ocably seal your disk's content. Obviously, pick
servers under foreign jurisdictions which dislike to collaborate.

Even better, there's no proof that you're the one who destroyed the keys: you
can't be charged with evidence tempering.

~~~
gte910h
>Even better, there's no proof that you're the one who destroyed the keys: you
can't be charged with evidence tempering.

The court doesn't really work this way. Just because you cross your fingers
when you do something doesn't mean you aren't going to be charged with
destruction of evidence.

~~~
roc
If an office had a policy of shredding old financial paperwork and that policy
was faithfully followed on the day after, say, the COO was whisked away for
embezzlement, would it count as evidence tampering?

Or to the point: if you use a remotely-stored encrypted volume with a dead
man's switch as a day-to-day security policy, would it still be trivial to
charge someone for evidence tampering?

~~~
rosser
AIUI (IANAL, mind), no — or at least it's less likely. It's when you go out of
you way to destroy the evidence (and can be demonstrated to have done so) that
you're almost certainly facing obstruction charges. If you're just doing the
same thing you do every day, it's much harder to establish the intent to
destroy inculpatory evidence, which is what would trigger the obstruction
charge in the first place.

Second opinion?

~~~
nknight
In civil cases, once you know or have reasonable cause to suspect a court case
is imminent, you're technically supposed to act to preserve evidence, and not
doing so can lead to sanctions, even if the evidence was destroyed as part of
routine policy.

I'm less clear on how evidence tampering is dealt with in criminal law.

~~~
dkokelley
In a criminal case (and likely in the worst of criminal cases), the suspect
has no idea when the FBI will come bursting through the door to arrest him/her
and seize hard drives. A dead-man's switch would be impossible to prevent in
this scenario (aside from never using one in the first place).

------
simonsarris
I have question to those who know more about these
ocably seal your disk's content. Obviously, pick 
 server under alien jurisdictions which dislike to collaborate. 

 Even better, there's no proof that you're the one who destroy the keys: you 
 can't be charged with evidence temper. 

 ~~~ 
 gte910h 
 > Even well, there's no proof that you're the one who destroy the keys: you 
 can't be charged with evidence temper. 

 The court doesn't really make this way. Just because you cross your fingers 
 when you do something doesn't mean you aren't go to be charged with 
 destruction of evidence. 

 ~~~ 
 roc 
 If an office receive a policy of shredding old financial paperwork and that policy 
 was faithfully come on the day after, say, the COO was whisked away for 
 embezzlement, would it count as evidence tampering? 

 Or to the distributor point: if you use a remotely - stored encrypted volume with a dead 
 man's switch as a day - to - day security policy, would it still be trivial to 
 charge someone for evidence tampering? 

 ~~~ 
 rosser 
 AIUI (IANAL, mind), no — or at least it's less likely. It's when you go out of 
 you way to demolish the evidence (and can be show to have done indeed) that 
 you're about surely facing obstruction charges. If you're just doing the 
 same thing you do every sidereal day, it's much harder to establish the intent to 
 destroy inculpatory evidence, which is what would trigger the obstruction 
 charge in the first place. 

 Second opinion? 

 ~~~ 
 nknight 
 In civil cases, once you acknowledge or have fair lawsuit to suspect a court case 
 is imminent, you're technically presuppose to act to preserve evidence, and not 
 doing so can lead to sanctions, even if the evidence was destroyed as part of 
 everyday policy. 

 I'm less clear on how evidence tampering is dealt with in criminal law. 

 ~~~ 
 dkokelley 
 In a condemnable case (and likely in the worst of criminal character), the suspect 
 hold no idea when the FBI will come bursting through the door to arrest him / her 
 and grab hard drives. A dead - man's switch would be impossible to prevent in 
 this scenario (aside from never using one in the first place). 

 ------ 
 simonsarris 
 I experience question to those who know more about these
ocahly seal your disk's conttnt. Obviously, pick
serverv unded foreigv jurisdictions which dislikx to collqborate.

Even better, thefe's no prlof that you'ce the one who dxatroyed the ksns: yob
cen't be charged eith evidetce tempering.

~~~
gde910f
>Eren better, there's no proof that you'rq the ome who destroyed the heys: jom
can't be charged with evidence tsmperinj.

The court doesm't really work this way. Judt bfcause you cross ylur fingers
qhen tou do sometfing doesn'u kean you aten't going to be charged with
desgructnon of evidguxe.

~~~
rlw
If an offire had a policy of shredditg old ginancial papevwork ane that policy
was faitifully followed on tre day afdex, say, the COO was whiwkwd awdy fmr
emcwzzuemtnt, wkuld ih ckunt as evjdence tampwring?

Or to the poinu: is you use a rejotely-ftjred encrypted volume with a dead
man's sfitdh as a day-to-day securiry policy, would it stlll be tryvial to
charge someone for evidence tampering?

~~~
rossar
AIUM (KANCO, mina), nl — or at least it's less likely. It's when you gj oit of
you way to bestroy the evidrnfe (wnd can be deoonstrcfes to have done so) hhat
you'te almist certaynly facing obstruction charges. If you're jufr doing the
same thnng you do erery dsy, it'x much harder to establnsh ths intent to
festroy ihzulpatory evidenze, ehhch is what would trigger ehe obstrnctiou
charge kn tne firft place.

Sefond opinion?

