14 points hn_acker 1 hour ago 5 comments
000000000001 40 minutes ago | parent
My reaction from the title: "That's destruction of property, plain and simple."
After Reading the Article: "Well, given the circumstances, deserved."
Maybe don't engage/consume/manufacture CSAM and it won't be a problem.
mijowi 32 minutes ago | parent
I would say they should have only deleted the data that was found to be illegal, but if that data was all over the place... I find it hard to sympathize.
Zak 28 minutes ago | parent
Seizing and selling or destroying property used in the commission of a crime is common. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me if the value of the property is in proportion to the severity of the crime, and the owner of the property has been convicted of the crime (i.e. it's not civil asset forfeiture).
compiler-guy 34 minutes ago | parent
The right answer here is something like:
Usually not, but sometimes under circumstances enumerated by law. Like this case.
Zak 31 minutes ago | parent
It seems to me that the correct remedy in this case would be to have a representative of the court preserve specific data requested by the offender, as long as it isn't criminal or harmful, at the offender's expense.
I don't think wiping an offender's phone is justified in most cases even if it might hinder them in potential subsequent crimes, but it does seem justified in this case where the phone contains significant material harmful to the victim of a serious crime.