Slashdot Mirror


Police Use Pacemaker Data To Charge Homeowner With Arson, Insurance Fraud (networkworld.com)

JustAnotherOldGuy writes from a report via Network World: If you're dependent upon an embedded medical device, the device that helps keep you alive may also be used to incriminate you in a crime. Ross Compton, a 59-year-old homeowner in Ohio called 911 in September 2016 to say that his house was on fire, however there were many irregularities to the blaze that investigators found suspicious, such as contradictory statements from Compton and the way that the fire had started. In the ensuing investigation, the police secured a warrant for the logs from his pacemaker, specifically, "Compton's heart rate, pacer demand and cardiac rhythms before, during and after the fire." They subsequently filed charges of felony aggravated arson and insurance fraud. Middletown Police said this was the first time it had used data from a heart device to make an arrest, but the pacemaker data proved to be an "excellent investigative tool"; the data from the pacemaker didn't correspond with Compton's version of what happened. The retrieved data was used to help indict Compton. Lt. Jimmy Cunningham stated, "It was one of the key pieces of evidence that allowed us to charge him."

216 comments

  1. I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    in court. Not if he had the money to fight it. But with our justice system they'll get a conviction out of him. Well, a plea bargain. Hell, guy's house just burned down. One way or the other he's not gonna have the money to pay legal bills.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not? All kinds of pseudo-science and bogus evidence has been accepted in the past. Arson and bite mark "evidence" are clear examples of this.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course not. If he chose to fight it, they would load him up with other charges. A jury would find him guilty of something. The process is the punishment.

      Hollywood would like you to think an innocent person could fight against this. They are wrong. You go to court, you're screwed whether you win or lose.

    3. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Informative

      You should have read the article rather than the click-bait headline.

      They found gasoline on his clothing, the fire starting in multiple places in his house and the guy claimed to have packed up suitcases of his belongings and tossed them out of the house during the fire (while somehow not having time to bother rescuing his cat). The pacemaker data was not the primary evidence used to indict him.

    4. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      That may be the case, but IMO this shouldn't be admissible in court. In my opinion, it should be legally treated the same as one's own testimony, and law enforcement can't compel you to turn over any information contained in it. I think a similar doctrine should apply to any kind of "truth serum" drugs or any possible future technology that could directly read thoughts or memories from your brain.

      The only exception should be if you're dead and a post-mortem investigation is needed.

    5. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why not? All kinds of pseudo-science and bogus evidence has been accepted in the past. Arson and bite mark "evidence" are clear examples of this.

      A good example of this was Cameron Todd Willingham. He was executed in Texas for murder and arson based on flimsy pseudo-science evidence. Based on what we have subsequently learned about how fires start and spread, many arson experts now believe he was almost certainly innocent. Oops.

    6. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your argument wouldn't work because the heart rate data had already been sent to a third party. Since the information was already given to a third party and the third party is the subject of the warrant, it's no longer a case of the defendant being compelled to do anything.

      The best argument against the use of the heart monitor data would actually be the HIPAA privacy rule.

    7. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that the police are making a big thing about the pacemaker data in order to try and desensitize people into using that kind of "investigation". I'm sure they had enough evidence to charge him based on the gasoline on his clothes (although the article stated that at the time of his arrest "The cause of the fire was still undetermined ...").

    8. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'm sure their are plenty of people that would save their shit before their pet.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    9. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It wasn't transmitted to a third party. It was held by the pacemaker. It was literally still inside his body. He wasn't under remote monitoring.

      I agree that this should qualify for a HIPAA exemption. The information was collected solely to influence his medical treatment. As a doctor, I'm very ambivalent about HIPAA, but this is pretty clearly the sort of thing it's meant to prevent. Bad cases make bad law, of course, but they should be able to make a good case against him with the other evidence. If you're relying on pacemaker data, well... they're not that reliable.

    10. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by mysidia · · Score: 1

      while somehow not having time to bother rescuing his cat

      Wait, What... He killed a cat?

      Give him the chair!

      Seriously, why is not animal cruelty in the list of charges with the arson?

    11. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which if you actually, you know, have fucking *READ* HIPAA, you would know it's *completely riddled* with privacy holes, especially for law enforcement.
      And other nasty things like subcontractors, datamining, etc.
      As with ALL so called "privacy policies".

      Government and corporations don't give one single fuck about you.
      All they want is your money and your subservience to them as slaves.
      So long as they have that, they give you cute things to feel good.
      Like TV and voting and facebook.
      All of which they own and mine to fuck you over even that much more.

      Fools.

    12. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by mysidia · · Score: 2

      because the heart rate data had already been sent to a third party.

      Not just any random 3rd party, a confidential patient-doctor exchange to a physician
      for purpose of medical treatment. Not for the purpose of retaining and sharing
      or using for business or other purposes as they like.
      Confidential privileged and sensitive private communications with a doctor.
      It's similar to sharing information with your lawyer for advise; there should bebody court holding an opinion that they
      are justified in prying.....

    13. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, consider the polygraph.

    14. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      That may be the case, but IMO this shouldn't be admissible in court. In my opinion, it should be legally treated the same as one's own testimony, and law enforcement can't compel you to turn over any information contained in it.

      It was treated no differently than any other records a person keeps. If you leave a trail, whether it is paper or electronic, it can be obtained with a warrant and used as evidence.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    15. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by GrumpySteen · · Score: 0

      I like how you made sure not to quote the part where I mentioned HIPAA would be a better argument before you went on to explain the basiis of HIPAA.

    16. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      That's a huge stretch of the constitution. Which has, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". He was not compelled to witness against himself. He does have to respond to lawful warrants for search though, but is not required to speak or provide any information. Ie, they can take fingerprints and this has never been considered to be self incrimination. Likewise they can get a warrant for the pacemaker logs, or phone records, or a lock of hair, a breath sample, etc.

    17. Re: I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hollywood?

    18. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure their are plenty of shit people that would save their stuff before their pet.

      There. FTFY.

    19. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than that: this strikes me that the fact of a HIPAA violation makes it that the evidence is illegally obtained and hence inadmissible.

      He doesn't even need to try to go through the twisty paths of figuring what is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

    20. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was executed in Texas for murder and arson based (...) many arson experts now believe he was almost certainly innocent. Oops.

      Another strong argument against the death penalty.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    21. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kinda goes hand in hand with capital punishment.

      People who argue for capital punishment aren't the kind of persons that are going to stop and ask, "Gee, I wonder if we got the right guy?"
      They want justice now, they don't have time for the courts to do their job.
      To them, letting someone go free because of flimsy evidence is the same thing as letting a criminal go free.
      Of course he was guilty, everyone knows that it was him, otherwise he wouldn't stand trial.

    22. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the zippocat creator.

    23. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a hard time vilifying anyone who commits insurance fraud. Insurance itself is a fraud, defrauding an insurance company is akin to stabbing a murderer. Sure its a crime, but it probably shouldnt be.

    24. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Let's assume you're right - if it was, that's medical records data, which is already privileged information. If the law doesn't recognize pacemaker records as privileged, then the law needs to be updated to account for technological changes.

      It doesn't stop being medical information because it's stored (or sent by) a medical device as opposed to being told to a doctor.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    25. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIPAA does NOT stop law enforcement from being able to subpoena your medical records.

    26. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      HIPPA Explicitly allows for medical information to be released in compliance with a court ordered warrant.

