[jiggy2011]

This is shocking and as a UK citizen angers me greatly, however I have to say this guy doesn't seem too smart.

Firstly, building a website (presumably with the domain registered under his name) like this in the current legal climate is basically asking for trouble. Especially hosting it in Sweden (where the TBP was).

Secondly , in the interview he asked the Police if he should get a solicitor, and decided not to get one because he might have to wait a couple of hours? WTF?

If you are arrested by the police and possibly being charged with an imprison-able offence (or really any offence) of course you should get a solicitor , why would this even be a question?

[Evernoob]

Because he was a scared kid who wanted this to go away, and the police told him it would if he just answer their questions and not wait the "2 hours" for the lawyer.

He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet.

[gouranga]

Agreed, but this is standard tactics for the police.

The police (particularly the met) are out to get an easy prosecution and fulfill their statistical requirements rather than fair and honest justice. They will pretend to be your friend and offer you an easy way out that doesn't exist to do this.

The best thing you can do is say nothing at all. Shut your gob and refuse to say a word. Everything should be replied to with "no comment".

[mike_esspe]

Relevant talk for those, who thinks it can be a good idea to talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[jiggy2011]

I am not a lawyer, but it's worth noting that in the UK we don't have a 5th amendment. So I believe in some circumstances it can reflect badly on you if you refuse to answer questions from the Police especially where you could have provided information that would have been in your favour.

For example, part of standard USA Miranda:

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

British Equivalent:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"

Having said that, I would personally keep quiet until you at least have a solicitor.

[gouranga]

That is when you are questioned, not when you are arrested. You can keep quiet as long as you want. Technically the simpler your questioning and therefore statement is, the more ambiguity is available in court which goes in your favor whether guilty or innocent. During cross examination, any error you make ruins your credibility. No information = less errors. Choosing not to answer a question does not imply guilt - it's in the CPS prosecution guidelines.

With respect to solicitors, get a private one as well (preferably one who knowingly hates the police) rather than a duty solicitor as they are in the pockets of the police in the UK. They are one and the same - they eat, drink, socialise and funny handshake in the same locations.

[jiggy2011]

Choosing not to answer does not imply guilt, however simply stone walling with "no comment" is probably not as good an idea as it would be in the US (although a solicitor would be able to advise you on what you should answer).

I'm not sure whether "questioned" just means when you are at the police station or also during the time of the arrest. I would assume it could refer to both "why did you not bring this to the attention of the officer at the time of the arrest?".

Although I would imagine a rational jury would think that waiting for legal advice was a sensible thing to do.

Regards duty solicitors, I always thought that these were really private solicitors who were put on a rotation and were strictly kept separate from the police?

http://www.jfhlaw.co.uk/faqs/crime-faqs/what-is-a-duty-solic...

If there is a case of corruption here then that would be extremely worrying as the people most likely to be charged with crimes are also the people with the least ability to pay a private solicitor. Is there anything to back this up?

I'm also not sure I would want a solicitor who "hates" the police, I would want somebody motivated to help me, not get one over on someone else. The adversarial relationship between the police and solicitor should be professional and not personal.

[gouranga]

For reference, having been on the end of it (at Waterloo Station [1]), the police also use another tactic regularly which sucks but is easily dealt with:

"I'll pepper spray you if you don't make a statement and say you were resisting arrest".

Make a fucking scene: "shout as loud as possible what the officer said". When there are a hundred eyes on you, they back off.

[1] I was going camping and had a hatchet inside my bag (not easily accessible) and was stopped and searched. It is definitely legal to carry such things as long as there is a purpose for it.

[jiggy2011]

He was 24 so not exactly a "kid". In fact if you are scared a solicitor is probably the best thing you could have to alleviate some of the fear and uncertainty and give you an ally in such a situation.

I was arrested when I was 14 (for something minor) and I wasn't dumb enough to refuse legal representation.

[aes256]

> He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet.

He knew what he was doing. He is alleged to have made ~£150,000 in advertising revenue from the site.

He had his TVShack.net domain seized by ICE in June 2010. Any kid simply making a mistake would have given up at that point.

Instead, within a matter of days he set the site up again on a new TVShack.cc domain, adding a picture of NWA and the statement "F* the police" to the top of the site.

[jakejake]

Is this actually true? Are there some links to back it up?

[aes256]

The judgment from the extradition hearing in Westminster Magistrates' Court contains all the accusations: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...

The relevant US attorney alleged over $230,000 in advertising payments had been identified. When questioned by City of London Police in November 2010, O'Dwyer allegedly admitted to "earning approximately £15,000 per month" from advertisements.

The shut down of TVShack.net and reemergence of the site on the TVShack.cc domain with the "F*ck the Police" banner is also described.

[jakejake]

Thanks for the link. I guess you were originally down-voted because some people don't like a counter-opinion when it comes to file sharing. I have mixed feelings about sharing but the one thing I don't really like is when people are claiming to just "share" but are actually making a significant profit. I think if there is profit being made then at least a portion of it should be going to the artists.

[mindslight]

In a perfect world, people starting communities like this would be smarter about it and use better software that conceals their identity and provides no central server to shut down. But unfortunately the Internet gained prime-time popularity with barely-adequate centralized object naming and transport technology (dns/http). So there are masses of people who understand its promise, but don't scrutinize the popular implementation nor take technical precautions to shield themselves - they instead blunder in while concocting legal theories as to why they're safe (as they fail to realize that laws are less like code and more like advertising).

This particular kid may have been dumb (and immature given his flaunting), but to focus on his failings is ignore the greater phenomenon that he's merely fodder to. I certainly don't think he deserves to be put into the meat grinder, but if he had been a bit smarter and avoided it, we'd merely be talking about a different stupid kid.

The really unfortunate thing is that these halfway-there worse-is-better technologies like napster/torrent/bitcoin only serve to immunize the existing power structures by alerting them to the phenomenon of revolutionary communication technologies and giving the state incremental practice at blocking protocols.

[sandollars]

> Firstly, building a website like this in the current legal climate is basically asking for trouble.

His website has been in existence since 2007.

[FireBeyond]

2007 was hardly "a more innocent time" for the Internet.

Napster had been shutdown years before and was still winding through the courts, for example, and The Pirate Bay was an (Internet) household name.

[corin_]

I'm completely guessing here, but isn't there some sort of law or regulation that the police are required to give you truthful information regarding your right to legal representation?

As such, and while this wouldn't take away from the stupidity of not getting a solicitor involved, maybe he asked the question not because he wanted an answer, but because he thought there was a chance the policeman might say "no, you don't need one of those" and create a problem for the prosecution?

[jiggy2011]

I'm not sure of the specifics of the law, but if you ask for a solicitor they are not allowed to refuse or tell you that you are not entitled to one.

They are allowed however to try and sway you away from the idea.

Even if he was trying such a trick , the fact is that he didn't request one.