4 ms·

"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

"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.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        In the hypothetical we're discussing, they can't get past "I don't recall" and if they spend thousands of dollars of public money hounding and bullying you for that then they certainly are maniacs. > 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. I certainly can do so because to them, the situation is indistinguishable from somebody who truly does not recall.
        jackvalentine 4y ago
        "I don't recall" is never where these things end. It's not a magical phrase to make people go away. Follow up questioning that is quite reasonable in my opinion would be along the lines of "What efforts have you made to find where you stored the recording?" "What is your usual practice with these recordings?" and that's where you trip yourself up and reveal the lie. Others might be questioned and say that you're fastidious about keeping track of your data, further underscoring that you're keeping something from them. I don't think this 'maniacal' in the slightest but that is a characteristic you perceive in the process. Remember only one person is being evasive here - you.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > it is not morally wrong to avail oneself of the same strategies, nor is it wrong in the spirit of the law That sure sounds like you're advocating breaking the law to me. Rich people may be able to get away with it, but that doesn't magically make it OK.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      > That sure sounds like you're advocating breaking the law to me. It may sound like it but I'm not. Who knows how one's memory might function in a stressful situation. > Rich people may be able to get away with it, but that doesn't magically make it OK. What makes it okay is the ruling class who create and operate the judicial system get away with it, so it's okay for commoners to too.
- TheHappyOddish 4y ago
  What legal fees? "Sorry, I already deleted that beforehand, I was low on space". Stick with the story, no need for a lawyer.

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.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        In the hypothetical we're discussing, they can't get past "I don't recall" and if they spend thousands of dollars of public money hounding and bullying you for that then they certainly are maniacs. > 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. I certainly can do so because to them, the situation is indistinguishable from somebody who truly does not recall.
        jackvalentine 4y ago
        "I don't recall" is never where these things end. It's not a magical phrase to make people go away. Follow up questioning that is quite reasonable in my opinion would be along the lines of "What efforts have you made to find where you stored the recording?" "What is your usual practice with these recordings?" and that's where you trip yourself up and reveal the lie. Others might be questioned and say that you're fastidious about keeping track of your data, further underscoring that you're keeping something from them. I don't think this 'maniacal' in the slightest but that is a characteristic you perceive in the process. Remember only one person is being evasive here - you.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > it is not morally wrong to avail oneself of the same strategies, nor is it wrong in the spirit of the law That sure sounds like you're advocating breaking the law to me. Rich people may be able to get away with it, but that doesn't magically make it OK.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    > That sure sounds like you're advocating breaking the law to me. It may sound like it but I'm not. Who knows how one's memory might function in a stressful situation. > Rich people may be able to get away with it, but that doesn't magically make it OK. What makes it okay is the ruling class who create and operate the judicial system get away with it, so it's okay for commoners to too.
TheHappyOddish 4y ago
What legal fees? "Sorry, I already deleted that beforehand, I was low on space". Stick with the story, no need for a lawyer.