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