3 ms·

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 convenientl

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.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        > "I don't recall" is never where these things end. It's not a magical phrase to make people go away. It makes the question go away though. And you can use it as many times as you like. That's the beauty of it. Take notes from the ruling class who use this to its fullest advantage. > 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?" "Rummaged around looking for it." > "What is your usual practice with these recordings?" "Put them with the others and try not to lose them." > and that's where you trip yourself up and reveal the lie. I mean if you are singularly dimwitted yes but you've got bigger problems if that's the case. > 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. Well you're changing your tune now aren't you? Before you said they were justified because I was lying. But they didn't know that, and therefore they would also believe themselves justified to bully people who are not lying and abuse the power and money of the state to attack people.
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.

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.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        > "I don't recall" is never where these things end. It's not a magical phrase to make people go away. It makes the question go away though. And you can use it as many times as you like. That's the beauty of it. Take notes from the ruling class who use this to its fullest advantage. > 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?" "Rummaged around looking for it." > "What is your usual practice with these recordings?" "Put them with the others and try not to lose them." > and that's where you trip yourself up and reveal the lie. I mean if you are singularly dimwitted yes but you've got bigger problems if that's the case. > 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. Well you're changing your tune now aren't you? Before you said they were justified because I was lying. But they didn't know that, and therefore they would also believe themselves justified to bully people who are not lying and abuse the power and money of the state to attack people.

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.