For instance, in New York at least, if you are suspected of DUI and refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, it is an automatic civil suspension of of you drivers license for I believe two years. If you have prior convictions then and are looking at jail time and a license suspension, the smart play is to refuse to take the test.
I don't think being a "terrible person" (whatever the hell that means) has any bearing on whether or not you would want to protect your privacy.
Re:Deniability and Duress
by maxerickson on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @07:57AM
(#13530112)
Sure, but someone carrying around evidence of crimes with heavier punishments than destruction of evidence is considering a different scenario than someone simply concerned with their privacy.
In the case of journalist covering war crimes, the journalist is not necessarily a "terrible" person. There's a lot of countries where the laws are such that it is not necessarily unethical not to respect them.
Re:Deniability and Duress
by maxerickson on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @09:19AM
(#13530690)
Again, sure, I was pointing out an instance where a person might prefer the destruction of evidence charges, not trying to exhaustively list all such situations.
(if you are a terrible person without really weird requirements you avoid capturing or destroy the evidence on an ongoing basis, not after you are caught)