5 ms·

> When e.g. a court needs to control someone's information surely they know who these people are and they can let them know? Is there a secret list in every cou

> When e.g. a court needs to control someone's information surely they know who these people are and they can let them know? Is there a secret list in every courthouse or something? The courts don't control information in that way.

mehrdadn 10y ago
That's surprising. So what happens when there is a high profile case and the court fears for the jurors' lives? Or the case itself involves someone whose life will be in danger afterwards? If anybody can find out where these people live then they're toast. The courts have to suppress the information legally somehow, right? If not the old information, at least they need some protection against mining of new information after the subjects move or change their names, no? Are you literally saying they have no way to order all the first-level companies to stop sharing data on someone?
- pc86 10y ago
  > So what happens when there is a high profile case and the court fears for the jurors' lives? Jurors' identities are not generally a secret.[0] There are exceptions, but those exceptions do not extend to wiping that person's data from things like pharmacy and gas station reward card databases. Honestly your entire premise shows a lack of understanding of how the criminal justice system works. > Are you literally saying they have no way to order all the first-level companies to stop sharing data on someone? Sue all of them individually, win each case, and have them ordered to stop collecting data on you. Something tell me this is tantamount to "don't use a computer or a credit card. Ever." [0] http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/public-access-to-juror-information-in-a-criminal-trial.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/public-access-...
  - mehrdadn 10y ago
    > Jurors' identities are not generally a secret.[0] There are exceptions I was talking about the exceptions. If there are exceptions, a way to handle them must exist, is all I was saying. > but those exceptions do not extend to wiping that person's data from things like pharmacy and gas station reward card databases. I was asking about the companies who obtain this original information, not pharmacies' or gas stations' databases themselves. I feel like you're not understanding my question? > Honestly your entire premise shows a lack of understanding of how the criminal justice system works. Quiet likely (I'm not claiming otherwise; I'm not a lawyer and I haven't exactly been involved in legal proceedings) and I didn't claim otherwise. Also hardly undermines my point. Like I've said in some 3-4 other comments, someone who e.g. starts a new company like InstantCheckmate has to know whom to buy the data from -- like I said, there's no way all of these companies contact all grocery stores and all doctors. That's insane. Someone's gotta be doing the heavy lifting and making money off it. I'm asking who this is. I asked this in the original post. If the court example is wrong or otherwise bothers you just ignore it. If someone not already involved in the business knows to contact these companies to obtain information, someone must know who they are, is all I'm saying. Otherwise they would not exist.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > I was talking about the exceptions. If there are exceptions, a way to handle them must exist, is all I was saying. There is. They put them in a hotel, under police guard, for the duration of the trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    What if I told you there are countries where you can use a credit card, and still have reasonable expectations about privacy, where the information gatherer must erase personal information on demand and bears the burden of erasing it and notifying everyone they sold the information to erase it too?
    - eonw 10y ago
      id like to know which ones? id consider relocating.
      - pc86 10y ago
        1. They don't know, but assume some Western European country fits that description. 2. They misunderstand German privacy laws.
- blackbagboys 10y ago
  > Are you literally saying they have no way to order all the first-level companies to stop sharing data on someone? This is exactly what he's saying. There is no central node of control for this kind of information. You are operating from entirely unjustified assumptions.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  For very high profile cases, a jury would be sequestered, meaning they are housed somewhere and not allowed to interact with the public. If they were in danger, their would be guards protecting them. After the trial is over, though, they are on their own. They will not continue to be protected, and could certainly suffer retaliation. It sucks, yes. http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/sequester-isolating-jurors-from-the-public.html http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/sequester-is...

mehrdadn 10y ago

That's surprising. So what happens when there is a high profile case and the court fears for the jurors' lives? Or the case itself involves someone whose life will be in danger afterwards? If anybody can find out where these people live then they're toast. The courts have to suppress the information legally somehow, right? If not the old information, at least they need some protection against mining of new information after the subjects move or change their names, no? Are you literally saying they have no way to order all the first-level companies to stop sharing data on someone?

pc86 10y ago
> So what happens when there is a high profile case and the court fears for the jurors' lives? Jurors' identities are not generally a secret.[0] There are exceptions, but those exceptions do not extend to wiping that person's data from things like pharmacy and gas station reward card databases. Honestly your entire premise shows a lack of understanding of how the criminal justice system works. > Are you literally saying they have no way to order all the first-level companies to stop sharing data on someone? Sue all of them individually, win each case, and have them ordered to stop collecting data on you. Something tell me this is tantamount to "don't use a computer or a credit card. Ever." [0] http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/public-access-to-juror-information-in-a-criminal-trial.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/public-access-...
- mehrdadn 10y ago
  > Jurors' identities are not generally a secret.[0] There are exceptions I was talking about the exceptions. If there are exceptions, a way to handle them must exist, is all I was saying. > but those exceptions do not extend to wiping that person's data from things like pharmacy and gas station reward card databases. I was asking about the companies who obtain this original information, not pharmacies' or gas stations' databases themselves. I feel like you're not understanding my question? > Honestly your entire premise shows a lack of understanding of how the criminal justice system works. Quiet likely (I'm not claiming otherwise; I'm not a lawyer and I haven't exactly been involved in legal proceedings) and I didn't claim otherwise. Also hardly undermines my point. Like I've said in some 3-4 other comments, someone who e.g. starts a new company like InstantCheckmate has to know whom to buy the data from -- like I said, there's no way all of these companies contact all grocery stores and all doctors. That's insane. Someone's gotta be doing the heavy lifting and making money off it. I'm asking who this is. I asked this in the original post. If the court example is wrong or otherwise bothers you just ignore it. If someone not already involved in the business knows to contact these companies to obtain information, someone must know who they are, is all I'm saying. Otherwise they would not exist.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > I was talking about the exceptions. If there are exceptions, a way to handle them must exist, is all I was saying. There is. They put them in a hotel, under police guard, for the duration of the trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration
- literallycancer 10y ago
  What if I told you there are countries where you can use a credit card, and still have reasonable expectations about privacy, where the information gatherer must erase personal information on demand and bears the burden of erasing it and notifying everyone they sold the information to erase it too?
  - eonw 10y ago
    id like to know which ones? id consider relocating.
    - pc86 10y ago
      1. They don't know, but assume some Western European country fits that description. 2. They misunderstand German privacy laws.
blackbagboys 10y ago
> Are you literally saying they have no way to order all the first-level companies to stop sharing data on someone? This is exactly what he's saying. There is no central node of control for this kind of information. You are operating from entirely unjustified assumptions.
cortesoft 10y ago
For very high profile cases, a jury would be sequestered, meaning they are housed somewhere and not allowed to interact with the public. If they were in danger, their would be guards protecting them. After the trial is over, though, they are on their own. They will not continue to be protected, and could certainly suffer retaliation. It sucks, yes. http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/sequester-isolating-jurors-from-the-public.html http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/sequester-is...