Spoliation cites

[Black Unicorn]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On
> Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 7:02 PM
> To: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net
> Subject: Re: Spoliation cites
>
>
>       I think you're getting a little off-track here --- the original
> discussion was about whether the court could make the journalist turn
> over *all copies* of a document. She wasn't trying to destroy them to
> hide anything,

I'm not sure where you have been over the last 48 hours but clearly you've
not been paying attention.

Courts _clearly_ have the ability to demand the production of all copies and
originals of a document.  They have merely to order it.  They _clearly_ have
the ability to smack a gag order on also.  The rest of us settled that
question some time ago.

>       As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all
> your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it.

Uh, no.  And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point
you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here say exactly the
opposite of what you claim above.  (I didn't see a legal background on your
resume either but perhaps you have any cites that I don't know about?)

> --- the interesting
> question is whether or not they can somehow expect you to turn over
> *all* copies of a document you've published on freenet or mojo. And
> whether they are encrypted or not is irrelevant.

Now I'm beginning to regret responding to this post at all because it's
painfully clear that you just haven't got a good grip on this issue.  Had
you been reading you'd have known the answer to this, and why encryption or
non-encryption was important about 40 posts ago.

>       Although really, the most serious question everyone should be
> asking is why the court wants "all" copies.

Asked and answered.


Summarizing:

You assert that the topic of electronic evidence spoliation is off topic for
cypherpunks.

You restate a question answered some 48 hours ago.

You boldly assert, incorrectly, what the law is with respect to compelled
production and court powers in the discovery process.

You restate the question which followed the original query, as if it had
never been asked and answered (which it had and was).

You reintroduce the encryption and destruction issue, which I'm pretty sure
I brought up and speculated on in the first place- and which you have
earlier claimed was irrelevant.

You return to ask again the original (answered) question which was the nexus
of the discussion.

Fine piece of work.