      45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(A)-(B)

      I think it's not at all clear that HIPPA was intended to prevent this kind of data collection, it seems pretty clear that it was intended to ALLOW for it.

    27. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      So a court can compel someone to undergo a medical procedure (reading back the data, which is not without risk)? That's scary.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      Polygraph evidence is not admissible in court.

    29. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by vakuona · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was executed in Texas for murder and arson based (...) many arson experts now believe he was almost certainly innocent. Oops.

      Another strong argument against the death penalty.

      Also another argument against leaving decisions on technical matters to prosecutors. There were many chances to save that guy's life, and none were taken. There was testimony in good time that showed that there was no evidence that he had deliberately caused the fire, but it wasn't listened to.

      In any case, if a person is being found guilty of such a crime, I believe the jury needs to say what evidence was key in convicting. In this case, the key bit was that the fire had been started deliberately and, more specifically, that an accelerant had been used. If that testimony had been invalidated (which it later was), then basically the glove didn't fit, and the man should have been acquitted. This would have given the man an opportunity to put his effort into disproving the one key bit of evidence that was nailing him.

    30. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The defense can always find an expert witness to say the evidence is not valid; that doesn't mean the evidence is not valid. Reading that link it sure appears to me that he killed the three girls.

    31. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another strong argument against the death penalty.

      Well, when the next mass shooter / terrorist / terrorist leader / dictator / etc. comes around, I'll be sure to remind you that the death penalty is not acceptable for those who value the rule of law.

      That arrogance works both ways.

    32. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIPAA is by far the strongest argument, it's ridiculously, intentionally restrictive and privacy oriented by design.

    33. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      Have you ever stood there holding the door open in freezing weather while the cat sticks its head out for HOURS deciding whether to go all the way out or not???

      Cruelty, my ASS!

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    34. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it isn't. What was your point?

    35. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Go for it.

      I don't support the death penalty even for people I'd personally happily kill because the death penalty is inherently flawed and the moment you start making exceptions you step irrevocably away from the concept of justice.

    36. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before my cat passed away, I used to give him about 30 seconds to make up his mind before I'd start closing the door slowly. Usually he'd get the message and either dart inside or let the door push him outside. When he started just letting the door squish him, that was one of the first signs that his health was failing. :(

    37. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Cederic · · Score: 1

      So you support making insurance a non-viable proposition, thus exposing everybody to permanent unavoidable loss in the event of incidents beyond their control?

      I can't afford to rebuild my home if it burns down in a fire. I should become homeless if one of my cats turns on the cooker and burns down the house while I'm at work?

      Me, I'd rather have the safety net provided by the insurance policy I took out. You appear to prefer that I die starving in the cold. Thanks.

    38. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The safety net is a lie. Look carefully at the forms they sent you. Theres about 7 pages of excuses in there explaining why they never have to pay out.

    39. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I've trained mine. "Come on, time to decide" now results in a commitment, one way or the other.

      Having a catflap helps avoid the downsides of a poor choice either way though.

    40. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no HIPAA exemption. Your medical record can be used against you and is in no way protected from the courts. The general rule of evidence is that all evidence is admissible except for things exempted. These exemptions are listed in the federal rules of evidence. They are easy to read and understand. They do not include medical records. Non-federal courts generally use something similar to the FRE.

    41. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hipaa exempts law enforcement and lawful government orders

    42. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Wootery · · Score: 1

      That arrogance works both ways.

      But you're the only one posting as AC. Not so confident?

      Anyway, you go ahead. The idea that capital punishment is vital to the rule of law is laughable, given that most civilized countries have abolished it.

    43. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check your facts.. a simple google search refutes this absolute you give

    44. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it's an argument at all, it's one against all forms of criminal sentencing of any kind whatsoever, not just the death penalty.

      I still can't believe some people think the sentences are what's wrong, instead of the inaccurate verdicts. It's as though people think that figuratively taking an innocent person's life by putting them in prison for decades (or life) isn't an irreparable injustice on par with murder.

      I have to call total and complete bullshit on that. How about I imprison you for years, perhaps also as my rape-slave among other violations of your dignity and a total denial of the entire life you wanted to live, and let's see if you don't, at some point, say "I wish he'd just kill me."

      Get the trial right!! That is where efforts are most needed.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    45. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      check your facts.. a simple google search refutes this absolute you give

      In general, the GP is correct because what the GP did NOT spell out "absolute" at all. Of course, everything in law has exceptions. From a quick google, you can get the answer here.

      Of course, as with most things in a courtroom, every rule has its exception. In the rare instance that both parties agree that the results of a polygraph exam should be admissible for some reason, the court could allow it as evidence. Polygraphs are also commonly used as part of the screening process for certain types of jobs, such as law enforcement and some high level security positions. Nevertheless, for purposes of court procedures, absent a stipulation of the parties, the results of a lie detector test are likely never admissible.

    46. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      And this is why the human race doesn't deserve to survive the meteor strike...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    47. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      if one of my cats turns on the cooker and burns down the house while I'm at work?

      This is why I keep all counter top appliances unplugged when I am not using them (which, by the way, is almost certainly a recommendation written in the safety information that came with your appliance).

      I used to work in the returns dept of a kitchen appliance manufacturer. While there were hard wired fuses and other safety precautions (approved by UL I might add) we still had a couple of cases a year of domiciles burning down from edge cases involving our products.

      Best to just keep everything unplugged when not in use.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    48. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I did. The actions of my cats are insured.

      It's rare that I need to claim on an insurance policy, but they've always paid out when I have.

    49. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Megol · · Score: 1

      Not without risk? Really, CITATION NEEDED!

    50. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      I still can't believe some people think the sentences are what's wrong, instead of the inaccurate verdicts. It's as though people think that figuratively taking an innocent person's life by putting them in prison for decades (or life) isn't an irreparable injustice on par with murder.

      You are absolutely right. However, in an adversarial justice system administered and staffed by flawed human beings, mistakes WILL happen, even when there is no malice present, and even if we manage to improve the system. Given that, dispensing with the death penalty at least allows for the possibility of saving something valuable from the process. So yes, we need to improve the system under which verdicts occur, but we also need to abolish the death penalty. And we also need to radically reform the prison system as well. The contention that its purpose is that of 'correction' is a sick joke. The sooner we, as a society, get off this revenge kick we're stuck on, and start actively and committedly trying to rehabilitate criminals, the better off ALL of us will be.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    51. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      They want justice now, they don't have time for the courts to do their job.

      They want revenge now, they don't have time for the courts to do their job. FTFY

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    52. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "already been sent to a third party"

      That might hold up in some circumstances but I don't know if this one would qualify. He literally needs this device to live, and presumably he doesn't have an option as to it logging his personal information or not, especially if the government gets wind that they can use the data (I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to figure out how to get GPS data included in these things). Just look at the phone records exception, phone companies now keep immense amounts of data specifically for government requests. Can you imagine if a phone service decided to stop keeping records and instead simply charging a monthly/by minute fee? The government would come down on them like a ton of bricks. There's a big difference in being a government being able to request information that already exists for other purposes and a government that MANDATES that the information exist for purposes of later being used against its citizens.

    53. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still can't believe some people think the sentences are what's wrong, instead of the inaccurate verdicts. It's as though people think that figuratively taking an innocent person's life by putting them in prison for decades (or life) isn't an irreparable injustice on par with murder.

