Category Archives: Society

Britain, Legal, Media, Society

Libel threat to the Press is facing axe

PRESS REGULATION

The Conservatives have said they will scrap a draconian law on the Press that would have forced newspapers to pay all legal costs in a libel case even if they won.

The party’s manifesto, released earlier this week, pledged to repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act and spare papers from “crippling” costs. The party has also said it would axe the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into Press Culture, practices and ethics.

This was expected to investigate law-breaking and improper conduct by media organisations, following the first stage into phone hacking and whether police were complicit in misconduct.

Also, websites that benefit from newspaper content could be pressured to share advertising profits.

Standard
Government, Legal, Politics, Society, United States

What Is Obstruction of Justice?

UNITED STATES

Ever since President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last week the term “obstruction of justice” has been swirling inside Washington D.C. and across cable television. The rhetoric has somewhat intensified after the New York Times cited a memo from Mr Comey claiming that the president had asked him to shut down an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn following his resignation.

Using social media networking site Twitter, Senator Chris Murphy has asked about the exact definition of “obstruction of justice” and highlights the frenzy between Democrats and Republicans over its meaning. Mr Murphy tweeted with a link to the Times report.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse tweeted: “Yesterday, secrets to the Russians. Today, obstruction of justice? When does this end?”

But what exactly is Obstruction of Justice and how does it relate to the headlines that have been coming out of the Beltway?

Obstruction of Justice is essentially someone who intentionally intervenes or tampers with an ongoing investigation.

Obstruction of Justice

The Times wrote that the memo is “the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.”

“You can’t get in the way or do anything to impede an investigation that has already been launched and if you do you may suffer criminal penalties,” said William C. Banks, a law professor and Director of the Institute for National Security and Counter-Terrorism at Syracuse University.

The federal code has 21 statutes outlining the different methods of obstruction of justice, including the use of murder or physical force to disrupt a testimony influencing a juror, and falsifying records. But one of the statutes, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 also includes a general provision, explaining that someone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

But the key to proving obstruction of justice, explains Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, is that the intervention has to be propelled by corrupt motives.

“If it’s a threat, that makes it a crime. If it’s not a threat – but a request – it could still be a crime if the threat is motivated by a corrupt purpose,” Weisberg said.

The punishment varies, and usually depends on what the person was convicted for, but the maximum is 20 years of imprisonment if fined under the federal statute of 18 U.S. Code § 1512. In 1974, articles of impeachment drafted against Richard Nixon accused him of obstructing justice after he refused to hand over his tape recordings to the FBI. Nixon resigned, but faced no charges because Gerald Ford pardoned him.

In 2007, then Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, was convicted of Obstruction of Justice – in addition to lying to a grand jury and FBI agents – regarding the federal investigation into the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame and received a 30-month prison sentence before President George W. Bush pardoned him that June.

Standard
Economic, Government, Health, Society

IT systems in the NHS are pitifully weak. It must get on top of cyber-crime

RANSOMWARE

Ransomware

The message that appears if encryption occurs.

Two days ago, the NHS was hit by a major cyber-attack using ransomware. Computer screens suddenly announced that files and data were unavailable unless the user paid a fee. In some Health Board Trusts, phones stopped working, too; patients were advised not to go to A&E, and the full effect of this attack will not be known until this week when many employees may find that their computers will not function. The virus is worming its way through networks that could yet reap much more havoc. While state organisations like the NHS have many questions to answer, including the pitiful support they have given to their IT systems – including the running of out-of-support Windows XP systems – holding the nation’s healthcare hostage in this way is an unconscionable criminal act. It is also a wake-up call to the British state. Our newfound reliance upon electronic communications leaves the country vulnerable to extortion.

Of course, it is important to keep pace with technological change, especially if it promises to save money and streamline record keeping. But putting so many eggs in one basket does incur risk – and there have been many warnings before now that the NHS is struggling to keep things in good order. Last month, Barts Health, England’s largest trust, had to cancel at least 136 operations and “hundreds” of chemotherapy sessions after its IT systems went down; it also suffered a ransomware attack in January. It is feared that some trusts are continuing to use outdated software that might be more exposed to attack.

This is why patients have often expressed nervousness about the reliance upon NHS databases, particularly the notion of a national one. No matter how many assurances are made to the public that such arrangements are airtight, the criminals always seem to find a way to get in. The solution is obviously to tighten security; equally it is imperative that users take care – a system is only as strong as its most fallible point. Either way, it is now up to the security services to act and act fast. Cyber-crime – which has previously hit companies such as TalkTalk – costs the economy billions and puts lives at risk. The Government has to get on top of it. It has failed in its duty of care by taking necessary measures in protecting the most sensitive of information.

Standard