7 ms·

Accuser1 - Sir this man stole from us Police1 - Yeah we saw the ID and stuff and some video Innocent Man - where's the video, coz i was in different state Ac

Accuser1 - Sir this man stole from us Police1 - Yeah we saw the ID and stuff and some video Innocent Man - where's the video, coz i was in different state Accuser1 - we deleted it - poker face Police - poker face Innocent1 - poker face Court - ok bye c u later

ashtonkem 5y ago
In a sane world, that would be destruction of evidence. You shouldn’t be able to tell the court evidence exists and then destroy it before you let anyone else examine it.
- walterbell 5y ago
  Is there a blockchain vendor that could notarize and archive video evidence?
  - Gh0stRAT 5y ago
    It's a lot more complicated than that due to edge cases like format conversion, resolution downscaling, chunking, etc but people are working on a solution in this vein: https://contentauthenticity.org/ https://contentauthenticity.org/ Full-disclosure: I work (on completely unrelated stuff) at one of the organizations involved
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    No technology will solve willful misbehavior. If you want Apple to solve this as quickly as possible, throw someone in jail for contempt of court.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Yeah, if strict liability applied in such cases prosecutors and other parties would be a great deal more careful about what they dared assert.
- laurent92 5y ago
  Especially if it is found later during discovery.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  As I understand, the evidence wasn't owned by prosecution, but by Apple. It's like saying "the truth is out there", which is technically true, but shouldn't count as evidence until collected.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Then why was it used for an arrest warrant? Should evidence not be examined before the warrant is issue? Or can you just claim to have video evidence of a murder to get someone you don't like arrested?
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      > Should evidence not be examined before the warrant is issue? Examined and secured. Having evidence in official custody should be a prerequisite for using it in an official capacity - or stuff like this happens.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Generally it should be secured before an arrest warrant is issued, examined before a trial You don’t have a right to fight an arrest warrant. But you do have a right to review the evidence that will be used against you during your trial.
      - netizen-936824 5y ago
        I think the general point still stands. The evidence was no secured either.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    Prosecution should be held in contempt of court if they fail to keep their own evidence securely, including the platforms and locations of storage. I think prosecutors should go to jail if they keep their evidence in a building covered in kerosene and then "whoops" the evidence has gone up in flames.
- phone8675309 5y ago
  We're at the "educate yourself, shitlord!" phase of criminal prosecution.
exikyut 5y ago
This is probably exactly how things would work 20 years after the Idiocracy epoch.

ashtonkem 5y ago

In a sane world, that would be destruction of evidence. You shouldn’t be able to tell the court evidence exists and then destroy it before you let anyone else examine it.

walterbell 5y ago
Is there a blockchain vendor that could notarize and archive video evidence?
- Gh0stRAT 5y ago
  It's a lot more complicated than that due to edge cases like format conversion, resolution downscaling, chunking, etc but people are working on a solution in this vein: https://contentauthenticity.org/ https://contentauthenticity.org/ Full-disclosure: I work (on completely unrelated stuff) at one of the organizations involved
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  No technology will solve willful misbehavior. If you want Apple to solve this as quickly as possible, throw someone in jail for contempt of court.
anigbrowl 5y ago
Yeah, if strict liability applied in such cases prosecutors and other parties would be a great deal more careful about what they dared assert.
laurent92 5y ago
Especially if it is found later during discovery.
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
As I understand, the evidence wasn't owned by prosecution, but by Apple. It's like saying "the truth is out there", which is technically true, but shouldn't count as evidence until collected.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Then why was it used for an arrest warrant? Should evidence not be examined before the warrant is issue? Or can you just claim to have video evidence of a murder to get someone you don't like arrested?
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > Should evidence not be examined before the warrant is issue? Examined and secured. Having evidence in official custody should be a prerequisite for using it in an official capacity - or stuff like this happens.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Generally it should be secured before an arrest warrant is issued, examined before a trial You don’t have a right to fight an arrest warrant. But you do have a right to review the evidence that will be used against you during your trial.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      I think the general point still stands. The evidence was no secured either.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  Prosecution should be held in contempt of court if they fail to keep their own evidence securely, including the platforms and locations of storage. I think prosecutors should go to jail if they keep their evidence in a building covered in kerosene and then "whoops" the evidence has gone up in flames.
phone8675309 5y ago
We're at the "educate yourself, shitlord!" phase of criminal prosecution.

exikyut 5y ago

This is probably exactly how things would work 20 years after the Idiocracy epoch.