      You are absolutely right. However, in an adversarial justice system administered and staffed by flawed human beings, mistakes WILL happen, even when there is no malice present, and even if we manage to improve the system. Given that, dispensing with the death penalty at least allows for the possibility of saving something valuable from the process. So yes, we need to improve the system under which verdicts occur, but we also need to abolish the death penalty. And we also need to radically reform the prison system as well. The contention that its purpose is that of 'correction' is a sick joke. The sooner we, as a society, get off this revenge kick we're stuck on, and start actively and committedly trying to rehabilitate criminals, the better off ALL of us will be.

      Just require defense to be funded to the same level as prosecutorial staff - including the cops salaries paid one court dates, judges, etc. Too expensive? Prosecute fewer people. Just kidding, allow summary execution of the poor, trial by combat, prima nocte and anything else the new God Emperor wants.

    54. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not without risk? Really, CITATION NEEDED!

      The ride to the scanning station could involve a car crash. Probably not, just as I probably won't hit anyone if i fire a rifle near, but not at, your head. There are risks in both though.

      You want to argue that there isn't ENOUGH risk, feel free to enumerate the level of risk I can subject you to and we'll talk.

    55. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Of course not. If he chose to fight it, they would load him up with other charges. A jury would find him guilty of something. The process is the punishment.

      Hollywood would like you to think an innocent person could fight against this. They are wrong. You go to court, you're screwed whether you win or lose.

      I think that the election of Trump demonstrates that the massive US propaganda machine (ie Hollywood and the various news and media companies) are not actually as powerful as we might have thought. They fought against him, threw everything they had at supporting Clinton and yet he still won.

      So theres hope for the USA yet. Even if Trump is an ass at least the power of the propaganda machine has been thwarted.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    56. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I still can't believe some people think the sentences are what's wrong, instead of the inaccurate verdicts.

      Because the death penalty is fixable, while perfect verdicts are a fantasy. Capital punishment has been eliminated by most countries, including Russia, Myanmar, etc. Here is a map of countries that still have capital punishment. Is this really a club we want to belong to?

      taking an innocent person's life by putting them in prison for decades

      In this case, it would not have been "decades". He would have been released within a few years, and certainly after Rick Perry's presidential campaign collapsed. Perry, then governor of Texas, was under a lot of pressure to "look tough" for the primaries, so he granted few clemencies, and may have even impeded the appeals process. Perry dismissed evidence for Willingham's innocence, by claiming (without evidence) that he was a "wife beater".

      Oh, by the way, Rick Perry is Trump's nominee for Energy Secretary: Idiot Tasked With Maintaining America's Nukes Surprised to Learn What His Job Is.

    57. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by sabri · · Score: 1

      I don't support the death penalty even for people I'd personally happily kill because the death penalty is inherently flawed

      Right. If I come home to find a guy abusing my pre-teen daughter, you bet that I will Judge Dredd this mofo's ass.

      The death penalty is not flawed. It's the current process to come to that. In cases where there is absolutely no doubt about guilt (think Boston Marathon), the death penalty is something I can only welcome.

      But anytime a conviction is based on nothing more than "beyond reasonable doubt", I do agree with you that capital punishment should be excluded as an option.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    58. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I think violence to prevent harm is generally accepted. It's when you find out two days later and kill him that it's a crime, rather than if you come home mid-act.

    59. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I don't support it because it's simply a total waste of money and not a deterrent.
      It costs tons more to pursue a death penalty case to termination of the convict than to just put them in a box till they die.
      It's been shown many times over that the death penalty does not deter murder, particularly when committed "in the heat of the moment".

      So from a purely pragmatic standpoint it is a pointless thing.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    60. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary. If it is shown that someone is wrongly put to death, then the prosecutor should get the death penalty. That would surely put a dent in wrongful death penalty convictions.

    61. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes... Even within the last 5 or so years I'd have considered myself pro-death penalty. As I've gotten a little older I've changed my mind on both that and the nature of prisons. I admit, I used to be one who would hear about a vicious crime and think "I hope he gets his in prison". Now I realize that's a horrible thought process to have. Being locked up away from family IS the punishment. Locking someone away and abusing them for 10 years while stripping them of dignity and humanity is NOT what you do to someone whom you expect to return to society and be productive.

      Likewise, death is a punishment there is no coming back from. It is final. We do not have a process or justice system in place (or anywhere in the world I believe) that is reliable enough to use something so final as a punishment. At least with a life sentence you can release the accused, and attempt to provide monetary restitution and a semblance of a life. It can be hard for humans to focus on _punishment_ instead of _revenge_.

    62. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would seem to indicate that they wouldn't have needed the pacemaker data. Someones heart rate at a given time is circumstantial at best. Given that the device is required for his life it should be covered both under the 5th amendment and doctor-patient confidentiality.

    63. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      And this is why the human race doesn't deserve to survive the meteor strike...

      Every night I hope for this, but every morning I'm disappointed.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    64. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by sabri · · Score: 1

      I think violence to prevent harm is generally accepted. It's when you find out two days later and kill him that it's a crime, rather than if you come home mid-act.

      If I found out two days later, I'd still do the same, provided the police don't grab the guy before I do.

      But all of that does not matter. My point is that there are cases where it is crystal clear who committed a very heinous crime, and some of those crimes deserve capital punishment. For punishment and prevention purposes.

      But I will emphasize that I only support capital punishment in those cases: it has to be absolutely clear whodunnit. Not one of those cases where some poor black guy from da hood is being framed by a tiny shred of DNA evidence and gets his head chopped off, only to be exonerated 30 years after the fact. Those cases are disgusting.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    65. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Cederic · · Score: 1

      it has to be absolutely clear whodunnit

      Doesn't exist. Not to the extent that it can be codified in law without allowing

      gets his head chopped off, only to be exonerated 30 years after the fact

      Just say no.

    66. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's pretty low-risk, here, but yes: a court can compel a medical procedure. A cavity search. Sterilization (no longer so, but was an option for quite a while). X-ray (to search for packets swallowed by drug mules).

    67. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I said should, not does. You are correct.

    68. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      As another AC pointed out, HIPAA says outright that a court can compel disclosure of otherwise-protected information.

    69. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention that I do, from time to time, perform medical procedures against the will of the patient under the aegis of a court. I do some part-time work at a state mental hospital. For a select few patients, electroconvulsive therapy is a major component of treating their mental illness. They have been involuntarily committed to the care of the state by a court, which appoints a guardian. The guardian agrees or disagrees with the suggested course of treatment (generally, they agree) based on the best interest of the patient, but disregarding the patient's own wishes in cases where the patient's illness precludes them from making decisions that are in their own interest.

      An example: one is a murderer who has never been (and never will be) declared competent to stand trial, because he's so floridly schizophrenic. He gets ECT twice a week, every week, because if he doesn't, he becomes so violently psychotic that he would have to have Hannibal Lecter levels of physical restraint. I put him under anesthesia for it, but he frequently insists that he does not want or need ECT. Doesn't matter; the court's appointed guardian has consented. And it does mean that he's able to live in a regular building, moving around mostly at will, instead in of the forensic ward, where he would necessarily be locked up almost all the time.

    70. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Having a catflap helps avoid the downsides of a poor choice either way though.

      And provides random rodents access into the building....

    71. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Cederic · · Score: 2

      We clearly have different implementations of 'catflap'. Although I'd pity random rodents in my house, life expectancy is exceedingly poor.

