this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
426 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
3825 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 7 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

Even "accidental" destruction?

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 16 points 18 hours ago (4 children)
[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 2 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Are you actually educat3d on this or just saying things? Because I'm asking bc idk

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Failing to preserve evidence is sacntionable, even if it isn't willful destruction. The penalties generally aren't as stiff, but if the judges accepted "Oopsie, we accidentally destroyed evidence we were required to preserve" as a defense, there would be an incentive to destroy evidence and claim it was an accident.

The fact that most companies still turn over evidence that's damning to their own cases is the proof that it's generally a bad idea to accidentally destroy evidence.

Look at it another way: If you're speeding and get pulled over, would a judge let you off if you tell him you were only doing 70 in a 35 because you weren't paying attention to the road?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)