3 ms·
I would like to see that as well. But I think that sidesteps what I’m saying, which is that it’s probably not sufficient to show that the tool used to gather ev
by jakelazaroff 5y ago
I would like to see that as well. But I think that sidesteps what I’m saying, which is that it’s probably not sufficient to show that the tool used to gather evidence might, under certain circumstances, be susceptible to malicious interference.
- salawat 5y agoNope. As soon as one case has reasonable doubt introduced, it's precedent. Now judges will balk at backpropagating it to previous cases before the exploit possibility was made public knowledge; however, one could make the case a recheck effort should be initiated, because in the grand scheme of things, Moxie is technocally a disinterested party. Those who have direct stake may have been keeping this potential capability in their back pocket for strategic use.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoWell, we won’t know until this actually gets tested in court. But frankly, I’m putting my money on the analysis from the Stanford lawyer with subject matter expertise, not random armchair lawyers on HN.