3 ms·

It doesn't verify the data is accurate and correct at the time of collection. Without that evidence is literally worthless.

Consultant32452 10y ago
How is this concern different for any form of evidence? At some point you're trusting that a person collected evidence in the way they claim to have collected it. To help me understand, could you make an analogy for a drug bust? Theoretically an officer could plant drugs on you. And that does happen from time to time, but we don't just ignore all evidence because that might have happened.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  The difference between a lie and "that's classified" is that you can disprove a lie.
  - Consultant32452 10y ago
    You can disprove the claims made from classified sources. "A classified source said you bought 50 kilos of cocaine. We searched your house and found 50 kilos of cocaine." You're still going to jail. If no cocaine turns up, then you should be in the clear.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      The claim you're going to want to challenge there isn't the existence of the cocaine, it's the existence of probable cause to search your house for it. Yes, the exclusionary rule means the bad guys win when the good guys can't prove they followed the rules. That's how the exclusionary rule gets the good guys to follow the rules.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > To help me understand, could you make an analogy for a drug bust? You can verify that: 1) Drugs were present at the location at the time of the arrest. 2) They are in fact drugs. 3) That a chain of custody exists. 4) The people involved in the arrest and the person arrested. With "classified, closed source software" you can verify: 1) The people involved in the arrest and the person arrested. You cannot verify: 1) If the software works as explained/intended. 2) You cannot verify the person was present at the time of the crime. 3) You cannot verify the chain of custody because you have no idea. ( http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/chain+of+custody http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/chain+of+custo... )
  - Consultant32452 10y ago
    How would you verify that drugs weren't present at the time of arrest? Generally the arresting officers' word is going to be taken as fact unless you can prove otherwise. So you'd basically have to have your own video recording of the event showing the officer planting the drugs. This is the functional equivalent to "If the software works as explained." If drugs are found at your house, but not on you, you're still going to jail. So there goes #2. Why would you not be able to verify chain of custody for digital evidence?
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      The difference is the attack surface. They only get one chance to plant drugs. They have unlimited attempts to fake finding data on your encrypted drive image. "Your Honor, the new version of the program found kiddyporn that we missed before." And even if you decrypted the drive you wouldn't be able to prove you didn't have the data steganographically hidden, so there's no possible way you could refute the claim.
serge2k 10y ago
You could easily setup and experiment to verify this.

Consultant32452 10y ago

How is this concern different for any form of evidence? At some point you're trusting that a person collected evidence in the way they claim to have collected it. To help me understand, could you make an analogy for a drug bust? Theoretically an officer could plant drugs on you. And that does happen from time to time, but we don't just ignore all evidence because that might have happened.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
The difference between a lie and "that's classified" is that you can disprove a lie.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  You can disprove the claims made from classified sources. "A classified source said you bought 50 kilos of cocaine. We searched your house and found 50 kilos of cocaine." You're still going to jail. If no cocaine turns up, then you should be in the clear.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    The claim you're going to want to challenge there isn't the existence of the cocaine, it's the existence of probable cause to search your house for it. Yes, the exclusionary rule means the bad guys win when the good guys can't prove they followed the rules. That's how the exclusionary rule gets the good guys to follow the rules.
fweespeech 10y ago
> To help me understand, could you make an analogy for a drug bust? You can verify that: 1) Drugs were present at the location at the time of the arrest. 2) They are in fact drugs. 3) That a chain of custody exists. 4) The people involved in the arrest and the person arrested. With "classified, closed source software" you can verify: 1) The people involved in the arrest and the person arrested. You cannot verify: 1) If the software works as explained/intended. 2) You cannot verify the person was present at the time of the crime. 3) You cannot verify the chain of custody because you have no idea. ( http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/chain+of+custody http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/chain+of+custo... )
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  How would you verify that drugs weren't present at the time of arrest? Generally the arresting officers' word is going to be taken as fact unless you can prove otherwise. So you'd basically have to have your own video recording of the event showing the officer planting the drugs. This is the functional equivalent to "If the software works as explained." If drugs are found at your house, but not on you, you're still going to jail. So there goes #2. Why would you not be able to verify chain of custody for digital evidence?
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    The difference is the attack surface. They only get one chance to plant drugs. They have unlimited attempts to fake finding data on your encrypted drive image. "Your Honor, the new version of the program found kiddyporn that we missed before." And even if you decrypted the drive you wouldn't be able to prove you didn't have the data steganographically hidden, so there's no possible way you could refute the claim.

serge2k 10y ago

You could easily setup and experiment to verify this.