4 ms·

https://twitter.com/lego_operator/status/1461077353476628488 https://twitter.com/lego_operator/status/1461077353476628488 This seems to be why.

by dotty- 5y ago

seanw444 5y ago
Funny how the replies all say "omg you can't clip videos idiot" but the defense isn't claiming they clipped any evidence. They're claiming that scaling / interpolation is enough to invalidate video evidence where mere pixels matter. Which is true.
dave78 5y ago
To expand: It was discussed extensively in the Rittenhouse court case today that the prosecution provided the defense with a much lower quality of a particular video file (one that was also possibly cropped) than what the prosecution possessed. The prosecution contends this was an accident and the transcoding occurred when they AirDropped it from one phone to another and then emailed it from their personal Gmail account. Internet sleuths then spotted Handbrake on the prosecutor's laptop as he was preparing to show one of the videos. Those same sleuths are now speculating that the prosecutors deliberately transcoded/cropped the video that they provided to the defense, as Handbrake could possibly be used for that purpose.
- slg 5y ago
  HN isn't the right place to discuss most of the aspects of this case, but I will just say that there have been multiple tech stories that have come out of that trial that highlight how antiquated our legal system can be in terms of understanding technology and the repercussions from that ignorance are troubling.
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    watching the proceedings of this trial, I've been blown away at how lax the standards are for digital evidence submission and presentation. from some friends in law I've talked to this seems pretty darn common. how is there not some kind of startup centered around this specific use case?
    - dave78 5y ago
      There's plenty of products for digital evidence management, especially now that bodycams on police officers are so common. But it would seem that many courts have not caught up on this yet.
  - dave78 5y ago
    It's a big problem with this case. The judge has admitted that he basically knows nothing about technology, and the lawyers clearly don't know a lot either. The prosecution in particular has made several blatantly false statements about how interpolation works when resizing images, but it's impossible to know if that's due to ignorance or malice. The bigger problem is the judge just accepts these statements without any expert to confirm them. It really feels like there should be a tech expert on standby (one provided by the court, not the prosecution or defense, so generally a neutral party, like other court staff should be). What really shocked me was the carelessness in handling critical digital evidence in such an important trial - lots of discussion of Airdropping, emailing, Dropboxing, etc. You'd think critical video evidence would be controlled and only played back in an appropriately-vetted player without any software scaling (or at least only with known scaling) on approved devices. Checksums would be checked to ensure videos were unmodified, etc. Instead, they're using random laptops, Windows Media Player at times, VLC at others, personal phones, 4K TVs that apparently the defense brought in, etc. And none of the lawyers in that courtroom understand that every single one of those can and will affect the way the video is presented.
    - jpindar 5y ago
      >The judge has admitted that he basically knows nothing about technology, and the lawyers clearly don't know a lot either. Neither do some 'expert' witnesses.
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"The prosecution contends this was an accident and the transcoding occurred when they AirDropped it from one phone to another and then emailed it from their personal Gmail account." And I have bridge to sell. It is tampering with the evidence. If prosecution was ever criminally charged for their misdeeds and fucking up person's lives as the result they would straighten out in no time. Meanwhile they keep abusing their position with no recourse.
concinds 5y ago
My immediate thought. The context to that, is that the prosecutors sent a low quality video to the defense, and then late in the trial introduced a high quality video, which the defense couldn't prepare for; and there was a whole argument as to whether it was willful or not. One of the prosecutors claimed the defense's email client might have compressed the video automatically (not how it works), and claimed not to have the knowledge to compress a video, then people started showing screenshots of his personal laptop with Handbrake on the desktop. Now the prosecution is saying this tampering might have happened at the crime lab that sent the compressed video by email to the prosecutors, who forwarded it to the defense, and also gave the full video to the prosecutors on a flash drive.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > defense's email client might have compressed the video automatically (not how it works) I'm not familiar with all email clients, I mostly use Thunderbird, but almost all messaging clients, social media and similar service do compression when you upload media to them today. It's not super far off that an email client would do the same.
  - concinds 5y ago
    He was saying the receiving email client (the defense's) was doing the compression (because if he was responsible, that potentially puts him in trouble)
    - capableweb 5y ago
      You're right, I misread that part. Thanks!
  - thallium205 5y ago
    Except that they literally do not do that
- heartbreak 5y ago
  > the defense's email client might have compressed the video automatically (not how it works) On the contrary, this is exactly how it works. The biggest pain point in sharing high quality photo or video content in 2021 is that every single service insists on quietly compressing or transcoding your content. Some, like iMessage, even do it inconsistently depending on things like current format and file size. To make matters worse, Gmail, iMessage, and friends will often show you, the sender, the original quality, so you don't even know that the content has been butchered.
jMyles 5y ago
I have to believe, based not only on this case but on extensive reporting from folks like Radley Balko, that manipulation or outright omission of exculpatory evidence is much more common than is generally believed. Even here, in this incredible high-profile case, they apparently felt confident enough to give it a try. Imagine now how easy it must be for them to do it to poor, mostly Black defendants who are relying on a public defender, when they don't have a (for better or worse) rabid political wing watching their every move, and when there are no screenshots of their laptop circulating the internet. This is a concentrated drop of shame in the already shameful lake of fake justice.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  These prosecutors are the rabid political wing.
- courtwatcher 5y ago
  That's what I think the anti-Rittenhouse side doesn't see. This trial is a perfect example of DAs getting caught doing shady things and even a sympathetic judge doesn't have the courage to throw the case out. It's an amazing example of how rotted justice in America is. But since it doesn't fit into the racial-power narrative it's ignored. This is the case that could teach middle America that their justice system is broken and needs reform. Guilty or innocent, the DA has done so much BS that the case should have been thrown out w/ prejudice [1] a long time ago. [1] mistrial w/ prejudice means Rittenhouse get's off. The argument for prejudice is that the prosecution is making too many serious violations for the mistakes to be innocent. And if they're not innocent mistakes, then prejudice attaches.
pieter_mj 5y ago
yes, and https://twitter.com/ActualFixer/status/1461079779642331136 https://twitter.com/ActualFixer/status/1461079779642331136 .