    72. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by tibit · · Score: 1

      You've hit on a key point: self-defense is acceptable and necessary, it's a basic human right. That right shall not be postponed and delegated to a third party - as is the case with death penalty.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    73. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      If I come home to find a guy abusing my pre-teen daughter, you bet that I will Judge Dredd this mofo's ass.

      I would be careful with that strategy. If you've disabled him and he's no longer a threat but you then execute him, you may find yourself in court anyways facing charges. Heat of the moment might get you a lot of leniency but it does put you at the mercy of a prosecutor for whether you're charged and if you go to trial, a jury and judge.

    74. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      You know, that case still ties my gut up in knots. I haven't read where anyone was held accountable for that BS. Seems like someone should be guilty of manslaughter or something. They murdered a man.

      Especially for BS like this one - http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/... . That poor woman manager.

  2. some things you cannot avoid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no intentions at all of burning anything down or committing any violent acts, but this is still a scary development.

    You can avoid a lot of the "spew all minutia of your life to the cloud!" insanity that's taken over the world, but if you need a pacemaker, well, you need a pacemaker. It's nothing something you can easily opt out of, well except for the usual "exercise eat right try to stay healthy" bit, but eventually, age catches up with everybody.

    Sometimes you can opt out of other people's stupidity. With medical care, not so much. Ditto when it comes to the security of your medical records, where de-anonymization of them is a massive industry now.

    1. Re:some things you cannot avoid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No joke. God forbid if you take a drug like propranolol that affects your heart rate/rhythm.

    2. Re:some things you cannot avoid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know why everyone gets their panties in a twist over stories like this. This isn't new case law being decided here.

      The police can compel you to provide fingerprint impressions. They can compel you to provide hair or dna samples.

      How is this any different?

      The protections provided by the U.S. constitution relate to testimony, not evidence. You cannot be compelled to provide incriminating testimony against yourself. You can be compelled to provide evidence.

  3. Fifth amendment by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Is the pacemaker part of him? Is offloading the data testifying?

    In any case, I'm voting guilty. He looks like a shifty bastard.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Fifth amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting for a doctor-patient confidentiality claim. It's a medical device so should there be an expectation of privacy?

    2. Re:Fifth amendment by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is these things are always tested on "shifty bastards". As soon as precedent is available, they get extended to ordinary people.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Fifth amendment by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      They weren't talking to his doctor. They got records from a third party (the pacemaker manufacturer).

      Now, the interesting bit that you can't discern from TFA is whether the pacemaker data was specifically downloaded for purposes of the investigation or if the information came out on routine interrogation. I'm guessing the former since you only check the pacer if you think there is a problem or perhaps twice a year. If the downloading of the data was compulsory, that opens some entertaining legal questions.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Fifth amendment by Misch · · Score: 3, Informative

      They weren't talking to his doctor. They got records from a third party (the pacemaker manufacturer).

      Now, the interesting bit that you can't discern from TFA is whether the pacemaker data was specifically downloaded for purposes of the investigation or if the information came out on routine interrogation. I'm guessing the former since you only check the pacer if you think there is a problem or perhaps twice a year. If the downloading of the data was compulsory, that opens some entertaining legal questions.

      Latter.

      Pacemakers are typically tested quarterly when in working order, monthly when in low battery state when the device supports transtelephonic or inductive testing. Yearly in-person checkups are also typically done. (Transtelephonic: Patient wears a device on each hand or wrist, device communicates with remote servers over a POTS system. Inductive: Patient places a device over pacemaker and initiates remote reading, device communicates over phone, cellular, network, or internet to remote servers.)

      Some "remote monitoring" platforms support automatic daily to 3-week intervals and send results to the manufacturer accordingly. (Source, PDF)

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    5. Re:Fifth amendment by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is these things are always tested on "shifty bastards". As soon as precedent is available, they get extended to ordinary people.

      "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencklen

    6. Re:Fifth amendment by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you have to cut him open to get to it and he needs it to stay alive, I think there's a good case for it being part of him.

    7. Re:Fifth amendment by gweihir · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Fifth amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, he could have avoided testifying against himself, but only if he was willing to die? That's what I'm getting from this.

    9. Re:Fifth amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."
      Felix Frankfurter, Ass. Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
      If you think about it, there is a benefit to everyone if we all have the same rights. Otherwise, someone comes along with a reason to decide this or that person has less rights. Yep, pretty soon no one has rights.

    10. Re:Fifth amendment by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if it's a part of him. A lawful warrant can get a tissue swab for DNA, or a snip of hair, etc.

    11. Re:Fifth amendment by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And there is ample historical and current precedent for that situation. Which is why, in a modern, enlightened system, everybody has the same rights. Of course, the ever-present enemies of freedom are always hard at work. Whether it is apparently only some group getting more rights (e.g. politicians not being snooped on by the GCHQ or politicians being exempt from getting punished for corruption as is currently happening Romania) or some other group getting less rights ("nasty" people being denied rights or due process), it is always the stepping-stone to remove the respective rights and go one step closer to totalitarianism.

      This process has been going on since the idea of rights was established. The enemies of freedom, which today unfortunately often are members of the government or even its head, need to be kicked frequently to remind them that what they are doing ultimately leads to catastrophe and hence must not be done.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Fifth amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. I have a pacemaker and my schedule was like this: @ 2 weeks, @ 3 months, @ 6 months, now yearly.

    13. Re:Fifth amendment by subanark · · Score: 1

      The pacemaker is part of him as much as my finger is part of me. Pacemaker logs are like a fingerprint, they both record an event that came from a person.

    14. Re:Fifth amendment by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Nowadays (for newer pacemakers which cost a lot!!!), you no longer need to hold any device or place anything on your pacemaker in order to remotely send the data out. You just need to have a monitoring device set up inside your bedroom. When set it up, you just need to be around the machine to do the syncing. Once done, it will keep track of your heart activity while you are sleeping without having anything on or next to you (it could be placed on a table nearby you with no wire attached to you).

    15. Re:Fifth amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome, let's toss all the other evidence to the road then. Judging innocence based on looks is far more reliable!

    16. Re:Fifth amendment by Megol · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that people under suspicion of having done a criminal offense have temporarily less rights in order to enable investigation and eventual judgement?

      Are you aware that most people (but apparently not you) think this is a good trade off as otherwise almost no crimes could be solved?

      Are you aware that this have been the standard for a very long time? That it is considered a cornerstone of a free society?

      Your "slippery slope" argument is bullshit. Let me do some "slipping" in the other direction: medical data is sacred, we also can't use testimonies describing the physical state (stress, sweating, out of breath etc.) of a suspect as this can be used to reason about the sacred medical state at the time. We can no longer use wounds, infections etc. of a suspect that matches those the offender would have suffered when committing a crime as circumstantial evidence. Clothes worn by a suspect can not be chemically analysed as it can provide medical data, e.g. sweat could indicate the heart frequency rose at some point in time (which with other evidence could be placed in a timeline), seamen could also indicate increased heart rate etc. Why would fingerprints be allowed as evidence in your fantasy world? Items in possession of a suspect is reasonably placed there by the suspect which indicates action, which indicates physical movement which is sacred medical data.

      Should I continue? I could. But it is already ridiculous - but then so is your position that this is some kind of "slippery slope"...

    17. Re:Fifth amendment by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They weren't talking to his doctor. They got records from a third party (the pacemaker manufacturer).

      The police didn't do an illegal search. They got the evidence from a third party (a burglar who by pure coincidence happened to rob that particular house and by another pure (and totally unrelated) coincidence was on bail for another burglary under investigation by the same officer) .

