Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 03 2017, @10:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-have-no-privacy;-get-over-it dept.

Cory Doctorow reports via Boing Boing

Ross Compton, a 59-year-old homeowner in Middletown, Ohio called 911 in September 2016 to say that his house was on fire; 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".

[...] The data from the pacemaker didn't correspond with Compton's version of what happened.

[...] [The cops] subsequently filed charges of felony aggravated arson and insurance fraud.

Cory links to coverage by Network World.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gidds on Friday February 03 2017, @01:42PM

    by gidds (589) on Friday February 03 2017, @01:42PM (#462350)

    The data from the pacemaker didn't correspond with Compton's version of what happened.

    So?

    As any Rumpole fan will know, there are a wide range of reasons why circumstances may be highly misleading, or even why someone will deliberately lie, that turn out to be non-criminal, and even entirely innocent.

    This is why we have due legal process, and why vigilantism and mob thinking is so dangerous.

    Sometimes there is smoke without fire.  Sometimes the fire is something innocent like a cigarette, or is on someone else's property.  Sometimes what looks like smoke is actually steam.  (And sometimes you can take a metaphor much too far…)

    I don't know about this particular case.  Maybe the guy did commit arson.  But the data failing to correspond, on its own, is not a reason to convict him, nor even necessarily to suspect him.  If they can prove he committed arson, then fine; he'd deserve all he'd get.  But don't pre-judge the case on something entirely circumstantial.

    --
    [sig redacted]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday February 03 2017, @02:15PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Friday February 03 2017, @02:15PM (#462361)

    someone will deliberately lie, that turn out to be non-criminal

    In most places, lying while under oath is a criminal offence.

  • (Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Friday February 03 2017, @02:43PM

    by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 03 2017, @02:43PM (#462381)

    > But don't pre-judge
    Why, it is so fun!

  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday February 03 2017, @03:03PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday February 03 2017, @03:03PM (#462395) Journal

    But the data failing to correspond, on its own, is not a reason to convict him, nor even necessarily to suspect him.

    And what, if not a contradiction between his claims and the facts, could possibly be a reason to suspect him? Well, OK, if he himself said he did it. But you don't only want to catch those criminals who confess all by themselves, right?

    If they can prove he committed arson, then fine

    The necessary precondition of them proving that he committed arson is that they suspect him. Because that's the only justification for even trying to prove that.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @05:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @05:15AM (#462758)

    Sometimes what looks like smoke is actually steam.

    And sometimes the Auroroa Borealis -- at this time of year, at this time day, in this part of the country -- is localized entirely within my kitchen.

    But if you would like permission to see it, the answer is no.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:37AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:37AM (#463007) Journal

      Thanks for the warning. You cook with to many mushrooms and to many buds.