With up-to-date software and technology, it is easy to obtain information that just a few years ago was difficult, if not impossible, to gather. The data must be collected according to certain, accepted procedures for it to be useful. If a person is an attorney, though, the situation may be a little different. Even the most seemingly insignificant piece of data may be scrutinized in court. Depending on the case, it may be reviewed for years.

When the data is bits and bytes that could affect someone charged with a crime, or involved in a divorce, the importance rises. When the information is contained in digital devices like a vehicle’s black box, a GPS or even a cellphone which pings cell towers, the importance may take on shades of literal life-and-death.

In the United Kingdom, in April 2014, three people who fraudulently tried to claim £54,000 in damage and personal injuries following a minor car accident have had their claim rejected after a the blackbox proved their claim was implausible. A car was travelling behind a lorry in slow moving traffic and ran into the back of it, hitting its tow bar. There was no damage to the lorry and minor damage to the front of the car. The three passengers in the lorry claimed for personal injuries and damage totalling £54,000. However, since the car was fitted with the telematics device, which feeds information to insurers about how, when, and where a car is driven including details on the driver’s speed and braking habits. The data from the box, which is there to prove safe driving habits and reduce insurance premiums – showed that the claimed injuries were completely implausible.

Read original article


Tags: