Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackvalentine | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

> "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.

> 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.

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 :)

> The 'ruling class' have something you don't - money and connections.

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.

Let's go back to the start of this conversation:

> "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.

No, let's go right back to the start. A person had their footage subpoenaed because of an investigation into a neighbor, and because it was on the cloud they had no knowledge or option to do anything until they found out it was already handed over.

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).

> 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.

> 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.

What legal fees? "Sorry, I already deleted that beforehand, I was low on space". Stick with the story, no need for a lawyer.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com