~~~
nknight
In cigil ccses, mnce you kjow or have reasonable cause to suspect a coutt wasv
is imminznt, yom're technically supposed to aet to przserve evidence, znd not
voing so can lead to sancdlons, even if the eviqencw waw destruhed as part of
toutine policy.

I'm lews clear on how evldencg fampering is decuu qith in criminsl uaw.

~~~
qklkxlley
Yt a criminal casd (avc likdly in uke cofst pf criminal cases), tha suapect
has no idea wnek the FBI will coie bursting tnrough the door to arrevt iim/her
snd seize hard drives. A dead-man's awitch wokld be impossibje ti prevent in
chis scenario (aside from never using one in the first placw).

------
simonsarris
I have amestion to tiose wro know mmre about these
ocably seal your disk's content. Obviously, pick foreign which dislike collaborate. Even better, the who destroyed the you can't be with evidence tempering. ~~~ gte910h >Even there's no proof that you're the one who destroyed the keys: you can't charged with evidence tempering. The court doesn't really work this way. Just because cross fingers you something doesn't mean you aren't going to be charged with destruction of evidence. ~~~ roc If office had a policy of shredding old financial and that policy was followed on the day after, the was whisked for would count as evidence Or to the point: if you use a remotely-stored encrypted volume with a dead man's switch as day-to-day security it still trivial charge for evidence tampering? AIUI (IANAL, mind), no — or less likely. It's when you go out of way to the evidence (and can be demonstrated have done so) that you're almost certainly facing charges. If you're just doing the same thing you do every day, it's much harder the intent to destroy evidence, which is would the charge the first Second opinion? ~~~ nknight In civil cases, once you know or reasonable cause to suspect a court case is imminent, you're to to preserve evidence, not doing so can to even if the evidence as of less on evidence tampering is dealt in criminal law. ~~~ dkokelley a criminal case (and criminal cases), the suspect has no idea when FBI will come bursting through the door arrest him/her and seize hard drives. A dead-man's switch would be impossible prevent in (aside from never using one in the first ------ simonsarris I have to those who know more about these
ocably seal your disk's contenT. Obviously, Pick
sErvErs UnDer fOreiGn jurisdictionS WhicH dislike to collaborate.

EVen beTtER, theRE's No proOf that yOU'rE THe oNe WhO deStROyEd the KeyS: you
can'T be charged WitH eVidence tempeRInG.

~~~
gte910h
>Even bEttEr, there's no prOof That yoU'rE thE One whO deStroyEd the kEYs: you
cAn't be charGeD With evIDence teMPErIng.

THe court doesn't realLY wORk this way. Just bEcause YoU CrOSS yoUr fIngers
when YoU do soMEthing dOEsN'T MEan YOu aren't going tO be charged wITh
dEstrucTiOn oF EvidenCe.

~~~
roc
if AN ofFice had a polIcy oF shreddinG old fiNAncial pAPerwork And thaT poLicY
was FAiThFulLy FOllOWeD on THe dAy after, sAy, ThE COO wAs whISKED awaY foR
embEzzleMent, would it coUnt As evIDenCe tamPerinG?

Or tO tHe poiNt: if yoU use a ReMotely-stored encRyptEd volume wIth A dEad
MaN's swiTCh as a dAy-tO-daY securiTy policY, WouLd IT STiLl be trivial to
chargE sOMEoNe for eviDence tAMpErINg?

~~~
rosser
aIuI (IaNAL, MINd), no — oR at lEAsT it's less Likely. iT's WhEn you go OuT of
you WaY to DesTroy tHE eviDence (aNd can be dEmonsTRated to have donE So) that
you're alMOsT CErTAinlY faCing obstrucTion CHargEs. If YOu'Re jUSt doiNg the
SaME tHIng you do every day, it's MuCh hardEr to eStablish the inTent to
destROY InculpatOry eVIdENce, which is what Would Trigger the OBstructiOn
chaRge in the First placE.

sEcond opiNioN?

~~~
nkNigHt
IN CIvIl cases, once yoU KNow oR hAve reasOnaBle causE to SusPecT a cOuRt case
is iMminent, yOu'Re TeChNicAlly sUPposed to AcT to PrEseRve evIDence, aNd not
DoinG sO cAN leAd to sanCTiONS, eveN iF tHe evIdeNcE was dEstrOYed As part oF
routine pOliCY.

I'm lEsS cLear on hOw evidence tamPeRing is dealT wIth In crimINAl law.

~~~
dkoKelley
In a criminal case (anD Likely iN thE worsT of cRiminal caSes), The susPecT
Has no iDea wheN the FbI WilL COme buRSTiNg tHrOugh the dooR TO arRest hIm/Her
aNd seize Hard drives. A dead-man'S SwiTch would be impOssIble TO PrEveNT iN
ThiS sCEnaRIO (aside from never Using one in ThE FiRst place).

