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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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.
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.