- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Important context:
- Data was recovered
- Plaintiff does not believe it was purposeful
- Cost plaintiff a week’s work
- Plaintiff has already spent 150 hours going through data
“Accidentally”
Then the assumption should be the most damning scenario for open AI that this evidence could provide.
AFAIK that is, in fact, how juries are generally instructed to regard destruction of evidence.
Even “accidental” destruction?
Incompetence has a price.
Are you actually educat3d on this or just saying things? Because I’m asking bc idk
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?
So, I had to double check myself on this one, and my original answer wasn’t entirely correct.
If it is found that the destruction of evidence was intentional then yes, the jury can be instructed to view the missing information in the least favorable light, or a case can simply be outright dismissed or a default judgement entered.
However even in the case of “accidental” (ie, not provably intentional) deletion the court can still take various measures to redress the balance in some way.
I am not a lawyer but this guy is - https://joneskell.com/how-spoliation-of-evidence-impacts-litigation/
Word, thank you for the high effort and detailed explanation.
Keep in kind that there is a geopolitical orientation in law. What is written here may not apply in all regions, nor all types of legal procedure.
“Accidentally”
accidentally
Let a judge be the judge of that…
I mean, even the plaintiff thinks it was an accident.
“Oopsie woopsie 🤭” - OpenAI
A megafuckhuge IT corp who deals in data doesn’t have backups, right, RIGHT???
it is the 2024 version of the dog ate my homework
Journalistic malpractice to repeat their “accidentally” claim without attribution or quotes
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
“Upise ahah my bad”
“Accidentally”
“Accidentally”
In Spain, in a major political corruption trial, a party turned in as evidence some drives that had been erased by Dban 7 times. They argued that it was routine to do seven passes.
It is… It’s literally a preconfigured option on the dban selection list.
Source: My memory… but if that’s not good enough, here’s wiki too.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darik's_Boot_and_Nuke
and DOD 5220.22-M (7 passes) are also included as options to handle data remanence.
It’s an option, but not the default. It takes forever to run, so someone using it is being very intentional.
It’s also considered wildly overkill, especially with modern drives and their data density. Even a single pass of zeros, the fastest and default dban option, wipe data at a level that you would need a nation state actor to even try to recover data.
