 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / April 2009Meaning of "chain of custody"
Could anyone please help me understand the meaning of the phrase "chain of custody" in the following sentence: "Installing GPS on vehicles will provide real-time asset tracking and increase visibility into our chain of custody." The sentence is mentioned in a description of GPS -enabled vehicles. Thank you in advance. Regards, Suyash >Could anyone please help me understand the meaning of the phrase >"chain of custody" in the following sentence: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >The sentence is mentioned in a description of GPS -enabled vehicles. It's a term that is only relevant in law enforcement when evidence collected will be used in a trial. It must be provable that the evidence was under the control of the proper authorities at all times. The chain is sequence of people who handled the evidence and had it in their custody (possession).  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Suyash > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida Dear Tony, Thank you for your help. The text deals with the advantages of GPS-enabled services. I am not sure why the author has used the phrase in this context. Regards, Suyash > The text deals with the advantages of GPS-enabled services. I am not > sure why the author has used the phrase in this context. /contra/ Tony, 'custody' has a non-legal meaning: roughly 'in our care'. The package is in the custody (care) of the courier from the time it is collected to the time it is delivered. A chain of custody in this context means being able to account for the package at every stage of it's journey - knowing /exactly/ where it was from the time of collection to delivery. >> The text deals with the advantages of GPS-enabled services. I am not >> sure why the author has used the phrase in this context. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >journey - knowing /exactly/ where it was from the time of collection to >delivery. I understand the usage of "custody" in a non-legal sense, but my point is that it is only *relevant* in law enforcement usage as I said in my explanation. GPS may allow the carrier to determine where the package should be at all times because the truck is fitted with a GPS device, but using the term "chain of custody" is - in my opinion - a misleading misuse. When a phrase has an established meaning - as "chain of custody" does - it is wrong to use that phrase in non-related writing. Tracking the vehicle does not establish chain of custody of the contents of the vehicle. The package can be off-loaded at any point and the chain of custody broken even though the vehicle itself was tracked. The original statement was: "Installing GPS on vehicles will provide real-time asset tracking and increase visibility into our chain of custody." I'd delete everything after "and". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > I understand the usage of "custody" in a non-legal sense, but my point > is that it is only *relevant* in law enforcement usage as I said in my > explanation. Sorry, I misunderstood you. Having read your explanation I'm very inclined to agree with you: it is a comprehensible but inappropriate usage. I'll restore some of the quoted text, to reply to two messages at once. Tony Cooper: >> I understand the usage of "custody" in a non-legal sense, but my point >> is that it is only *relevant* in law enforcement usage as I said in my >> explanation. ... >> When a phrase has an established meaning - as "chain of custody" does >> - it is wrong to use that phrase in non-related writing. That would make it *metaphorical*, not wrong. >> Tracking the >> vehicle does not establish chain of custody of the contents of the >> vehicle. The package can be off-loaded at any point and the chain of >> custody broken even though the vehicle itself was tracked. This is true, but the same thing applies to "chain of custody" as used in courts of law. Say there is testimony that detective A brought the exhibit to the courthouse from the evidence room, where they got it from officer B, who took it there from the crime lab, which got it from detective C, who got it from officer D, who found it in the Conservatory next to the Lead Pipe. You only know it was *continuously* in custody if you believe them all -- for example, that detective C did not remove it from the bag (allowing the traces of sandy soil to get onto it) before delivering it to the lab. Anyway, the passage was "Installing GPS on vehicles will provide real-time asset tracking and increase visibility into our chain of custody." There's nothing there to say the "assets" it's talking about are packages; they could be the vehicles themselves. Derek Turner: > Sorry, I misunderstood you. Having read your explanation I'm very > inclined to agree with you: it is a comprehensible but inappropriate > usage. I think it *is* an appropriate metaphor if it's talking about packages. Tony's points are correct, but I don't agree that they're relevant. The sentence doesn't promise absolute proof of the chain of custody -- only more visibility of it. Metaphorically, we will know which streets officer C drove along when taking the evidence to the crime lab. My original reaction was that it was talking about the vehicles, and in that case was inappropriate. On the other hand, it is an *ugly* sentence. SignatureMark Brader | "You have seen this incident, based on sworn Toronto | testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?" msb@vex.net | -- Ed Wood, Plan 9 from Outer Space My text in this article is in the public domain. >I'll restore some of the quoted text, to reply to two messages at once. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That would make it *metaphorical*, not wrong. I don't agree. This is part of a business statement about a product. If a metaphorical statement use misleads, then it is wrong. >>> Tracking the >>> vehicle does not establish chain of custody of the contents of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >that detective C did not remove it from the bag (allowing the traces >of sandy soil to get onto it) before delivering it to the lab. I don't follow you, Mark. The chain of custody establishes that the evidence followed a determinable path, but does not ensure that the evidence was not tampered with. In the truck example I gave, there is no chain of custody of the object; just the container (a truck) that the object started off in. >Anyway, the passage was "Installing GPS on vehicles will provide >real-time asset tracking and increase visibility into our chain of >custody." There's nothing there to say the "assets" it's talking >about are packages; they could be the vehicles themselves. Oh, c'mon now. The passage is written to assure that the contents are tracked. It is the contents that the company has custody over. They wouldn't refer to the vehicle as something they have custody over. >I think it *is* an appropriate metaphor if it's talking about packages. >Tony's points are correct, but I don't agree that they're relevant. >The sentence doesn't promise absolute proof of the chain of custody And that's why it is wrong to use it. Even metaphorically. The term is understood to indicate proof, so it creates a false impression if there is no promise. We accept "puffery" in ads, but we don't accept false claims that appear to be real claims. It would be allowable to claim that the GPS device provides "unparalleled security" because that is clearly puffery. It should not be allowable to claim that the device provides "a chain of custody". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> I understand the usage of "custody" in a non-legal sense, but my point >> is that it is only *relevant* in law enforcement usage as I said in my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >inclined to agree with you: it is a comprehensible but inappropriate >usage. How about: "Installing GPS on vehicles will provide real-time asset tracking and increase visibility into our custody of assets." The concept of an "audit trail" may be lurking there. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > I understand the usage of "custody" in a non-legal sense, but my point > is that it is only *relevant* in law enforcement usage as I said in my > explanation. Everyone has the right to use the language the way he deems appropriate. No one has the monopoly on shop talk, lingo, argot and such. Some advertisers prefer to sell their product in legalese because they find it somehow more credible, or at least more impressive. > GPS may allow the carrier to determine where the package should be at > all times because the truck is fitted with a GPS device, but using the > term "chain of custody" is - in my opinion - a misleading misuse. A misleading ad?! Nah, I can't believe it. >> I understand the usage of "custody" in a non-legal sense, but my point >> is that it is only *relevant* in law enforcement usage as I said in my >> explanation. > >Everyone has the right to use the language the way he deems >appropriate. No they don't. Not in advertising. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> I understand the usage of "custody" in a non-legal sense, but my point >>> is that it is only *relevant* in law enforcement usage as I said in my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No they don't. Not in advertising. There's no indication that the original subject was advertising. It sounded more like somthing from an internal memo. It seems like a reasonable use of the phrase if it refers, for example, to UPS or Fedex shipping tracking. There is a chain of handoffs of packages from their sources to their destinations, and each handoff is registered in a computer by a bar-code scanner. There is custody, and a chain. If some package is lost, the location history of the vehicles that carried it might shed light on where it is. SignatureJohn >>Could anyone please help me understand the meaning of the phrase >>"chain of custody" in the following sentence: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The chain is sequence of people who handled the evidence and had it in >their custody (possession). And documented the links in the chain. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.