6 ms·

This is classic nerd thinking they're so clever stuff - judges see right through that. If you've never destroyed a tape before but suddenly start doing it afte

This is classic nerd thinking they're so clever stuff - judges see right through that. If you've never destroyed a tape before but suddenly start doing it after an incident it won't go well for you. Even if you do get off it'll be a painful process. The only way to do this safely is good old records management - routinely and boringly destroy records on a regular cadence. Preferably automatically. If you become aware it may be subject to a police investigation then take action to preserve it. If you don't want to do any of this the best option is to just not keep the record at all - don't make a recording.

potatolicious 4y ago
It's frustrating how often tech folks think there's "one neat trick, JUDGES HATE HIM!" to avoid the law. There isn't. The law and how it's practiced is generally (though of course not perfectly) robust to technicalities. You aren't the first to think that you can "accidentally" do a thing, snicker about it, and get away with it. It's literally the first thing anyone thinks of, and laws have had thousands of years to get wise to this ancient trick.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  "I don't recall where it is", "I must have forgotten to put a USB stick in it", etc. If you can make a plausible lie, stick with it, then there isn't much they can do. There absolutely are one neat tricks, and authorities conveniently lose evidence or claim recording devices were malfunctioning regularly. The ruling class can destroy evidence that's under subpoena and claim it wasn't intentional or that they contained no evidence of wrongdoing anyway.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Whatever story you decide to tell, people whose entire job it is to punch holes in stories are going to look for facts that contradict it. You probably will get away with it! But it's not going to be pleasant, and your legal fees aren't going to be cheap. If you don't want to furnish evidence in criminal cases, minimize the number of cameras you set up.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      I'm not advocating anybody commit a crime, but since everybody is equal under the law and the police and ruling class are permitted to get away with conveniently losing evidence, "I don't recall", etc., then it is not morally wrong to avail oneself of the same strategies, nor is it wrong in the spirit of the law, although ruling class judges and prosecutors would naturally think otherwise.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        I'm not morally offended, I'm just worried you're going to cost yourself $10,000 extricating yourself from the shitstorm the prosecutor is going to stir up when they conclude you're being evasive. I've had the pleasure of irritating prosecutors before.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        There's a cost benefit consideration to it, yes. If you don't want them to see it, there isn't much they can do to get beyond "I don't recall" or ever prove that you did in fact recall when you said that. It absolutely will infuriate them though, and many of these people are petty fragile egomaniacs who will absolutely try to retaliate against any real or perceived slight. Even if they don't have anything else on you they could choose to use the process and the resources of the state to punish you. You have to expect that. They won't get the evidence or destruction of evidence though.
        tptacek 4y ago
        In the hypothetical we're discussing here, they're not maniacs at all. They're actually right. You're just confident that they can't prove that they're right. I agree with you, but again warn that the process of establishing that they can't prove it is going to be more painful for you than for them. Our system of law is derived from English common law, and in that system, the public is entitled to everybody's evidence. That's part of our social contract. Again: I'm not moralizing, but I will point out that you can't coherently accuse a prosecutor of abusing you when you've gone out of your way to break that contract.
- titoCA321 4y ago
  This type of thinking isn't new or limited to only tech folks. Almost everyday in family court there are parents who think they can just "kidnap" their children away during a custody divorce and ignore the family law judge. Most of the time, it doesn't end well.
TheHappyOddish 4y ago
Why would the judge have any access to your records, or even think you have records? What I store on my drives is my business. If I choose to delete data I don't want (prior to being asked by police to retain it), that's my business. I certainly won't be providing anyone records on when I create and delete files.

potatolicious 4y ago

It's frustrating how often tech folks think there's "one neat trick, JUDGES HATE HIM!" to avoid the law. There isn't. The law and how it's practiced is generally (though of course not perfectly) robust to technicalities. You aren't the first to think that you can "accidentally" do a thing, snicker about it, and get away with it. It's literally the first thing anyone thinks of, and laws have had thousands of years to get wise to this ancient trick.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
"I don't recall where it is", "I must have forgotten to put a USB stick in it", etc. If you can make a plausible lie, stick with it, then there isn't much they can do. There absolutely are one neat tricks, and authorities conveniently lose evidence or claim recording devices were malfunctioning regularly. The ruling class can destroy evidence that's under subpoena and claim it wasn't intentional or that they contained no evidence of wrongdoing anyway.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Whatever story you decide to tell, people whose entire job it is to punch holes in stories are going to look for facts that contradict it. You probably will get away with it! But it's not going to be pleasant, and your legal fees aren't going to be cheap. If you don't want to furnish evidence in criminal cases, minimize the number of cameras you set up.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    I'm not advocating anybody commit a crime, but since everybody is equal under the law and the police and ruling class are permitted to get away with conveniently losing evidence, "I don't recall", etc., then it is not morally wrong to avail oneself of the same strategies, nor is it wrong in the spirit of the law, although ruling class judges and prosecutors would naturally think otherwise.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      I'm not morally offended, I'm just worried you're going to cost yourself $10,000 extricating yourself from the shitstorm the prosecutor is going to stir up when they conclude you're being evasive. I've had the pleasure of irritating prosecutors before.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        There's a cost benefit consideration to it, yes. If you don't want them to see it, there isn't much they can do to get beyond "I don't recall" or ever prove that you did in fact recall when you said that. It absolutely will infuriate them though, and many of these people are petty fragile egomaniacs who will absolutely try to retaliate against any real or perceived slight. Even if they don't have anything else on you they could choose to use the process and the resources of the state to punish you. You have to expect that. They won't get the evidence or destruction of evidence though.
        tptacek 4y ago
        In the hypothetical we're discussing here, they're not maniacs at all. They're actually right. You're just confident that they can't prove that they're right. I agree with you, but again warn that the process of establishing that they can't prove it is going to be more painful for you than for them. Our system of law is derived from English common law, and in that system, the public is entitled to everybody's evidence. That's part of our social contract. Again: I'm not moralizing, but I will point out that you can't coherently accuse a prosecutor of abusing you when you've gone out of your way to break that contract.
titoCA321 4y ago
This type of thinking isn't new or limited to only tech folks. Almost everyday in family court there are parents who think they can just "kidnap" their children away during a custody divorce and ignore the family law judge. Most of the time, it doesn't end well.

TheHappyOddish 4y ago

Why would the judge have any access to your records, or even think you have records? What I store on my drives is my business. If I choose to delete data I don't want (prior to being asked by police to retain it), that's my business. I certainly won't be providing anyone records on when I create and delete files.