4 ms·
It's not about the technical details, it's about the fact that before you'd ever have a chance to present such an argument, you already are liable for a fine An
by csydas 4y ago
It's not about the technical details, it's about the fact that before you'd ever have a chance to present such an argument, you already are liable for a fine And jailtime (30 days).
It doesn't matter what might end up happening later, the upfront cost of recording is now very real and there is a chance to get starved out of money to even try to take such an item to court.
The tech might be undeniable, but it doesn't matter if there is a buffer in front of the system that would accept such tech as evidence, and said buffer could delay your chance to succeed by months if not years.
It doesn't really matter how good the tech is if the system where it would help can stall out the situation beyond your means to live.
- nonrandomstring 4y agoI see. What you say makes sense and I agree with it. Technical solutions to socially rooted problems are skin deep and don't address the real issues. Good technology won't fix a crap law. As a Brit I give the police and legal system much more leeway and benefit of the doubt, they've got a job to do and mostly do their best. Also, I believe they should never shy from accountability, hence being filmed by the public, as the police often do to citizens, is an inescapable part of the job today. And if that gets a bit too "in your face" then maybe it's time to look for a job that suits you better. Nonetheless, the police can no longer lie with impunity against sophisticated technical evidence. We are all changed by technology and possible forensic evidence we never thought possible, and that can keep people more honest. The police aren't always the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to technology. Here in the UK, Wayne Couzens, the policeman who raped and killed Sarah Everard, was caught by technical carelessness that you'd have thought he knew better about.