Wouldn't they be required to prove that it was deliberate though? Rather than an unfortunate accident with a hammer?
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.
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.
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.
If you don't want to furnish evidence in criminal cases, minimize the number of cameras you set up.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
The 'ruling class' have something you don't - money and connections.
> I mean if you are singularly dimwitted yes but you've got bigger problems if that's the case.
Honestly this is classic nerdery thinking they're smarter than everyone else when dealing with systems they're not familiar with. That's the worst kind of stupidity. Hubris comes before the fall.
> Well you're changing your tune now aren't you? Before you said they were justified because I was lying.
No I didn't. You're confusing me for someone else. That kind of lack of attention to detail will catch you out if you need to lie to the courts :)
They still get hauled before courts and don't just get off scott free. They get off because they use the right tools. You and I can use some of those tools too. Not all of them, but some of them.
> Honestly this is classic nerdery thinking they're smarter than everyone else when dealing with systems they're not familiar with. That's the worst kind of stupidity. Hubris comes before the fall.
It doesn't matter if you're honest or not, this simply is not something that helps to justify your position. It's just not an argument.
> No I didn't. You're confusing me for someone else.
Ah that's true.
> That kind of lack of attention to detail will catch you out if you need to lie to the courts :)
No it's not, but if you are the type of person to put the same attention to detail in to a court case as you put into posting on anonymous internet forums then I can see why you think it would be.
> "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 where we're at now:
> They still get hauled before courts and don't just get off scott free. They get off because they use the right tools. You and I can use some of those tools too. Not all of them, but some of them.
> No it's not, but if you are the type of person to put the same attention to detail in to a court case as you put into posting on anonymous internet forums then I can see why you think it would be.
I don't think we're disagreeing at this point. You've basically admitted there aren't 'neat tricks' and you'll have to go through a painful experience with the courts which is what everyone has been saying all along. Fighting legal battles isn't a neat trick.
A comment said that if it was not stored on the cloud, he would still be required to hand it over. You then said it would become some huge problem and no easy way to get out of.
The reality is actually if the police somehow did find out you had non-internet video cameras and served you with a subpoena before you realized what they wanted and had time to take prior action, you could dispose of the recordings and respond that you don't have anything. If they wanted to haul you before a court, "I don't recall where the sd card is", "I don't recall when I last recorded something", etc is going to be the end of it. So there absolutely are neat tricks. There's no word twisting and elaborate confabulation of lies to get caught out with, it's not like an episode of law and order. You just say that you don't recall.
If it was you under investigation and particularly if it was a very serious crime then sure they're going to try harder, that wasn't the situation we were discussing though (and in that case depending on what's on the tapes it's still not necessarily the case you'd be better off to be honest).
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.
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.
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.