The Scottish teenager accused of involvement in LulzSec and Anonymous attacks has been freed on bail. Eighteen-year-old Jake Davis appeared at Horseferry Road Magistrates Court today. He will have to wear an electronic tag to enforce a nighttime curfew and stay at his mother's house in central England, AP reports. He may not …
Having read the earlier story on the (lack of) security in prison access hardware there probably wasn't a lot of point in locking him up, if he's supposed to be Lulzsec member - I'm sure they be up for a bit of mischief in that line.
The fact he didn't manage to release himself before being bailed might be evidence he isn't the real Topiary. :-)
Actually, I think it would be safe enough.
He wouldn't be able to run pre made scripts against it.
hahaha.. I love this
"enforce a nighttime curfew and stay at his mother's house"
Wow could this be anymore stereotypical?
"Serious Organised Crime Agency"?
opposed to 'funny organised crime agency', or 'mildly annoyed and organised crime agency'? But house arrest? What if he's convicted, a spanking, followed by no sweets?
I've often wondered about organized crime. If we have an agency that deals exlusively in organized crime does that mean all the crime dealt with by the rest of the police is disorganized?
I'm hoachin with the Aspergers.
Are these tag thingies programable I wonder....
If only it were so easy
Turns out sometime you have to arrest someone in order to get further evidence to prosecute them. You can't always build a complete and watertight case and then go pick em up and sling em in front of a judge.
Furthermore, the courts and various CPS staff have to work on other cases as well, you know. Why should a current case be bumped out of court and postponed for a few weeks whilst they sort out a possible skiddie? I for one welcome the judiciary dealing with real crimes.
It might also be worth considering that staying off the interwebs will probably be to his advantage. He doesn't really need the opportunity to dig himself a deeper hole.
Opportunity to dig a deeper hole?
Nice presumption of guilt there.
Even an innocent person can do something stupid that would ruin their chances in court.
I'm pretty sure they can claim costs (loss of earning and other financial losses such as abandoned holidays and the like) and compensation for the period they are held and/or have restrictions applied. So while it is a pain, and can have an impact on more than just the accused, at least they should get something for all this trouble... *if* they are not convicted (found not guilty or case is dropped or just charges dropped for that matter).
I've had a quick look but couldn't find any details, just an odd reference to claims that can be made by victims, witnesses *and accused* on one gov. site (unfortunately the links were broken hence not getting any further info).
So, no, I don't *like* the restriction, especially if the accused is innocent, but I do believe there is a mechanism in place to compensate them if they aren't convicted in the end, which is, I believe, only right and proper.
Of cause, none of this would be necessary in an ideal world, but then we don't live in one of those, do we :(
Keep a few things in mind. Not everyone accused is guilty but it is in the interests of society to impose limitations, checks and balances on a case by case basis. We could say this is unfair to one accused individual but at the same time society as a whole and that includes the one individual, benefits from diligence in limiting potentially harmful activites of those prone to commit crimes.
To some extent I agree that compensation isn't always approprate, you can't put a dollar figure on the disruption of one's life or stress, but at the same time many people don't even make bail, having far more restrictions pre-trial and only lack of internet and restrictions on living arrangements and schedule.
It would be insane to think a restriction from others accessing the internet on his behalf means his lawyer, acting as one. A little common sense please?
We could say "oh no it's terrible if the fellow is innocent", but what are we to do? Do we not even arrest anyone (since it would be such an imposition to them) because we haven't yet proven them guilty in a court of law? That's putting the cart before the horse, in order to exact justice there has to be procedures that include detaining, questioning, limitation of rights between the period of suspicion and declaration of innocence and guilt. Be glad people are allowed bail at all, to some extent that alone is contrary to the best interests of society, that your freedom and chances in court depend upon how rich you are or who you know?
I'm all for a speedy resolution to this but the answer is to choose between more taxes to support a larger (presumably faster) justice system, or to take your chances and try to stay out of trouble (which if suspicions are correct, even if this fellow isn't /THE/ Topiary hacker he seems to have been made a target by trolling against other people. Make enemies and it might come back to bite you some day.
"Yes, but it's like car insurance, write your car off and you get compensation for what it would cost to buy a replacement car but it never really does so, it's always a few hundred short, and you'll never get back the time or money spent phoning around chasing these things, or the days off work to deal with them. You always lose out."
Well I had my car written off last year. The insurers paid me £4,000 minus my excess as they said that a replacement would cost £4K. I had actually paid less than that for the car a year earlier and managed to by a replacement for just short of £3K. So no matter how you look at it I did OK out of the deal.
A friend was recently offered £800 for his car with the excess already discounted. Or as an alternative £650 and he could keep the car and repair it himself. That was basically the £800 minus the nominal £150 scrap value of the car. That was a damn good deal as he basically needed a replacement front bumper and headlight which he got used for nuts.
So I think what you have there is a very bad analogy.
Insurers often pay out above the odds because it's easier and cheaper than paying for a courtesy car while the dispute rolls on.
A fine rant, but it has no basis in fact. The chap who got his car back and £650 was entirely at fault. It was a single vehicle accident. BTW the car in question could be had privately for less than a grand.
Bear in mind that the insurance industry makes an absolute fortune and there is only one reason for this. The income from premiums far outweighs the expenditure from claims. As such the insurers know that can go a little easy when settling claims without breaking the bank.