4 ms·

In my opinion it's not your job to willingly provide self-incriminating evidence. I have no idea if that legally applies to corporations (particularly in Canada

by mod 9y ago

In my opinion it's not your job to willingly provide self-incriminating evidence. I have no idea if that legally applies to corporations (particularly in Canada) but this seems like a precaution I would expect every business to take. You would hope they wouldn't need to take it, but if I were CEO of a company I would order the computers shut down even if everything were above-the-book. Of course, maybe that's why I'm not CEO of a company. Who knows.

DanBC 9y ago
(My post is about England. I'm not sure abot other countries.) That's true if they've just come knocking. But at the point they have warrants you're risking prison. Court orders are orders, and they are to be obeyed in full and on time.
- hackits 9y ago
  You've never been through the family court have you?
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Here's a reasonably recent document from the President of the Family Court division in England. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/view-7-changing-cultures.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document... > What I fear is an even greater cause for concern – and it is for me a real concern – is something symptomatic of a deeply rooted culture in the family courts which, however long established, will no longer be tolerated. I refer to the slapdash, lackadaisical and on occasions almost contumelious attitude which still far too frequently characterises the response to orders made by family courts. There is simply no excuse for this. Orders, including interlocutory orders, must be obeyed and complied with to the letter and on time. Too often they are not. They are not preferences, requests or mere indications; they are orders. This principle applies as much to orders by way of interlocutory case management directions as to any other species of order. The court is entitled to expect – and from now on family courts will demand – strict compliance with all such orders. Both parties and non-parties to whom orders are addressed must take heed. Noncompliance with an order by anyone is bad enough. It is a particularly serious matter if the defaulter is a public body. Non-compliance with orders should be expected to have and will usually have a consequence: see Re W (A Child), Re H (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177. But you're talking about a parent ignoring court orders, I guess, in which case this one is more relevant: a mother made false allegations of abuse against the father, and continued to do so; and removed the child; and continued to do so; and she did those things after being ordered not to, and she got a (suspended) prison sentence as a result: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/3358.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/3358.html > The judge had indicated that she was prepared to authorise disclosure of her Judgment to the Judge at the Kingston Crown Court, and that if the 1st Respondent objected she would be required to make her objections known. On 25th January 2016, the judge ordered her judgment may be released to the sentencing judge. The 1st Respondent received a four-month sentence, suspended for six months on 27th January 2017. EDIT: And here's a direct link to the cases he mentions at the end of the para I link above: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1177.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1177.html
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
It is your job not to destroy evidence that you have a reasonable belief is about to be lawfully requested by law enforcement. Shutting down your computers is destroying the contents of RAM, so if you have a reasonable belief that the police are about to request access to the contents of your RAM, then you have illegally destroyed evidence.

by mod 9y ago

DanBC 9y ago

(My post is about England. I'm not sure abot other countries.) That's true if they've just come knocking. But at the point they have warrants you're risking prison. Court orders are orders, and they are to be obeyed in full and on time.

hackits 9y ago
You've never been through the family court have you?
- DanBC 9y ago
  Here's a reasonably recent document from the President of the Family Court division in England. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/view-7-changing-cultures.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document... > What I fear is an even greater cause for concern – and it is for me a real concern – is something symptomatic of a deeply rooted culture in the family courts which, however long established, will no longer be tolerated. I refer to the slapdash, lackadaisical and on occasions almost contumelious attitude which still far too frequently characterises the response to orders made by family courts. There is simply no excuse for this. Orders, including interlocutory orders, must be obeyed and complied with to the letter and on time. Too often they are not. They are not preferences, requests or mere indications; they are orders. This principle applies as much to orders by way of interlocutory case management directions as to any other species of order. The court is entitled to expect – and from now on family courts will demand – strict compliance with all such orders. Both parties and non-parties to whom orders are addressed must take heed. Noncompliance with an order by anyone is bad enough. It is a particularly serious matter if the defaulter is a public body. Non-compliance with orders should be expected to have and will usually have a consequence: see Re W (A Child), Re H (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177. But you're talking about a parent ignoring court orders, I guess, in which case this one is more relevant: a mother made false allegations of abuse against the father, and continued to do so; and removed the child; and continued to do so; and she did those things after being ordered not to, and she got a (suspended) prison sentence as a result: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/3358.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/3358.html > The judge had indicated that she was prepared to authorise disclosure of her Judgment to the Judge at the Kingston Crown Court, and that if the 1st Respondent objected she would be required to make her objections known. On 25th January 2016, the judge ordered her judgment may be released to the sentencing judge. The 1st Respondent received a four-month sentence, suspended for six months on 27th January 2017. EDIT: And here's a direct link to the cases he mentions at the end of the para I link above: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1177.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1177.html

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

It is your job not to destroy evidence that you have a reasonable belief is about to be lawfully requested by law enforcement. Shutting down your computers is destroying the contents of RAM, so if you have a reasonable belief that the police are about to request access to the contents of your RAM, then you have illegally destroyed evidence.