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Fifth amendment by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true fascist. Nice. Of course, your argumentation is entirely invalid.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Prepare for your mandatory fitbit devices, citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take two orally every day.

  5. Hmmm by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    Who would've thought the government would use available, recorded information against you?

    If at first you don't succeed never try again.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  6. Warrant issued upon probable cause by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the police secured a warrant for the logs from his pacemaker

    It seems like the warrant was issued upon probable cause and ...

    specifically, "Compton's heart rate, pacer demand and cardiac rhythms before, during and after the fire."

    ... the place to be searched and the things to be seized properly described.

    In full compliance with the Bill of Rights, in other words. Are we supposed to be outraged anyway?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by guruevi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Depends: if he was black then obviously we should be outraged that they arrested him in the first place.

      Either way, a lawyer will make mincemeat of the argument that an elevated heart rate right before a fire started is evidence of arson. My heart rate would be elevated too if I saw/smelled smoke.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      It's not the 4th amendment that is important here. Instead, it's the 5th. What is an implanted medical device? What if you have an artificial heart? Does a device ever become part of a person?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by nobuddy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If he was black they would have sent police to shoot him instead of the fire department.

    4. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      the argument that an elevated heart rate right before a fire started is evidence of arson. My heart rate would be elevated too if I saw/smelled smoke.

      How exactly do you smell the smoke from a fire before the fire has started? ESP?

    5. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      In full compliance with the Bill of Rights, in other words. Are we supposed to be outraged anyway?

      I think the real issue here is privacy. Why does his pacemaker report/record anything that isn't an emergency or suspect of one?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    6. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In full compliance with the Bill of Rights, in other words. Are we supposed to be outraged anyway?

      Probably not, according to Wikipedia:

      In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor-patient privilege. At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction.

      If you can't claim privilege on the doctor, you probably can't claim it on medical equipment either. Here in Norway it's the other way around, we've found that the need for everyone to be able to seek medical aid is greater than the need for healthcare personnel to aid in criminal investigations, except when there's a clear threat of harm or to identify those involved in accidents and disasters. That is to say the police can certainly request drug tests, DNA tests, blood alcohol checks and such but they can't ask healthcare personnel to repeat what you told them. Not even with a court order.

      Following that principle, I think the pacemaker data would be considered privileged here or at least it should, that is you're not going to be forced to choose between having a pacemaker and giving the police a tool with which to convict you. It's not something that should be granted lightly but I think attorney-client, clergy and a few others should. I'd certainly rank doctor-patient more worthy than spousal privilege, which is actually protected by US law. It's a bit odd when they can compel the rest of your family, blood is thicker than water but not in this case.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      My heart rate would be elevated too if I saw/smelled smoke.

      That wasn't the point of the information gathering. If they were focusing on just his heart rate and blood pressure responses to the fire then yes, it would be a stretch to prove causality. What they did is get an outside cardiologist to:

      1 - asses his level of probable cardiovascular fitness given his pre existing conditions
      2 - asses the level of cardiovascular response needed to move all of the stuff out of the house in the presumed short time between discovering the fire and being forced out of the house
      3 - look at the heart rate and rhythm and 'pacer demand' and tell the jury that there was no way that data fits with what he was describing.

      By itself that information is kinda squishy and a good trial lawyer and opposing experts could chop it up, but it seemed to fit with all of the rest of the story.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Why does his pacemaker report/record anything that isn't an emergency or suspect of one?

      So that his cardiologist can monitor his condition and pacemaker response to ensure it is working properly and providing the services necessary to keep him alive and well. Its the same reason a diabetic monitors his blood sugar levels. (When on a fixed medication plan, you don't monitor to decide how much insulin to use, you monitor to know if the fixed levels are right. A blood test gives you current sugar levels and an average level (through A1C), but won't tell if you are spiking extremely high or dropping low at times.)

      If all you record is the emergencies, then you miss all the times when it is marginally operational but still functioning, or when it is not providing sufficient services such that the patient self-limits his activity to stay within device limits.

    9. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, ehm... Where do I sign up?

    10. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by mi · · Score: 1

      Does a device ever become part of a person?

      Do fingerprints?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by supernova87a · · Score: 1

      Well, the testimonial privilege on statements you give you your spouse, doctor, priest, etc. is about protecting them from having to testify about private information given in confidence, where to break that confidence would breach a trust between two people with an obligation.

      This is about a device that produces data no matter what, and there is no presumption of privacy or confidentiality. Very different.

    12. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Fingerprints reveal something about who you are, not what you know.

      Imagine, in the future, a technology is developed that allows someone's brain to be scanned and memories read from the brain. Would a 4th amendment search of the memories in someone's brain be OK?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Spousal privilege seems like a very silly thing now that we've thrown out ~2000 years of tradition and jurisprudence on the matter. Up until very recently, marriage was understood to merge the husband and wife into a single person. Spousal privilege is simply the right against self incrimination for a (legal) person with two bodies.

      Personally, I find the use of data collected by an implanted medical device for prosecution to be abhorrent, and I will be letting my state and federal representatives know how I feel the next time I see them.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    14. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by mi · · Score: 1

      Would a 4th amendment search of the memories in someone's brain be OK?

      Yes, absolutely — as long as it can be done without undue damage to the person. The memories you have in your head are no different from those you recorded into a diary.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      This is about a device that produces data no matter what, and there is no presumption of privacy or confidentiality. Very different.

      My wife talks to me no matter what. Does that void any presumption of privacy that she has?

      The issue is that there should be a presumption of privacy relating to this data. Good policy dictates this.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    16. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Smouldering items are not on fire, yet they produce smoke.

    17. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what becomes of those that think with their penis?

    18. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

      If all you record is the emergencies, then you miss all the times when it is marginally operational but still functioning, or when it is not providing sufficient services such that the patient self-limits his activity to stay within device limits.

      It seems like you are unaware of the actual function of a pacemaker. A pacemaker only activates when your heart misses a beat (hence making the pace) and yes, those events should be reported. However, the vast majority of the time, a pacemaker is merely a passenger in your body. The question is, why do pacemakers report back the exact details of times when no actions were taken? Anything older than a half hour should be overwritten (with the exception of when actions have been taken by the device or almost taken by the device) and only events where the device took action should be reported.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    19. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's not as if they know to the microsecond when the fire started. He could easily have smelled smoke before the fire "officially" started.

    20. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Imrik · · Score: 1

      If it were my pacemaker, I would assume privacy and confidentiality. Well, I would have yesterday anyway.

    21. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      So, basically, in your opinion, the 5th amendment is meaningless?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    22. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by mi · · Score: 1

      So, basically, in your opinion, the 5th amendment is meaningless?

      No, it is not. Before you ask, the multiplication table and the Pythagorean theorem remain meaningful too — and just as relevant to the topic at hand.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    23. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by guruevi · · Score: 1

      One word: adrenaline

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    24. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      Become a cardiologist and then form an opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but since you pulled it out of your ass, it doesn't account for much. Kinda stinky, too.

    25. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      So please explain, if the hypothetical device existed, what protection from self-incrimination anyone would have.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    26. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Either way, a lawyer will make mincemeat of the argument that an elevated heart rate right before a fire started is evidence of arson. My heart rate would be elevated too if I saw/smelled smoke.

      The argument is that a person with his heart condition couldn't have possibly seen the fire, packed his bags, broke the window, thrown his suitcases out the window, and run outside. As far as I can tell, they didn't even check the particular heartrate when it happened, they just checked his overall health.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > why do pacemakers report back the exact details of times when no actions were taken?

