
What To Do If Prosecuted For Sharing Culture: STFU - zoowar
http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/11/what-to-do-if-prosecuted-for-sharing-culture-stfu/
======
oofabz
No matter what you're being prosecuted for, it's always a good idea to STFU.
Police can and do lie to extract information from you. They will make it seem
like the case against you is ironclad and if you cooperate they will go easy
on you. It's all bullshit, they do not have your interests at heart. Their
only goal is to obtain a conviction and they see you as the enemy. You should
not discuss ANYTHING with them until you talk to a lawyer.

~~~
zoowar
If we learned anything from the TV show Cops, this is it.

------
alttab
Sharing culture? Copyright monopoly? What the hell is this article?

~~~
patdennis
The language comes from a desire to forward an agenda. You find the same
pattern of strange little phrases in most ideologically self-reinforcing
political communities.

~~~
alttab
Yeah I figured as much. I don't consider pirating movies 'sharing culture',
and I don't think 'Copyright Monopoly' is accurate or well-informed.

------
rdw
The advice to run your wifi router unencrypted is not right. Too much of a
security risk, too much chance of abuse in a city. It may reduce the chance of
successful prosecution of copyright infringement, but it seems like it opens
you to being implicated for more serious crimes.

~~~
greenyoda
I've read at least one news story (sorry, forgot the details) of a guy who had
a SWAT team break down his door because someone had used his open Wi-Fi router
to send a threatening message.

You could also get the police at your door if your neighbor (or someone
driving by in a car) uses your Wi-Fi to visit a child porn site, or something
like that.

Still, not talking to the police seems to be good advice. For more information
on that, see this video:

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane (27:25)

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865>

~~~
jdhopeunique
In some states you are required to identify yourself and a recent court ruling
showed that merely remaining silence was not enough to invoke one's right to
silence. One must paradoxically, speak up to have the right to remain silent.
Here are 2 relevant links:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#United_States>

~~~
gwillen
I've never seen this as especially paradoxical. As long as you choose not to
speak, you are free to remain silent. As soon as you start speaking, you are
choosing to speak, and not be silent.

The only effect of verbally invoking your right to remain silent, as far as
I'm aware, is that the police have to stop interrogating you. It would make
sense for the police to have to stop after you refuse to answer their
questions for some defined period, but it also makes sense (and this is more
or less the reasoning of the court as I understand it) to say that, while you
are free to be silent, the cops are free to keep asking questions unless you
affirmatively indicate your desire that they stop.

The main problem remaining, I think, is the fact that people do not know they
can so ask.

