Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (118173)	6/5/2005 8:45:57 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793718

The article didn't say ACLU was shredding anything in particular. They said that people were using private shredders so who knew what they were shredding? At least, that's the way I read it. There's no law that says you need to retain incriminating or embarrassing documents. What Arthur Anderson and Enron did that was wrong was shred these type of documents after they were hit with a subpoena, which is destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice. It's also wrong -- arguably -- for a publicly held corporation to selectively destroy records that they otherwise ordinarily retain because they contain harmful data, and probably wrong for a pharmaceutical corporation that is engaged in clinical trials to destroy records that show the drug is no good. So you have to look at things on a case by case basis. But if you, individually, are in possession of incriminating documents and are not in any legal trouble yet -- shred away, my friend.