6 ms·
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you correctly. Do you mean "Most people aren't paranoid enough to be afraid to search for 'secure wipe' after being sued for a
by nkurz 10y ago
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you correctly.
Do you mean "Most people aren't paranoid enough to be afraid to search for 'secure wipe' after being sued for an unrelated matter"?
Or do you mean "Upon being sued, most peoples immediate reaction would be to search the web about how to destroy evidence"?
My guess would that most people who believe they are innocent would have no interest in destroying evidence, and that most people who considered themselves guilty would have already taken care of hiding the evidence before being sued.
probability theory says this is a tiny piece of evidence.
In which direction? Slightly more likely to be guilty, because why else would the person be searching? Or slightly more likely to be innocent, because any guilty person would know not to search?
- loup-vaillant 10y ago> Or do you mean "Upon being sued, most peoples immediate reaction would be to search the web about how to destroy evidence"? That one, but not exactly. It's not just about destroying evidence, but about destroying unrelated stuff such as the porn collection or downloaded movies. Or that "non-commercial" shareware you installed but did not bother to pay just yet. I bet everyone here have a couple such skeletons in their hard drives. > In which direction? Frankly, I don't know. I haven't consider how a guilty person would have covered their tracks before hand. I just figured most people would just panic and search for various way of covering their asses, regardless of their guilt. --- My point was more, while most people would see guilty-looking behaviour as strong evidence of guilt, it is not necessarily so. And in this particular case, I don't think it is.