There are ongoing criminal cases where someone's Reddit activity is being used as evidence
That in itself is ludicrous.
First of all, of course someone has access to the reddit db. It's a db. The reddit web application has access which means it's accessible which means someone must know how to access it.
Secondly, I am not aware of any reddit terms of use which guarantees preservation or accuracy of user-captured content. Unless the criminal lawyer of the defendant is a moron, nothing posted on reddit by anyone should ever be admissible in court.
Finally, if criminal courts do set precedents for accepting into evidence what is effectively digital tabloid journalism, then god help us all.
There are at least two separate investigations going on right now into Paul Combetta's wiping of Hillary Clinton's private server. His Reddit post history, where he essentially asked "how to delete a server" is a key factor in those investigations. I don't know a jurisdiction anywhere in the country where Internet history is inadmissible.
"Internet history" is a little broad. I can see how something linked to an identity of a defendant might be admissible in court but IMO it is a complete nonsense that reddit history is admissible in court.
Well, the entire judicial system disagrees with you. A person's browsing history is absolutely admissible in court under the same standards as any other piece of evidence.
That in itself is ludicrous.
First of all, of course someone has access to the reddit db. It's a db. The reddit web application has access which means it's accessible which means someone must know how to access it.
Secondly, I am not aware of any reddit terms of use which guarantees preservation or accuracy of user-captured content. Unless the criminal lawyer of the defendant is a moron, nothing posted on reddit by anyone should ever be admissible in court.
Finally, if criminal courts do set precedents for accepting into evidence what is effectively digital tabloid journalism, then god help us all.
You're kidding right?
There are at least two separate investigations going on right now into Paul Combetta's wiping of Hillary Clinton's private server. His Reddit post history, where he essentially asked "how to delete a server" is a key factor in those investigations. I don't know a jurisdiction anywhere in the country where Internet history is inadmissible.
"Internet history" is a little broad. I can see how something linked to an identity of a defendant might be admissible in court but IMO it is a complete nonsense that reddit history is admissible in court.
Well, the entire judicial system disagrees with you. A person's browsing history is absolutely admissible in court under the same standards as any other piece of evidence.
A person's browsing history is on their personal computer hence linked to their personal identity.