SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Australian Broadcast Corporation follows-up on a 3 months old story:
Biohacker Meow-Ludo Disco Gamma Meow-Meow who was fined for implanting an Opal Card chip into his hand has had his conviction overturned. [...] Mr Meow-Meow appealed against the conviction in the District Court and today it was quashed. District court judge Dina Yehia took into account his good character, while describing the case as "highly unusual ... involving a unique set of circumstances."
[...] She said that, while there were legal issues of general deterrence, she was of the view that the objective seriousness of the offence fell towards the lower end of the range, if not the bottom.
The previous story offers the context:
Meow-Ludo Disco Gamma Meow-Meow, 33, surgically implanted an Opal Card chip into his hand last year, so that he could swipe on and off without using a card. Transport authorities charged him for using public transport without a valid ticket and for not producing a ticket to transport officers. Mr Meow-Meow pleaded guilty to both offences at Newtown Local Court. He was fined $220 for breaching the Opal Card terms of use and was ordered to pay $1,000 in legal costs.
The lawyer representing Mr Meow Meow argued that transport legislation had advanced to include methods of contactless payment through MasterCard and some smart phones. He said that the law should adapt to all available technologies including implantable tech. But Magistrate Michael Quinn said, while the legislation may catch up with technology in the future, the law of the day must be followed.
Outside court, Mr Meow Meow said he was disappointed both offences were not dismissed and that he was ordered to pay legal costs. Despite the decision, Mr Meow Meow said he would continue to experiment with implanted technology. He said he was planning to push the boundary even further, replacing his Opal chip with one that will hold all of his personal information, including credit cards and memberships.
Why wait until the govt chips you when you can use your freedom and DIY? (large grin)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 19 2018, @02:33PM (6 children)
Why was he granted an appeal if he plead guilty?
Incompetent legal counsel?
If the embedded chip worked, and the machine accepted it as a form of payment, then there was no crime in the first place.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday June 19 2018, @02:39PM (3 children)
He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 19 2018, @02:47PM (2 children)
Quote original story:
So he had a lawyer for the first go, and presumably for the appeal.
So what exactly was your point?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:48PM
I think he was implying that you probably represent yourself. It would explain a lot.
(Score: 2, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Friday June 22 2018, @04:27PM
Correction: He who has a client named Meow Meow, has a fool for a client.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Informative) by petecox on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:39PM
The issue is whether tampering with a credit card shaped government dispensed transport ticket is valid if the customer can no longer produce said card intact.
He's a harmless eccentric so they make an exception but what it boils down to is that the NSW government employs hundreds of hired goons to check for valid tickets. He then needs to justify to them.why he doesn't have a ticket on him or he'll receive a fine and be forcibly ejected from a train station.
At least now these officers will now recognise him as the weirdo from the TV instead of kicking him off the bus.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tfried on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:48PM
Pure guesswork, here, but there was probably no denying that he did violate some terms of use, such as perhaps "you must hand over your ticket for inspection, when asked to by transport personnel", or something similar. So he pleaded guilty on the obvious in both trials.
However, rather clearly, he did not violate those terms of use in order to evade the fare, or to cause trouble, but because ... (oh well, let's skip over this point, but anyway, no damage done to third parties). And from what I understand the result of the appeal was that that $220 fine was quashed, for precisely those reasons. That "victory" was probably more than offset by additional legal costs, but it seems likely enough that he was most interested in a moral victory (or possibly just more public attention), anyway.