- cross-posted to:
- privacy@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@programming.dev
theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
Uhhhh nope, I was attacking the article’s notion that few people know that destruction of evidence is illegal, as I said.
How could you possibly know that?
It was a targeted harassment search into a political nuisance, not an actual warranted investigation. There was no charge. They let him walk away. Can’t have evidence if there was no crime.
There is no difference, legally.
Can’t know if there was a crime if the evidence was destroyed. Imagine if a corporation were being investigated for some sort of crime and they just went and deleted any evidence of it. Does your statement still apply?
If there’s no suspicion of a crime, there’s no legal search. So no evidence to gather.
ok but…there was. Regardless of whether it’s legitimate.
No there wasn’t.
You should read the article again. The suspicion was CSAM.
Based solely on the fact that he protested the cops hq. That was their excuse after their illegal search attempt. If there was an actual suspicion, they’d have a warrant and be searching his property, not just holding him up at the airport for a few minutes.
Are you always this easy to fool? We all know this admin isn’t going after actual child abusers.
I am not being fooled. I just understand how our justice system works. There is no rational thought process. Only consideration of the law. The prosecutors won’t say anything about his protesting. They will only cite suspicion of CSAM.
That was the alleged suspicion. They were fishing because they don’t like that the guy is against cop city.
That’s the suspicion they will cite in court.
If you have mushrooms in your car it is not evidence unless it is discovered during a lawful search as required by due process. Cops cannot just randomly search cars or any other property without cause.
Hypothetical things are not evidence, regardless of whether they may or may not exist. The phone and any data on it was not evidence because the authorities had no legal or constitutional right or cause to search it.
Since the phone was wiped, there is no data. This means even the hypothetical was-never-evidence data still is not evidence, because it is literally the absence of evidence. This is as much “destruction of evidence” as the last time you emptied your computers trash folder.
If a cop has a warrant to search your car for mushrooms and you then burn the car to the ground, that’s destruction of evidence.
If the IRS subpoenas your tax documents and you throw them in a fire, that’s destruction of evidence.
Anything deemed to be pertinent to an investigation is evidence.
There was no warrant. And in this scenario the piggies accidentally burned the car to the ground while performing an illegal search. Messy example that doesn’t line up 1:1.
😂 As if the police doesn’t abuse innocent activists for state repression
For evidence to possibly exist, you need to be charged with a crime first. Evidence exists within context of a charge. No charge - no evidence.
LOL what!? So you’re saying law enforcement has never obtained evidence without first charging someone with a crime!?
E: if you’re downvoting this, you are a moron. You cannot charge someone with a crime without any evidence. The evidence comes first.
I’m saying you cant “destroy evidence” if you haven’t been charged with anything since at that point it isn’t considered evidence.
This is just complete insanity. You live in a fictional universe. That’s not how any of this works.
“Ah yes, that piece of paper you wrote something on a week ago and threw away that we have no idea what was on it? That is actually now evidence, and since you disposed of it you are now being charged with destruction of evidence.”
The way things are going it might actually become that way. And then you’ll see true insanity.
But it wasn’t a week ago. He was actively being investigated for a crime at the time.
You have a right to not incriminate yourself. Being investigated for a crime implies probable cause, which this instance lacks unless I’m misreading the article.
Your right to not incriminate yourself does not apply to destruction of evidence.
No he wasn’t. He was being harassed because he protested cops previously. They had nothing on him. They still have nothing on him.
There is no legal difference.