https://twitter.com/lego_operator/status/1461077353476628488 https://twitter.com/lego_operator/status/1461077353476628488 This seems to be why.

by dotty- 5y ago

https://twitter.com/lego_operator/status/1461077353476628488 https://twitter.com/lego_operator/status/1461077353476628488 This seems to be why.

seanw444 5y ago

Funny how the replies all say "omg you can't clip videos idiot" but the defense isn't claiming they clipped any evidence. They're claiming that scaling / interpolation is enough to invalidate video evidence where mere pixels matter. Which is true.

dave78 5y ago

To expand: It was discussed extensively in the Rittenhouse court case today that the prosecution provided the defense with a much lower quality of a particular video file (one that was also possibly cropped) than what the prosecution possessed. The prosecution contends this was an accident and the transcoding occurred when they AirDropped it from one phone to another and then emailed it from their personal Gmail account. Internet sleuths then spotted Handbrake on the prosecutor's laptop as he was preparing to show one of the videos. Those same sleuths are now speculating that the prosecutors deliberately transcoded/cropped the video that they provided to the defense, as Handbrake could possibly be used for that purpose.

slg 5y ago
HN isn't the right place to discuss most of the aspects of this case, but I will just say that there have been multiple tech stories that have come out of that trial that highlight how antiquated our legal system can be in terms of understanding technology and the repercussions from that ignorance are troubling.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  watching the proceedings of this trial, I've been blown away at how lax the standards are for digital evidence submission and presentation. from some friends in law I've talked to this seems pretty darn common. how is there not some kind of startup centered around this specific use case?
  - dave78 5y ago
    There's plenty of products for digital evidence management, especially now that bodycams on police officers are so common. But it would seem that many courts have not caught up on this yet.
- dave78 5y ago
  It's a big problem with this case. The judge has admitted that he basically knows nothing about technology, and the lawyers clearly don't know a lot either. The prosecution in particular has made several blatantly false statements about how interpolation works when resizing images, but it's impossible to know if that's due to ignorance or malice. The bigger problem is the judge just accepts these statements without any expert to confirm them. It really feels like there should be a tech expert on standby (one provided by the court, not the prosecution or defense, so generally a neutral party, like other court staff should be). What really shocked me was the carelessness in handling critical digital evidence in such an important trial - lots of discussion of Airdropping, emailing, Dropboxing, etc. You'd think critical video evidence would be controlled and only played back in an appropriately-vetted player without any software scaling (or at least only with known scaling) on approved devices. Checksums would be checked to ensure videos were unmodified, etc. Instead, they're using random laptops, Windows Media Player at times, VLC at others, personal phones, 4K TVs that apparently the defense brought in, etc. And none of the lawyers in that courtroom understand that every single one of those can and will affect the way the video is presented.
  - jpindar 5y ago
    >The judge has admitted that he basically knows nothing about technology, and the lawyers clearly don't know a lot either. Neither do some 'expert' witnesses.
FpUser 5y ago
>"The prosecution contends this was an accident and the transcoding occurred when they AirDropped it from one phone to another and then emailed it from their personal Gmail account." And I have bridge to sell. It is tampering with the evidence. If prosecution was ever criminally charged for their misdeeds and fucking up person's lives as the result they would straighten out in no time. Meanwhile they keep abusing their position with no recourse.