      1. To ensure that the pacemaker is working correctly. It's the only way to find out if the pacemaker activated but shouldn't have, or didn't activate when it should have.
      2. For the doctor to monitor the person's health. They obviously have a bad heart; tracking their heartbeat may show long-term trends that the doctor can assess before it shows acute symptoms (like a heart attack).

    28. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by portwojc · · Score: 1

      N outrage as long as you remember this key part in the case.

      Fire investigators knew there had been “multiple points of origin of the fire from the outside of the residence.” At the time, the police cited inconsistencies in Compton’s statements when compared with the evidence from the fire.

      That makes it a lot better.

    29. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This. Apparently US citizens have a choice now, death or install a government spy device.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Talderas · · Score: 1

      My wife talks to me no matter what. Does that void any presumption of privacy that she has?

      Is your wife committing a federal crime or a state crime in one of the minority of states where spousal privilege lies with the witness spouse? Are you currently legally married and not going through divorce proceedings? Were you legally married at the time she talked to you about a crime? Is the crime against you?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    31. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by mi · · Score: 2

      So please explain, if the hypothetical device existed, what protection from self-incrimination anyone would have.

      Why, obviously, you still can not be compelled to testify against yourself. Your objections smack of equivocation — you declare this and that to be "tantamount" to a testimony and protest..

      That police may be able, due to advances in technology, to obtain evidence through means other than testimony does not change this. You attempted to dismiss my example of fingerprints before, but the distinction between something you know and something you have is without difference in this context. Advances in DNA-analysis is another major step from fingerprints to the hypothetical brain-reading.

      Contrary to the perception of some, the Bill of Rights is not designed to help criminals "beat the system". Its purpose is to prevent police abuses. So, if you wish to argue against certain practices, you need to show evidence of (or potential for) new abuse. And I fail to see, how scanning my brain — if, indeed, it can be done without damage to the organ — is any more abuse-prone, than reading my INBOX or watching videos on my phone.

      Come to think of it, my e-mail archives (since 1993) may contain stuff I've long forgotten! "Russian hackers" wishing to sabotage my election-campaign, for example, are likely to find juicier bits in there than in my brain...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    32. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't hear anyone outraged at this or even suggest outrage other than you so you might want to tone it down a bit. I have heard this may be an abuse that needs consideration. No. A warrant does not end any question of constitutionality so your post is a big non-sequitor. Judges can make mistakes too.

    33. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      It's clear that I am not going to convince you, so all I can say it this:

      Good luck living in your police state.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    34. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get with the program - you don't really have any individual rights because those rights are being given to corporations. We can't have people and corporations with the same rights, so we'll simply remove the rights from real people. QED

    35. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they are different. I can self edit what I put into a diary.

    36. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is what your post looks like to me:

      I can't win, so I'll just lob a snarky bomb your way.

      Now I can feel like I've won without actually making a good argument.

      Excellent work. I'm awesome.

    37. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up until very recently, marriage was understood to merge the husband and wife into a single person.

      Yeah, because the woman couldn't own property. So she "shared" whatever her husband had.

      Spousal privilege is simply the right against self incrimination for a (legal) person with two bodies.

      It was never actually this way. No one but an idiotic armchair lawyer with fanciful nostalgia would make this claim.

    38. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what becomes of those that think with their penis?

      Other idiots make them the 45th US President.

    39. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      This type of testimony on his potential power output sounds like all the other pseudoscience that they've used to convict people in the past. It's horseshit, if a 40 year old out of shape mother can pick a car up off her kid in a moment of extreme anxiety due to an adrenaline release then anything the doctor speculates about power output is just a bunch of horseshit. Adrenaline is there precisely to provide enhanced power output, mental acuity and reaction times far above your normal output in times of stress so you can avoid being killed.

      If the guy can get a decent lawyer he should be able to beat this "evidence" but he probably can't afford a good lawyer and will get railroaded.

    40. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      This. Apparently US citizens have a choice now, death or install a government spy device.

      Until the ACA, many of us didn't even have the choice. It was just "die", due to lack of insurance.

      If you developed a heart problem and then tried to buy insurance, the insurance companies would tell you to fuck off because it was a "preexisting condition".

      The problem is that many people don't know they have a problem until it manifests overtly...and then it's a "preexisting condition", so you couldn't get insurance. Lovely racket, until the ACA went into effect.

      How do I know this? Because the ACA saved my life....it allowed me to get medical care for what the insurance companies would have said was a "preexisting condition".

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    41. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by guruevi · · Score: 1

      It is highly improbable any real doctor will be able to say that with any certainty. Apparently he DID do all those things, perhaps not while the house was on fire but even if it was, adrenaline could account for the sudden surge in strength.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    42. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It is highly improbable any real doctor will be able to say that with any certainty.

      Are you saying the doctor quoted in the article is a liar, or not a real doctor? That is possible, I guess......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    43. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nobody's saying he couldn't have moved stuff out fast. What people are saying is that it would have changed his heart rate to be measurable. No problem with adrenaline, but I suspect it would affect his heart rate in a way the pacemaker could detect. I've come off a few adrenaline situations with the feeling of my heart pounding in my chest.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    44. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Of course someone in that shape could have done what was claimed (not necessarily safely, but that's not the issue here). However, said person could not have done so without the effort being shown in the pacemaker logs.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    45. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you even know what kind of shape he was in?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    46. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's irrelevant, and was brought up in the post I was replying to. The question is not whether it was possible, but whether it was possible without leaving evidence in the pacemaker logs.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    47. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      For some people it literally can be impossible.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. I'd rather see him go free by waspleg · · Score: 1

    than see anyone's own biometrics used against them this way. This is fucking vile. I hope it goes to the supreme court - not that it will make any difference soon.

    1. Re:I'd rather see him go free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes just imagine if police started using things like evidence against people that could be considered their personal property say DNA or fingerprints.

    2. Re:I'd rather see him go free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think a conservative judge who respects the Constitution would want to see someone's own medical implants used against them? Have you kept track of Sotomayor? These modern Democrats are left wing, not liberal.

  8. David Crawford by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of the murder of David Crawford in Australia. The killer had an alibi matching what police initially thought was the time of death. By analyzing data from Crawford's pacemaker, they were able to pinpoint the exact moment he died, which busted the killer's alibi.

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    1. Re:David Crawford by gweihir · · Score: 2

      That is different and essentially data from an autopsy. It makes sense to get that and privacy does not really apply anymore.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:David Crawford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that you guys didn't have crime anymore after you outlawed guns! What else could he have possibly hilled him with?

    3. Re:David Crawford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death Note
      oh wait, you said "hilled", so... ski-lift?

    4. Re:David Crawford by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Dead men tell no tales. Their pacemakers, however, will rat you out!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  9. Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    The evidence of the pacemaker is only evidence of it's activity and nothing more. There is not evidence correlating changes in activity to anything else. What else can cause changes, intoxicant consumption, sexual activity (whether shared or individual sexual stimulation), general exposure to media content (movies, TV series, music).

    Basically they twisted the evidence in such a way, that the defendant must now prove innocence. There are many activities that would generate those response, their claim that only one could produce it, is inherently false, especially when the defendant is now forced to prove they were doing something else to generate that response and the prosecution has to prove nothing, just make that false claim.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They haven't convicted him based on just the pacemaker evidence. The pacemaker evidence was used to build an argument that his alibi was bullshit.

