Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

Too big to spoil banks?

You don’t really need to look very far. The moment you have so many people that you can plausibly chalk the deletion up to miscommunication or automated processes you are basically home free.

Or at least, just get off with a fine, it’s the company doing a wrong after all, and you can’t jail a company.

From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve...

> In 2014, months prior to public knowledge of the server's existence, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and two attorneys worked to identify work-related emails on the server to be archived and preserved for the State Department. Upon completion of this task in December 2014, Mills instructed Clinton's computer services provider, Platte River Networks (PRN), to change the server's retention period to 60 days, allowing 31,830 older personal emails to be automatically deleted from the server, as Clinton had decided she no longer needed them. However, the PRN technician assigned for this task failed to carry it out at that time

I guess people of varying political viewpoints would differ on whether Clinton had gotten away with anything. But plenty of other cases in which powerful people did not get away with destroying evidence. Or rather, they had the ability to destroy email evidence and didn't, because they knew they wouldn't get away with it. Gen. David Petraeus [0], for example, and the officials currently under the Mueller probe.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-p...

It really depends. I have a friend that used to work for Kroll Ontrack under their forensics unit. She quit after a few years due to the disturbing amount of child porn she had to recover. She knew she was doing good stuff in putting those predators in prison, but it really eats away at you. She's now working on an internal infosec team at Verizon, a job she really loves.

To answer your original question, she has a degree in computer forensics.

No it doesn’t! The citizenship has nothing to do with the law. It’s the residency. An EU citizen living in New York has exactly zero to do with GDPR. An American citizen living in Paris though, would be covered by the law.

I think it's a bit strong to conclude that if a judge disagrees with you on this topic it is activism. This is relatively untested/uncharted legal territory and, at least in the US, it is complex. For places like Australia that have no guaranteed first amendment rights, I would agree that it is much more cut and dry because there are other laws already in place that can limit your speech through due process.

The same is true about due process in the US, but there are limitations on what it can apply to regarding speech. The US government can legally stop you from speaking on certain matters via court order. But speech is explicitly separated from lack of speech in the US and are treated as two totally separate things. There is legal standing that non-speech cannot be considered as speech - this goes hand in hand with the 5th amendment and how a person's refusal to speak and provide testimony against themselves cannot in of itself be considered evidence against them. So a lack of speech cannot be considered evidence of guilt.

Also, there is a substantial body of law protecting the people (even government employees) from being forced to say anything by government. So, for others here wondering if the US can require them to keep updating it - they almost certainly cannot. There may be a way around that because the US government does have a fairly broad ability to regulate businesses so they could, in theory, pass legislation requiring businesses update this...maybe. But I doubt such a law would pass challenges as it would be challenged on first amendment grounds and the idea that other compulsive speech requirements on businesses have generally been geared toward information sharing and notifications of legal rights and other things that protect consumers. This is something entirely different and doesn't fall in those categories. Those requirements are all structured around spreading truthful information to keep consumers informed where here the government would be requiring businesses to lie - something that could easily be argued is against consumer interest.