3 ms·
Perhaps a lawyer can chime in here. My impression is deliberately doing this would be illegal. It would have to be convincingly deniable somehow. Is there a w
by NoImmatureAdHom 9mo ago
Perhaps a lawyer can chime in here.
My impression is deliberately doing this would be illegal. It would have to be convincingly deniable somehow.
Is there a way to do that?
- rolph 9mo agoif something made them decide to force a particular finger into a sensor, what happens next is a result of thier own actions.
- NoImmatureAdHom 9mo agoMaybe, maybe not. I'm sure there's some legal mechanism for punishing you for setting a boobytrap. You'd also have to rely on this unnamed other to force that particular finger, rather than the others...
- rolph 9mo agobrer rabbit: "no brer fox dont throw me in the briar patch!" suspect: "no you cant force me to put my pinky there", attempts to make pinky inaccessible. other: "we will charge you with obstruction if you resist placing the pinky" Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%27er_Rabbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%27er_Rabbit
- ranger_danger 9mo agoThere are very specific rules for proving destruction of evidence. For a criminal case the burden proof in the US at least is "beyond a reasonable doubt", so someone would likely have to prove that you knowingly destroyed valuable evidence before you'd get in big trouble. And if you haven't already been served with something saying you need to preserve evidence, they might not have any claim to information they had no idea existed beforehand, especially if you don't talk.
- 1123581321 9mo agoBelieve this is bad legal advice. They would only need to prove you destroyed information with intent to impede an investigation/case. They would not need to prove something convicting or weighing was destroyed.
- whaleofatw2022 9mo agoI wonder what the threshold is? E.x. if one had a "dead man's switch" phone that required a passkey every x minutes, and each time you did so it set the next threshold...
- happyopossum 9mo agoWhat you seem to be referring to would be obstruction, whereas the entire parent thread was specifically discussing destruction of evidence. Fair to point out that there are other offenses that could be charged, but misleading to imply it’s the same thing.
- 1123581321 9mo agoNo, I am referring to destruction of evidence. It is (very generally) a subset of legal obstruction.
- ranger_danger 9mo ago> They would only need to prove you destroyed information with intent to impede an investigation/case Which requires them to prove they know that device likely contains relevant information. Just being party to a court case doesn't mean you're forbidden from deleting anything ever again... like I said there are very specific rules for evidence, and one cannot begin to claim something relevant is destroyed if you can't even show that you had any idea what might have been destroyed in the first place.
- 1123581321 9mo agoIt mostly hinges on your intent, i.e. what they can argue is your understanding of the information you destroyed, not theirs. It unfortunately can be far-reaching, including into the past. You're right that in normal circumstances you can routinely delete records for data hygiene, to save money, as part of a phone repair, and so on, unless you've been court ordered otherwise.