Reply to post: Re: Not the story it first appears to be...

Heyyy! NICE e-bracelet you've got there ... SHAME if someone were to SUBPOENA it


Re: Not the story it first appears to be...

Allowing data to be voluntarily submitted as evidence is a completely different proposition than allowing data to be seized and used against the objection of the person to whom the data relates.

Precedent *means* precedent.

If the yet-to-be-created-data-voluntarily-submitted is allowed in this case then it might open the door for a claimant to ASK to subpoena someone else's existing-data-compelled-to-be-presented-against-objections and force it to be presented as evidence, but the judge in that case will not look at this request and conclude that the former opens the door for the latter.

Which is not to say that they might not conclude that the latter request should also be granted, only that the one does not form a precedent for the other. Not one little bit.

But the bigger point is that the yet-to-be-create-data-voluntarily-submitted in this case is utterly unreliable since the claimant is able - should they be so minded - to manipulate that data to support their claim. It isn't "evidence" of impairment any more than any written statement merely claiming impairment is.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021