4 ms·

I don't see why this is scary. I think it's somewhat comparable to the police examining his clothes, for example, and finding no traces of sweat or smoke, which

I don't see why this is scary. I think it's somewhat comparable to the police examining his clothes, for example, and finding no traces of sweat or smoke, which would make his story not credible. Or what about looking at how many steps a Fitbit recorded? If the pacemaker had a GPS or something embedded in it, that would be egregious, but a pacemaker collecting data on the pace it's making is expected, and the police should be able to look at it with a warrant. Police can access medical records with a warrant, and this is basically just a very recent medical record.

grayhatter 10y ago
You don't need clothing to stay alive, nor a fitbit. And medical history can't really be used to indict someone. Where this clearly was. EDIT: can't be used to indict, only as addition evidence for a trial. It's an important distinction, but I'm not sure I think it's okay either.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Why isn't it ok? The whole purpose of a warrant is to reveal private information when necessary. I get that medical history is especially sensitive, but I don't see why it should be completely off limits. What if, say, someone claimed to be out of the country for an extended period of time, but their medical history showed they actually required frequent treatment at a local hospital? Should that be inadmissible?
  - grayhatter 10y ago
    IMO, it's not okay because the strict alternative is the patient must choose death. Pace makers are very invasive. They're not generally installed unless absolutely needed. In this case, it's very similar to saying. "If you don't let us install this device that the government can use to know exactly what you were doing every hour of every day; you'll die." It's not quite the fact that it's medical history, but it's very detailed, personal medical history. "He had gout some time in the last few weeks/months" vs "He was running 14 times in the last 21 days, and heres' the exact minute he started and ended" > but their medical history showed they actually required frequent treatment at a local hospital? Should that be inadmissible? That they acquired treatment? Maybe. That they were treated for an STI? Yes, that should be inadmissible. Because as a medical person, I don't want you avoiding ANY treatment because you scared the information about the treatment would be used against you.
- rhino369 10y ago
  You can't stay alive without blood, but we can use it to convict a person. The 4th amendment isn't there to make it hard to get a conviction. It is there to make sure you aren't harassed by searches.
  - grayhatter 10y ago
    It's not quite the same. I assume you mean donated blood, because otherwise your response doesn't make much sense. So if you are cut, and leave blood behind (yours and the donated blood?) The could be used to convict you because it's something you abandoned. Where in this case, the got a court order to take information from a device. Not to compare it to a sample they already had, but at a single point of evidence, that will be used to incriminate. Additionally, that same evidence could be used to prove innocence, where the pacemaker data couldn't be used as evidence to prove innocence. EDIT, Also, the 4th is protection from unreasonable searches... e.g. if the device I required to live needs extra data to do it's job. IMO, it is an unreasonable search to use that against me because I have no choice in wither or not, I create the data, or use the device. Because the alternative is I choose to die.
kakarot 10y ago
I'm sorry, what? A warrant for something intangible and inert inside of my body? Police will have access to the information I choose to store inside my own body when I am either dead, or heavily restrained and tranquilized, and not a moment before.

grayhatter 10y ago

You don't need clothing to stay alive, nor a fitbit. And medical history can't really be used to indict someone. Where this clearly was. EDIT: can't be used to indict, only as addition evidence for a trial. It's an important distinction, but I'm not sure I think it's okay either.

burkaman 10y ago
Why isn't it ok? The whole purpose of a warrant is to reveal private information when necessary. I get that medical history is especially sensitive, but I don't see why it should be completely off limits. What if, say, someone claimed to be out of the country for an extended period of time, but their medical history showed they actually required frequent treatment at a local hospital? Should that be inadmissible?
- grayhatter 10y ago
  IMO, it's not okay because the strict alternative is the patient must choose death. Pace makers are very invasive. They're not generally installed unless absolutely needed. In this case, it's very similar to saying. "If you don't let us install this device that the government can use to know exactly what you were doing every hour of every day; you'll die." It's not quite the fact that it's medical history, but it's very detailed, personal medical history. "He had gout some time in the last few weeks/months" vs "He was running 14 times in the last 21 days, and heres' the exact minute he started and ended" > but their medical history showed they actually required frequent treatment at a local hospital? Should that be inadmissible? That they acquired treatment? Maybe. That they were treated for an STI? Yes, that should be inadmissible. Because as a medical person, I don't want you avoiding ANY treatment because you scared the information about the treatment would be used against you.
rhino369 10y ago
You can't stay alive without blood, but we can use it to convict a person. The 4th amendment isn't there to make it hard to get a conviction. It is there to make sure you aren't harassed by searches.
- grayhatter 10y ago
  It's not quite the same. I assume you mean donated blood, because otherwise your response doesn't make much sense. So if you are cut, and leave blood behind (yours and the donated blood?) The could be used to convict you because it's something you abandoned. Where in this case, the got a court order to take information from a device. Not to compare it to a sample they already had, but at a single point of evidence, that will be used to incriminate. Additionally, that same evidence could be used to prove innocence, where the pacemaker data couldn't be used as evidence to prove innocence. EDIT, Also, the 4th is protection from unreasonable searches... e.g. if the device I required to live needs extra data to do it's job. IMO, it is an unreasonable search to use that against me because I have no choice in wither or not, I create the data, or use the device. Because the alternative is I choose to die.

kakarot 10y ago

I'm sorry, what? A warrant for something intangible and inert inside of my body? Police will have access to the information I choose to store inside my own body when I am either dead, or heavily restrained and tranquilized, and not a moment before.