4 ms·

> Even the word “decoded” as opposed to decrypted would raise eyebrows to a layperson juror What does "raise eyebrows" mean? You hypothesize a jury that simpl

> Even the word “decoded” as opposed to decrypted would raise eyebrows to a layperson juror What does "raise eyebrows" mean? You hypothesize a jury that simply doesn't understand the word "encoding," and can't be taught its meaning because it sounds like "encryption"? If a message were broadcast in Morse code, then you could be convicted for unlawful access if you were to decode that into letters, right? Because it's Morse "code," an encoding. I guess juries might not convict in that case because they've heard of "Morse code", but not "Base64 encoding"? Anyway, if communication with juries is this fragile (and maybe it is) then a jury conviction really means nothing and the trial system as a whole is pretty hopeless and certainly cannot justify imprisonment of anyone.

kcplate 5y ago
“Raise eyebrows” is basically an idiom that means “have skepticism for (what is being told to them)”. I think the standard lay person on a jury would not necessarily be open to a defense attorney attempting to explain that the word “decode” in goes against their base understanding of the word. The defense argument has to overcome the jury’s lay understanding of decode by arguing that although yes, we are revealing information…its not really revealing anything since it was easy to reveal in the first place for someone with the skills to do it. To use a metaphor—if a state building is closed, but a person with certain knowledge knows that the windows on the building are easily opened by lifting and pulling in a certain way. Then, that person opens the window, enters the building, takes pictures of sensitive information, and later tells the government about the window, then writes to the world later after the government replaces the windows about how easy it was for them to enter and find that sensitive information, would they be guilty of breaking in and stealing information? I think yes. Even if their intent was not malicious, and ultimately resulted in more secure data, they did something that was not authorized and then capitalized on it after. If the law doesn’t have a caveat for that situation and if the jury is doing its job and doesn’t have an instruction to allow the out, a conviction is likely.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  I'm not asking you about the meaning of a common idiom. I'm only asking about what you mean. What are you trying to say. > I think the standard lay person on a jury would not necessarily be open to a defense attorney attempting to explain that the word “decode” in goes against their base understanding of the word. If they're not "open" to understand what Base64-decoding means, then they're not open to understand what the defendant did. Maybe that's true. If so it's a very deep indictment of the process. If what you are saying is true, the judge should not allow the prosecution to use the word "decode." > To use a metaphor—if a state building is closed, but a person with certain knowledge knows that the windows on the building are easily opened We don't need a metaphor. I used another actual example (not metaphor) of a encoding -- Morse code. A person who takes a transmission in Morse code and writes it down on paper has decoded it. Is decoding Morse code allowed "without authorization"? Do I have a right to broadcast information on my HAM radio and then demand prosecution of any people who decode it? It seems you would argue yes. Or else "no, but only because juries have heard of Morse but not Base64." If the state, in this case, had used strings of "." and "-" to encode the data in Morse code, instead of Base64, do you think they would have the same case? Or what if they had used Greek instead of English? (I think if you insisted to use a metaphor for encodings, that would actually be a good one.)
  - kcplate 5y ago
    You are relying on special knowledge and understanding so it’s simple to you. It’s not necessarily simple to the 70 year old grandmother sitting on a jury. Does she understand what Morse code is, probably. Can she create an equivalence between Morse code and Base64? Well that is what a defense attorney has to do now, ain’t it? But all of that still doesn’t matter if that reporter was in possession of data he was not authorized to have and the law prohibits that . So what you have is decoded data in possession by someone who wasn’t allowed to have it but could be valid for him to have possession if it was encoded. If that is the way the law is written or the jury instruction is given…it’s a hill for the defense to climb.

kcplate 5y ago

“Raise eyebrows” is basically an idiom that means “have skepticism for (what is being told to them)”. I think the standard lay person on a jury would not necessarily be open to a defense attorney attempting to explain that the word “decode” in goes against their base understanding of the word. The defense argument has to overcome the jury’s lay understanding of decode by arguing that although yes, we are revealing information…its not really revealing anything since it was easy to reveal in the first place for someone with the skills to do it. To use a metaphor—if a state building is closed, but a person with certain knowledge knows that the windows on the building are easily opened by lifting and pulling in a certain way. Then, that person opens the window, enters the building, takes pictures of sensitive information, and later tells the government about the window, then writes to the world later after the government replaces the windows about how easy it was for them to enter and find that sensitive information, would they be guilty of breaking in and stealing information? I think yes. Even if their intent was not malicious, and ultimately resulted in more secure data, they did something that was not authorized and then capitalized on it after. If the law doesn’t have a caveat for that situation and if the jury is doing its job and doesn’t have an instruction to allow the out, a conviction is likely.

DarylZero 5y ago
I'm not asking you about the meaning of a common idiom. I'm only asking about what you mean. What are you trying to say. > I think the standard lay person on a jury would not necessarily be open to a defense attorney attempting to explain that the word “decode” in goes against their base understanding of the word. If they're not "open" to understand what Base64-decoding means, then they're not open to understand what the defendant did. Maybe that's true. If so it's a very deep indictment of the process. If what you are saying is true, the judge should not allow the prosecution to use the word "decode." > To use a metaphor—if a state building is closed, but a person with certain knowledge knows that the windows on the building are easily opened We don't need a metaphor. I used another actual example (not metaphor) of a encoding -- Morse code. A person who takes a transmission in Morse code and writes it down on paper has decoded it. Is decoding Morse code allowed "without authorization"? Do I have a right to broadcast information on my HAM radio and then demand prosecution of any people who decode it? It seems you would argue yes. Or else "no, but only because juries have heard of Morse but not Base64." If the state, in this case, had used strings of "." and "-" to encode the data in Morse code, instead of Base64, do you think they would have the same case? Or what if they had used Greek instead of English? (I think if you insisted to use a metaphor for encodings, that would actually be a good one.)
- kcplate 5y ago
  You are relying on special knowledge and understanding so it’s simple to you. It’s not necessarily simple to the 70 year old grandmother sitting on a jury. Does she understand what Morse code is, probably. Can she create an equivalence between Morse code and Base64? Well that is what a defense attorney has to do now, ain’t it? But all of that still doesn’t matter if that reporter was in possession of data he was not authorized to have and the law prohibits that . So what you have is decoded data in possession by someone who wasn’t allowed to have it but could be valid for him to have possession if it was encoded. If that is the way the law is written or the jury instruction is given…it’s a hill for the defense to climb.