It seems to me that every judge in the western world .. USA etc, is fully aware that the state is always trying to gain more power to curb our human rights and freedom. Here in the UK, the police take DNA from every suspect, for any crime.! EVEN if you are under 16 years of age you will have your DNA taken and put on file. If your found not guilty or even released without charge,YOUR DNA STAYS ON THE DATABASE. A story a few weeks ago was released where armed police broke down a disabled mans front door and literally dragged him off to the police cell and held him for 24hours. This person was so disabled that he could not walk without assistance... his crime.. was to have the almost exact same DNA as an armed robber who had recently broken into 3 houses. It is amazing to me that this poor man, (if he wasn't disabled) could very well of been found guilty due to DNA evidence and locked up for a crime he did not commit. What if it was for a far worse crime? he may of ended up ... anyway the point being that the judicial system and the police system even with DNA evidence is flawed, therefore we cannot give full ultimate power to the state.. do you really trust your government. DO THEY LIE TO YOU.. well what a great idea to give them the power to take your DNA arrest and detain you indefinitely without trial or charge..WAKE UP! Are there ever people in very powerful positions who could use the absolute police power to make up the evidence and using current law.. arrest detain you and throw away the key? The judicial system is the ONLY way we can police the police. Our judges are all that stand in the way of the politicians using law to remove freedom of speech and human rights. Every judge is aware of the continual pressure put on the judicial system to give the police more power.
the supreme judges of the world know how the state / politicians are trying to take control of due judicial process and thank god for the law lords and judges.. see article below
The Supreme Court of New Jersey became the first court in the nation yesterday to rule that people have an expectation of privacy when they are online, and law enforcement officials need a grand jury warrant to have access to their private information.
In state proceedings, the ruling will take precedence over what attorneys describe as weaker U.S. Supreme Court decisions that hold there is no right to privacy on the internet.
Advertisement
"The New Jersey Supreme Court is the first in the nation to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy when using the internet anonymously," said Trenton-based attorney Grayson Barber, who represented six privacy rights organizations as a friend of the court. "'I think this reflects the reality that most people do expect a measure of privacy when they are using the internet anonymously."
The unanimous seven-member court held that police do have the right to seek a user's private information when investigating a crime involving a computer, but must follow legal procedures. The court said authorities do not have to warn a suspect that they have a grand jury subpoena to obtain the information.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said: "We now hold that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Article I ... of the New Jersey Constitution, in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers -- just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies."
Barber said most people use the internet like a phone, making personal -- sometimes sensitive -- transactions that they don't believe the police will be able to access.
"This decision reflects the reality of how ordinary people normally use the internet," he said. "'It's very nice to have the court recognize that expectation is reasonable."
The court ruled in the case of Shirley Reid of Lower Township, Cape May County, who was charged with second-degree computer theft for hacking into her employer's computer system from her home computer. Township police obtained her identity from Comcast by using a municipal court subpoena. The Supreme Court held that law enforcement had the right to investigate her but should have used a grand jury subpoena.
A state Superior Court in Cape May Court House suppressed the evidence based on the use of the wrong subpoena, and a state appeals court upheld the action when the Cape May County Prosecutor's Office appealed.
Reid was investigated after her employer, Jersey Diesel of Lower Township, was notified by a business supplier in 2004 that someone had accessed and changed both the multi-digit numbers that make up the company's IP address and password and had created a non-existent shipping address. When the owner, Timothy Wilson, asked Comcast for the IP address of the person who made the changes, the internet provider declined to comply without a subpoena.
Wilson suspected that Reid, an employee who had been on disability leave, could have made the changes. On the day the changes were made, Reid had returned to work, argued with Wilson and left.
When the police obtained a municipal court subpoena and served it on Comcast, the internet provider identified Reid, her address and telephone number, type of service provided, e-mail address, IP numbers, account number and method of payment. In 2005, a Cape May grand jury returned an indictment charging Reid with computer theft.
Lee Tien, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the decision is an important ruling on the state constitution.
"Obviously, the federal law is terribly weak in this area because of bad decisions in recent years," Tien said. "The federal Fourth Amendment is inadequate for modern privacy issues. New Jersey interprets its constitution to be along the line that ordinary people have a fundamental expectation of privacy."
Writing for the court, Rabner said: "Law enforcement officials can satisfy that constitutional protection and obtain subscriber information by serving a grand jury subpoena on an ISP without notice to the subscriber." Cape May Prosecutor Robert Taylor said he expects to take the case to a new grand jury and seek a new indictment against Reid.
the supreme judges of the world know how the state / politicians are trying to take control of due judicial process and thank god for the law lords and judges.. see article below
The Supreme Court of New Jersey became the first court in the nation yesterday to rule that people have an expectation of privacy when they are online, and law enforcement officials need a grand jury warrant to have access to their private information.
In state proceedings, the ruling will take precedence over what attorneys describe as weaker U.S. Supreme Court decisions that hold there is no right to privacy on the internet.
Advertisement
"The New Jersey Supreme Court is the first in the nation to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy when using the internet anonymously," said Trenton-based attorney Grayson Barber, who represented six privacy rights organizations as a friend of the court. "'I think this reflects the reality that most people do expect a measure of privacy when they are using the internet anonymously."
The unanimous seven-member court held that police do have the right to seek a user's private information when investigating a crime involving a computer, but must follow legal procedures. The court said authorities do not have to warn a suspect that they have a grand jury subpoena to obtain the information.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said: "We now hold that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Article I ... of the New Jersey Constitution, in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers -- just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies."
Barber said most people use the internet like a phone, making personal -- sometimes sensitive -- transactions that they don't believe the police will be able to access.
"This decision reflects the reality of how ordinary people normally use the internet," he said. "'It's very nice to have the court recognize that expectation is reasonable."
The court ruled in the case of Shirley Reid of Lower Township, Cape May County, who was charged with second-degree computer theft for hacking into her employer's computer system from her home computer. Township police obtained her identity from Comcast by using a municipal court subpoena. The Supreme Court held that law enforcement had the right to investigate her but should have used a grand jury subpoena.
A state Superior Court in Cape May Court House suppressed the evidence based on the use of the wrong subpoena, and a state appeals court upheld the action when the Cape May County Prosecutor's Office appealed.
Reid was investigated after her employer, Jersey Diesel of Lower Township, was notified by a business supplier in 2004 that someone had accessed and changed both the multi-digit numbers that make up the company's IP address and password and had created a non-existent shipping address. When the owner, Timothy Wilson, asked Comcast for the IP address of the person who made the changes, the internet provider declined to comply without a subpoena.
Wilson suspected that Reid, an employee who had been on disability leave, could have made the changes. On the day the changes were made, Reid had returned to work, argued with Wilson and left.
When the police obtained a municipal court subpoena and served it on Comcast, the internet provider identified Reid, her address and telephone number, type of service provided, e-mail address, IP numbers, account number and method of payment. In 2005, a Cape May grand jury returned an indictment charging Reid with computer theft.
Lee Tien, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the decision is an important ruling on the state constitution.
"Obviously, the federal law is terribly weak in this area because of bad decisions in recent years," Tien said. "The federal Fourth Amendment is inadequate for modern privacy issues. New Jersey interprets its constitution to be along the line that ordinary people have a fundamental expectation of privacy."
Writing for the court, Rabner said: "Law enforcement officials can satisfy that constitutional protection and obtain subscriber information by serving a grand jury subpoena on an ISP without notice to the subscriber." Cape May Prosecutor Robert Taylor said he expects to take the case to a new grand jury and seek a new indictment against Reid.
posted by Jamez at
3:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home