      Yes other activities could have created the same pacemaker output. But he didn't claim to be doing any of those. He claimed 1 thing, the massive pile of evidence, including but not limited to the pacemaker logs, said otherwise.

    2. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by kogut · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's the prosecution's job to assert guilt. I'm not sure why you think it's odd that they'd do so.

      It's the court's job to decide whether the evidence produced meets the standard of guilt.

    3. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by PRMan · · Score: 1

      If there really was a fire while he was calling, there would be telltale signs of smoke inhalation, which apparently weren't there.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG!~ It's the jury's job.

      CAP === 'center'

    5. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not always - judge trials do exist, and are a lot cheaper.

    6. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by jopsen · · Score: 2

      It's the prosecution's job to assert guilt. I'm not sure why you think it's odd that they'd do so.

      In most countries the prosecution has a duty to the truth that far outweighs all other concerns.

      On topic, this is no different than using data from a step counter, fitbit, or an exercise measuring phone app...
      It's an indicator of activity, it can't really be used for much in terms of proving guilt...

      Even if they guy made a statement saying it was sleeping before the fire broke out, then perhaps he just made a false statement because he was doing something else...

      Hopefully, this is all click bait, probably there is other evidence...

    7. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      No, it's the court's job. If it's a jury trial in the US, the jury serves as the trier of fact, and the judge serves as the trier of law. If it's a bench trial in the US, the judge serves as trier of fact and law. Both judge and jury are part of the court.

    8. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It's the court's job to decide if the data is admissible as evidence, but that's just splitting hairs.

      I get what you mean, and I agree.

      Currently, data-based evidence is acceptable by way of cell phone tower pings; browsing history, smartphone/computer data stores, so why not a smart heart?

      That's to be determined, but I think the accept/reject will be based on parameters like accuracy and reliability of the device -- not the form factor.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    9. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      They had enough probable cause to get a warrent (at least the judge felt so).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably right. I was including the jury as an actor of the court, but you're right that maybe they should be considered a separate body.

    11. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      No, it's the court's job. If it's a jury trial in the US, the jury serves as the trier of fact, and the judge serves as the trier of law.

      True, however the jury still has the right to judge the law as well as the fact:

      It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

      --CJ John Jay, delivering the opinion of the court in Georgia v. Brailsford 3 U.S. 1 (1794)

      It's still good law. Juries don't have to be informed of their right to do so, but they still retain the right.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    12. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

      I'd extend this to be more specific: the prosecution's real job is to WIN the case. By this I mean that they will block as much evidence as possible from the defense, because it helps them win. They will do whatever they can to stack the jury in their favor (not to get a truly balanced jury). It's not about proving guilt or, God forbid, finding the truth.

  10. This reminds me of another arson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember a guy burned his place down but forgot his neighbor had a security camera installed. Filmed the guy running out of the house right before fire started with a gas can. Oh well, technology is everywhere and used for many things when you can convince a judge it could help solve a crime.If you plan on committing a crime, you best be leaving your technology devices at home or disabled. Even then someone elses may still catch you in the act.

    1. Re: This reminds me of another arson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funniest one I've seen was where burglars had installed a CCTV in their own house and it caught them leaving the getaway car with the stolen goods.

  11. Irony by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    In an ironic twist of fate, the perpetrator committed the arson in an attempt to collect money to pay his medical bills.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Irony by mentil · · Score: 1

      Once he's in prison, the state will pay his medical bills. Is that irony or has it reached the level of farce?

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that Glorious Leader's Obamacare didn't pay his bills? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!

    3. Re:Irony by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I am not so sure that the state is all that great at paying for medical treatments.

      I had a friend who did some jail time for poor choices. He had leukemia which he didn't get treatment for while in jail. Shortly after he was released he died in the hospital from complications. It is quite possible he could have lived had he gotten treatment while in jail.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  12. Well, of course my pulse was elevated . . . by mmell · · Score: 1

    . . . before the fire started, I was squeezin' off a muscle missile. You know, like in the Jackson Browne song 'Rosie'.

    1. Re:Well, of course my pulse was elevated . . . by PPH · · Score: 1

      Well then, we'll just check your plethysmograph logs.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Soon they will embed us with chips! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, what's that? They already have? Oh you tin foil mad hatter!

  14. don't get confused by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination is, to the actual letter of the law, that someone "shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself". Which the intent was that no person shall be forced to give testimony or make forced confessions or possibly have their words manipulated to be used against him/her. Testimony is the act of the person saying or asserting things.

    A lot of people confuse this with things that they operate or own to be used as evidence against them. The protection against self-incrimination does not mean that no evidence can be produced to be used against you. And the data from your pacemaker hardly qualifies as you being forced to testify.

    1. Re:don't get confused by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree, it seems to me covered by search.

      Similar to a blood test for intoxicants/DNA, than to me saying something.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:don't get confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... evidence can be produced to be used against you.

      Seizing your phone (without a warrant) and searching through your personal records is a fishing expedition for political advantage, not an investigation of a detected and known crime.

    3. Re:don't get confused by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      You don't have protection from self-incrimination. You have protection from being compelled to incriminate yourself. The reason that right exists is to protect you from being tortured or otherwise coerced into confessing. With that in mind, it's clear that reading your pacemaker logs doesn't fit under that condition.

    4. Re:don't get confused by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      The big difference is that things you own and operate are not part of one's body. The pacemaker is.

    5. Re:don't get confused by gravewax · · Score: 2

      fingerprints, DNA, blood, all things you can be compelled to provide and all parts of your body.

    6. Re:don't get confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of idiots who think otherwise, though.

      http://thefreethoughtproject.c...

    7. Re:don't get confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, an ethics question for you:
      Once we develop nano-technology, and we inject everyone for vaccination with nanobots for the world's worst diseases, but those nanobots have mini-gps and sound recorders, is evidence collected from those fair game? On one hand you can't really opt of the injection, and yet privacy is a thing of the past with everything you ever do or say being accessible ex post facto.

      Where is the line for you? This case is definitely putting toes over my line.

    8. Re:don't get confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course it is fair game, no ethics question their at all. The real question is why the fuck would you put sound recorders and mini-gps's on a vaccine. No one is suggesting privacy is a thing of the past, in a criminal case with just cause your privacy has never been absolute nor should it be.

    9. Re:don't get confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A microphone could be useful for the nanobot to distinguish different molecules or something. It's a hypothetical. Heck technology exists to recover sound from micro-vibrations in videos already.

      More worrisome for me is your flippant attitude towards privacy. Laws are not necessarily always just. Many countries have had and continue to have laws against against emigrating from them, or plotting anti-state activities or protests, or insulting the current ruler, for example. If such laws ever come to your neck of the woods, then do you want your history searchable because you got a vaccine against cancer or some such as a kid?

      Yeah yeah... why would they go after you? Well, if you're insignificant, they probably never will. But they will probably go after the grass roots candidate that promises reform that you might want to vote for (someone like a Bernie). Your personal privacy might remain in tact, but the effects of the illegal search policy will have you complaining about the only having the choices like Hillary and Trump to vote for, for all time. That's the result of mass surveillance against your own populace.

    10. Re:don't get confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the fuck? illegal and unjust searches exist and have always exist, they are a completely separate problem (a legitimate one but completely unrelated to your legitimate rights to privacy). Your privacy has NEVER EVER been absolute and it should not be. Any information about you should potentially be available when JUSTLY required for a LEGAL investigation.

