4 ms·
Good summary, the only difference between this and the house key example is that you can "forget" the password. When you "forget" there is nothing they can do b
by pilom 15y ago
Good summary, the only difference between this and the house key example is that you can "forget" the password. When you "forget" there is nothing they can do besides say you are unstable and hold you in contempt of court.
- ChuckMcM 15y agoTrue, and shredding a key would be no different than shredding evidence. You could be charged with destroying evidence but not the crime the evidence supported.
- mbreese 15y agoI dot think you'd be charged with destroying evidence, because that would be assuming that there would be evidence. Instead, I suspect you'd be charged with contempt or obstruction of justice, or something along those lines. Otherwise, yes, I think you're right.
- otterley 15y agoUnder civil law, a finding that evidence was destroyed implies a finding of the fact that the destroyed evidence would have supported. I'm not sure how this would affect a criminal law proceeding, though I'm reasonably the prosecutor would be allowed to introduce that fact to prove guilt. (Ultimately it would be up to the jury to decide.)
- fmx 15y agoHow could the court know what fact it would have supported?
- otterley 15y agoBecause the plaintiff claimed it.
- thehotdon 15y agoWait, did you just say that seriously? Plaintiff: "There was a dead-body in the toilet, but the defendant has been regularly flushing, thereby destroying the evidence and proving his guilt." Judge: "Well, if you say it, it must be true!"
- otterley 15y agoI was referring specifically to civil matters, not criminal ones. A relevant example would be a claim that D defrauded P; a finding that D intentionally destroyed evidence that would prove the fraud could be used to support a finding of fact that the fraud occurred.
- dhughes 15y agoA time-dependent password option would be better such as so that in 90 days the password is void and all data is lost.