concinds 5y ago

My immediate thought. The context to that, is that the prosecutors sent a low quality video to the defense, and then late in the trial introduced a high quality video, which the defense couldn't prepare for; and there was a whole argument as to whether it was willful or not. One of the prosecutors claimed the defense's email client might have compressed the video automatically (not how it works), and claimed not to have the knowledge to compress a video, then people started showing screenshots of his personal laptop with Handbrake on the desktop. Now the prosecution is saying this tampering might have happened at the crime lab that sent the compressed video by email to the prosecutors, who forwarded it to the defense, and also gave the full video to the prosecutors on a flash drive.

capableweb 5y ago
> defense's email client might have compressed the video automatically (not how it works) I'm not familiar with all email clients, I mostly use Thunderbird, but almost all messaging clients, social media and similar service do compression when you upload media to them today. It's not super far off that an email client would do the same.
- concinds 5y ago
  He was saying the receiving email client (the defense's) was doing the compression (because if he was responsible, that potentially puts him in trouble)
  - capableweb 5y ago
    You're right, I misread that part. Thanks!
- thallium205 5y ago
  Except that they literally do not do that
heartbreak 5y ago
> the defense's email client might have compressed the video automatically (not how it works) On the contrary, this is exactly how it works. The biggest pain point in sharing high quality photo or video content in 2021 is that every single service insists on quietly compressing or transcoding your content. Some, like iMessage, even do it inconsistently depending on things like current format and file size. To make matters worse, Gmail, iMessage, and friends will often show you, the sender, the original quality, so you don't even know that the content has been butchered.

jMyles 5y ago

I have to believe, based not only on this case but on extensive reporting from folks like Radley Balko, that manipulation or outright omission of exculpatory evidence is much more common than is generally believed. Even here, in this incredible high-profile case, they apparently felt confident enough to give it a try. Imagine now how easy it must be for them to do it to poor, mostly Black defendants who are relying on a public defender, when they don't have a (for better or worse) rabid political wing watching their every move, and when there are no screenshots of their laptop circulating the internet. This is a concentrated drop of shame in the already shameful lake of fake justice.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
These prosecutors are the rabid political wing.
courtwatcher 5y ago
That's what I think the anti-Rittenhouse side doesn't see. This trial is a perfect example of DAs getting caught doing shady things and even a sympathetic judge doesn't have the courage to throw the case out. It's an amazing example of how rotted justice in America is. But since it doesn't fit into the racial-power narrative it's ignored. This is the case that could teach middle America that their justice system is broken and needs reform. Guilty or innocent, the DA has done so much BS that the case should have been thrown out w/ prejudice [1] a long time ago. [1] mistrial w/ prejudice means Rittenhouse get's off. The argument for prejudice is that the prosecution is making too many serious violations for the mistakes to be innocent. And if they're not innocent mistakes, then prejudice attaches.

pieter_mj 5y ago

yes, and https://twitter.com/ActualFixer/status/1461079779642331136 https://twitter.com/ActualFixer/status/1461079779642331136 .