- 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
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.
Correct, no evidence was destroyed in this instance.
We’re going around in circles here. There’s no way you can know that. There’s no way the court can know that. Because it’s gone.
You NEED to know that before pressing charges. You CANNOT just break into people’s stuff on a whim. What the fuck.
We’re not taking about breaking into people’s stuff, we’re talking about destruction of evidence. The phone was collected as evidence. Then its contents were destroyed.
The time at which the phone was wiped the phone did not meet the legal requirements to be considered evidence. Therefore wiping the phone at that time does not constitute as destruction of evidence. You are conflating the legal definition of “evidence” with the layman’s definition of “evidence”.
I think both your points are compatible.
He’s saying you can’t destroy evidence.
You’re saying they were no evidence because the charges were made up with nothing to back the suspicion. The system was abused.
He’s telling you that’s for a court to determine, you can’t just claim it.
I’m no expert here. Just trying to understand myself.