  15. bravo by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    Wow, I got to hand it to the investigators. Thinking outside the box. I'm being serious.

    1. Re:bravo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't thinking outside the box; they were watching old television shows. They stole this from a forty-year old episode of Columbo. In that episode, the real murderer was in an infirmary. Columbo used his heart rate and blood pressure data to show that he sneaked out, committed the murder, and sneaked back.

    2. Re:bravo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you think the investigators "stole" this off Columbo? Why? Just because Columbo came first?

      Ever occur to you that maybe the investigators never saw Columbo? That maybe some of those investigators might actually be too young to have ever seen it? Hell, I was a Columbo fan, and I have no memory whatsoever of the episode you are referencing! But let's face it, the show ended 40 years ago, how many people remember much about specific episodes?

      Ah, Columbo! With your wrinkly overcoats and diffident, casual manner, so many crooks underestimated you!

  16. Turn off Logging :) by VTBlue · · Score: 1

    GNU Pacemaker, where you have the right to SSH in and turn off logging. Coming to a broken heart near you.

  17. Sickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've just decided they can access the hardware that keeps you alive and "interpret" it however they damn well please.

    In some ways it's worse than polygraphs

  18. This should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know its kinda small and stupid, but giving law enforcement of any kind a piece of data is like giving him a one potato chip.

  19. It will be tossed out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just as reliable as a "lie detector", which we know does NOT exist. It only measures responses to questions. It appears to me that this is no different than the pacemaker's information. How someone reacts to an event has NEVER BEEN STUDIED and can not be compared against others for a 'normal' response.

    This is truly JUNK SCIENCE at its best. What I expect from Millennials not a DAs office.

  20. The way things are going we will all be fitted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ,,, with Harkonnen heart plugs

  21. Good luck with Apple Watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apple Watch has a heart-rate sensor too. Anything you wear can and will be used against you.

  22. Gratuitous speculation by golodh · · Score: 2
    @rsilvergun

    It's safe to say that your post is based on gratuitous speculation.

    Reading the linked articles it appears that the man had done things, notably moving heavy objects and exiting the house through his bedroom window, alledgedly between the start of the fire and him leaving the building, that were inconsistent with a cardiologist's estimate, on examination of the pacemaker data, of his body's maximum power output around that time. That's a pretty solid piece of evidence.

    The obvious conclusions is that this man moved his stuff out of the house _before_ the sire started, simply because he'd have to spread the required power output over a longer period than he left had when he reported the fire..

    As far as I can estimate such thiings (IANAL, etc.), this would be pretty convincing to a jury. Regardless of the quality of his legal defense.

    1. Re:Gratuitous speculation by Cederic · · Score: 2

      That's a pretty solid piece of evidence.

      I'm reluctant to decry the science behind that evidence, but I'm much more reluctant to allow prosecution on the grounds, "You should have had a heart attack and you didn't"

      If the other evidence is adequate to demonstrate illegal activity then prosecute. Pacemaker records should not be required or relevant.

    2. Re:Gratuitous speculation by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      I'm reluctant to decry the science behind that evidence, but I'm much more reluctant to allow prosecution on the grounds, "You should have had a heart attack and you didn't"

      A pacemaker is unlikely to cause a heart attack unless it is malfunction (out of sync). If, in this case, the pacemaker was functioning correctly during the event, then the ground you mentioned would be rejected quickly...

    3. Re:Gratuitous speculation by Megol · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand why you are making things up instead of accepting the story. A pacemaker monitors heart activity in order to maintain pacing when the normal heart control system doesn't function as it should. That means that a modern pacemaker that have the ability to store that activity in a log for medical uses also gives _supporting_ evidence of activity surrounding the time of the fire. It is very simple.

      BTW a pacemaker makes no difference if one have a heart attack.

    4. Re:Gratuitous speculation by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand why you are making things up instead of accepting the story.

      A combination of laziness, comedic effect and making a point without needing elaborate detail.

    5. Re:Gratuitous speculation by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'm reluctant to decry the science behind that evidence, but I'm much more reluctant to allow prosecution on the grounds, "You should have had a heart attack and you didn't"

      Why? How is this different from any other kind of evidence that shows a defendant's claim to be physically impossible? Say a defendant claims to have been thirty miles away from the scene of a crime - when eyewitness accounts place him a mile away five minutes before (or after) the crime?

  23. Medical data by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    I'm outraged because medical data should be privileged - just like legal advice and the discussion between married couples. Both* of those - and statements to a doctor - are beyond the reach of a warrant.

    Beyond it simply being privileged because it is medical data, I think data without the ability to opt out is scary, and needs to be protectable - because the default state of "don't create the data" doesn't exist.

    * Note sure about married couples in all states.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  24. Pacemaker = Weak evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'd be surprised if this was, or even could be, used as damning evidence:
    • Are the "logs" actually time stamped?
    • How does the pacemaker synchronize to a time source? NTP?
    • What time zone are the logs in? UTC?
    • How does the pacemaker account for, or even detect, clock drift?
    • ...
  25. I'd be with you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be with you if polygraph tests were not admissible in several courts...

  26. Meh, already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They plagiarized this. In a 1975 episode, named "Troubled Waters," of the US television show named Columbo, the detective uses heart rate and blood pressure data to break the alibi of the real murder. So not really impressive police work .

  27. the car analogy by Shompol · · Score: 1

    Let's say a criminal is bound to a wheelchair and need a wheelchair attendant to push him around. He sneaks on a victim, while being pushed by an attendant, and shoots the victim multiple times. Does the police have no right to question his attendant? How is the pacemaker log different? "because it is a medical necessity" applies to both cases. "because on a computer" is not a valid argument, and you know it.

  28. Judge and Jury should consult here first by trevc · · Score: 1

    Nobody should be convicted or released until the experts on Slashdot have been consulted.

  29. Violates Self-Incrimination! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have to say that this violates self-incrimination. The pacemaker is an integral element of the
    person. You cannot search and seize normal heart rhythms. Nor should an integral medical element
    be searchable.

    I'd even say that "health" trackers should be inviolate as well...but lets start with the first things first.

  30. Losing gracefully by mi · · Score: 0

    It's clear that I am not going to convince you

    It is called "losing an argument". You'll get over it, I promise.

    Good luck living in your police state.

    You forgot to call me a Nazi...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Losing gracefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're arguing that scanning your brain is no different than reading one's private diary... except memories change over time, or were not recorded accurately in your mind, and inherently are the most private of your possessions... if you didn't make a conscious decision to write it down, you shouldn't be compelled to divulge information like that which may be self-incriminating. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"... hmm, where have I heard that one before?

      So you're okay with police scanning your brain for evidence of illegal activity, even though they'll pick up on everything in there including that weird sexual fetish that you'd rather die than have anybody knowing about. Tell us again how that's not incredibly abuse-prone and we should all submit to government rule.

      For the record, winning an argument doesn't mean you're right. In this case, you "won" because the other guy got sick of your retarded opinions and gave up; he probably felt he was better off talking to a brick wall.

  31. As usual, the liberals were right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coulda/woulda/shoulda just paid for him up front through a social program. It would have been cheaper.

    Now, on top of his medical bills, we'll be paying for his housing, meals, clothing, guards, etc.

    What do you think I keep telling you people?

  32. Lesson learned. by sootman · · Score: 1

    Disable pacemaker before committing crimes. Got it.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.