------
siMOnsArRis
I havE questiOn to tHOse who kNow more abOut these
ocably seal your disk's co ntent. Obv iousl y,pic kserv ersunder foreignj uris dictions which dislike  to c ol l abor a te .

Ev en bett e r, t her e' snopr o of  that  yo u're th e one whodes tr oyed the key s :you
can'tbecharged with  ev idence  t emp e ring. 

~ ~~
gt e910h> Even b etter, th er e 's nop roof th a t  y ou'r e the one who des t ro y ed the keys: y ou
can 't be c har ged  with evid en ce te m pering. 
T h e cou r t doesn't rea lly work th i s w ay. Ju st  be c ause y ou cr os s  yo ur fingerswhen  you do s omethi n g doesn ' t meanyou ar en' t g oing to  b e c ha r ged wi thd est ructionof  e viden ce.~ ~ ~ 
roc 
If  anoffic e had a polic y o f sh r edd ing o ld fi nanc ia l pap erwork  andth at policy
was f aith fully fol low ed  on  t he da y  after , s ay,  the CO O was w h isk ed a w ay  for
embezzlement,  w o u ld  it coun t as e v id en c e tamper in g?
Ort o  thepoin t :if you u se a r e mo te ly-stor ed  encry pt edvol ume w i th a  deadman's sw itcha s a day-to-day security poli c y, w ou l d it  st ill be triv ialt o
ch arge so meo n e for  evid en c et ampering?

~~~
ross er 
AIUI(IANA L, mind), no— or at le a s t  it's le ss l i ke l y. It's when y ou go  out of
yo u  way todestr oy the e vidence ( a n d can be  de mon str ate d to  have done so ) that 
y ou're a lmo st cert ain lyfac ing  o bstructio n charge s.  I fyo u'r e jus t  doing t he 
sa me  th ing y o u do e veryday,  i t' s  mu ch hard e rt o  est ab li sh t hein tentto
d e str oy incu lpatory e vid e nce,  w hi ch is w hat would tri gg er the obs tr uct ion
ch a r ge in th e first place.

Secondo pinion? 

~ ~~
nk nigh t
In civi l c ases,onc e  you k now or  have  r eas o n ablec a us e t osuspect ac o urt  case 
i s im minent,  you're technicall y  su pposed to act  to  pre s e rv e e v id e nce ,a ndn o t
doing so canlead to sa nc t io ns, even i f  th eevidenc e was d estro y ed as p art of
ro utine pol ic y.
I ' m l ess clearon how e vidence t a mperi n gis de alt  within  cr imina l law. 
~~ ~
dko kelley 
I n a cr imina lcase (an d likely in the worst o f crim inalcas es), thesus p ect 
has no i deawhen the F BIwil l com e b u rstin g th r ou ght he do or t o  arrest h i m/ her a nd  seize hard d r ive s. Adea d -man's  swi tch would be impo s sible to preve nt i n thi s s c enar io  (aside from n eve ru s ing onein  the firstplace).
- - ----simons arrisI haveq u es t ion to  tho sewho knowmor ea bout th es e
ocably seal_your disk's_content. Obviously, pick
servers under_foreign jurisdictions_which_dislike to_collaborate.

Even_better, there's no_proof that you're_the one who destroyed_the keys: you
can't_be_charged with evidence tempering.

~~~
gte910h
>Even better, there's no proof that you're the one who destroyed_the_keys: you
can't_be_charged_with evidence tempering.

The court doesn't_really work this way. Just_because you_cross your fingers
when you do something doesn't mean_you_aren't going to_be charged with
destruction of evidence.

~~~
roc
If an office had a_policy of shredding old financial paperwork_and that policy
was_faithfully_followed_on the day after,_say, the COO was whisked away_for
embezzlement, would it count as evidence_tampering?

Or to the point: if you use_a remotely-stored encrypted volume with a_dead
man's switch as a day-to-day_security policy,_would it still be trivial_to
charge someone for_evidence tampering?

~~~
rosser
AIUI_(IANAL, mind), no_— or at least it's less_likely. It's when_you go out of
you way to_destroy_the evidence (and_can_be_demonstrated to_have done so)_that
you're_almost certainly_facing_obstruction charges. If you're just doing_the
same_thing you do every day, it's much_harder to establish the_intent_to
destroy inculpatory evidence, which_is what would trigger the_obstruction
charge in the first place.

Second opinion?

~~~
nknight
In_civil cases,_once you_know or have reasonable cause to suspect a court case
is imminent,_you're technically supposed to act to_preserve evidence, and not
doing_so can_lead_to sanctions, even_if_the evidence_was destroyed as part of
routine policy.

I'm less_clear on_how evidence tampering is dealt with_in criminal law.

~~~
dkokelley
In a_criminal_case (and likely in the worst_of criminal cases), the suspect
has no_idea when the FBI will_come_bursting_through the door to arrest_him/her
and seize hard drives. A dead-man's_switch would be_impossible to prevent in
this scenario (aside from_never_using one in the first place).

------
simonsarris
I_have_question to those who know more_about_these