4 ms·

>this only happens when the phone contents are deemed relevant to the investigation Perhaps you stopped reading the article part way through? > Olivia (not he

>this only happens when the phone contents are deemed relevant to the investigation Perhaps you stopped reading the article part way through? > Olivia (not her real name) reported being drugged and attacked by strangers. Police asked for seven years of phone data, and her case was dropped after she refused. “My phone documents many of the most personal moments in my life and the thought of strangers combing through it, to try to use it against me, makes me feel like I’m being violated once again,” she said. “This isn’t about trying to stop the police from putting together the facts of the case. This isn’t about objecting to the police downloading information from the time that it happened. This is about objecting to the police downloading seven years of information that pre-dates the event and therefore has zero relevance. “I kept trying to ask them if the data that they took could be restricted just to the period of time of relevance to what actually happened, and they said no. “They told me that if I didn’t consent, they may just drop the case and may not proceed with it. They have now dropped the case citing one of the reasons being that I have not handed over seven years of my personal life which is of complete and utter irrelevance to that one night. “I am willing to hand over the information that is relevant to what happened – I’m not willing to hand over seven years’ worth of information that is totally and utterly irrelevant.”

bleah1000 6y ago
But how would you enforce only downloading the relevant data? How do you get only the data you think is relevant before looking at the data? It could be the police couldn't agree that they wouldn't download more than they need because they simply do not have the expertise to be able to not download it all, and then process it afterwards. At the very least, someone would probably have to look at huge chunks of the data. And depending on how UK courts work, they may be required to get everything. In the US, you would probably still have to get it all, but the prosecutor would likely be able to limit what was turned over to the defense. And if the defense wanted more, they might be able to get a neutral third-party to look at the data and decide whether it should be turned over (or the judge might do this). I don't know if the UK has something similar where the prosecutor can avoid turning all data over to the defense. It might be that there is no good way to handle this type of case.
- mydongle 6y ago
  Just #BelieveWomen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football...
- whack 6y ago
  When I'm victimized and want to press charges against my assailant, I should only have to provide any and all evidence that I have against the assailant. The police can then decide whether or not to pursue the case, based on the strength of the evidence I've provided. In no sane world should the victim be expected to expose ALL of her private information. It's the digital equivalent of getting robbed in a dark alley, and the cops telling you they will drop the case unless you allow them to search your home.
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    So if I go to the police and give a statement to the effect of "whack assaulted me in an alley!" you're okay with a system where I don't have to substantiate that complaint any further or hand over my phone (to determine whether we were on a date, flirting, sexting, or I had sole motive to fabricate an allegation), but you can be interrogated, your electronic devices confiscated and searched, your friends and relatives called and interviewed, all based on an allegation I refused to provide information for? As a general rule, the proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving it. This general rule is even more important in the context of criminal allegations. I don't think there should be an exception just because of the sexes of the complaining witness and the subject of the complaint.
    - whack 6y ago
      > your electronic devices confiscated and searched I don't know where on earth you got that from. The police can and do need to get a warrant in order to confiscate or search the accused person's devices or belongings. The warrant needs to explain with probable cause, why those specific devices/belongings are relevant to the case and need to be searched. If the cops can't provide probable cause for searching a device, they aren't allowed to do so. > the proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving it Hence why I said that it is the accuser's responsibility to provide any and all relevant evidence. You are going one step further and saying that the accuser should give up all claims to privacy, in the entirety of their life. Ie, if I want to press charges against someone for robbing me in a dark alley, I need to allow the police to search my house. This is a ridiculous way to structure any criminal justice system.

bleah1000 6y ago

But how would you enforce only downloading the relevant data? How do you get only the data you think is relevant before looking at the data? It could be the police couldn't agree that they wouldn't download more than they need because they simply do not have the expertise to be able to not download it all, and then process it afterwards. At the very least, someone would probably have to look at huge chunks of the data. And depending on how UK courts work, they may be required to get everything. In the US, you would probably still have to get it all, but the prosecutor would likely be able to limit what was turned over to the defense. And if the defense wanted more, they might be able to get a neutral third-party to look at the data and decide whether it should be turned over (or the judge might do this). I don't know if the UK has something similar where the prosecutor can avoid turning all data over to the defense. It might be that there is no good way to handle this type of case.

mydongle 6y ago
Just #BelieveWomen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football...
whack 6y ago
When I'm victimized and want to press charges against my assailant, I should only have to provide any and all evidence that I have against the assailant. The police can then decide whether or not to pursue the case, based on the strength of the evidence I've provided. In no sane world should the victim be expected to expose ALL of her private information. It's the digital equivalent of getting robbed in a dark alley, and the cops telling you they will drop the case unless you allow them to search your home.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  So if I go to the police and give a statement to the effect of "whack assaulted me in an alley!" you're okay with a system where I don't have to substantiate that complaint any further or hand over my phone (to determine whether we were on a date, flirting, sexting, or I had sole motive to fabricate an allegation), but you can be interrogated, your electronic devices confiscated and searched, your friends and relatives called and interviewed, all based on an allegation I refused to provide information for? As a general rule, the proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving it. This general rule is even more important in the context of criminal allegations. I don't think there should be an exception just because of the sexes of the complaining witness and the subject of the complaint.
  - whack 6y ago
    > your electronic devices confiscated and searched I don't know where on earth you got that from. The police can and do need to get a warrant in order to confiscate or search the accused person's devices or belongings. The warrant needs to explain with probable cause, why those specific devices/belongings are relevant to the case and need to be searched. If the cops can't provide probable cause for searching a device, they aren't allowed to do so. > the proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving it Hence why I said that it is the accuser's responsibility to provide any and all relevant evidence. You are going one step further and saying that the accuser should give up all claims to privacy, in the entirety of their life. Ie, if I want to press charges against someone for robbing me in a dark alley, I need to allow the police to search my house. This is a ridiculous way to structure any criminal justice system.