point too. Is it the drinking water around here or is stupid the new in-thing?




the question is a philosophical one and is not meant to be about the law as I or you see it. read the question..." acceptable from the standpoint of your personal philosophical leanings, not according to your interpretation of the US Constitution, common law, or case law.precedent"

what is it about child molesters that peaks your interest? the only people I know who mention that one out of context are ex prisoners and creepy adults with far too many secrets...usually drunks or drug addicts.

Oh? Again, how is it a question? The only people who say it's an invasion of privacy have something to hide. If you're paranoid and distrustful of anything like me, you never trusted any communication medium to begin with.

It doesn't matter what I think from a philosophical standpoint. All that matter is that they justify it and do it and neither you nor I can stop them.