5 ms·

Cellebrite’s internal processes would still be subject to discovery. Defendants have a right to show that the extraction process was flawed otherwise it could l

Cellebrite’s internal processes would still be subject to discovery. Defendants have a right to show that the extraction process was flawed otherwise it could lead to wrongful convictions. Secret / Magic / black box processes can’t generate admissible evidence in criminal proceedings in the US.

flir 3y ago
> Secret / Magic / black box processes can’t generate admissible evidence in criminal proceedings in the US. Speed cameras?
- revscat 3y ago
  Traffic violations have, I believe, a lower standard of evidence than criminal cases. I am very much not a lawyer, though.
  - landemva 3y ago
    Traffic typically has lower standards because it is in county court with a clown presiding as magistrate. It becomes too expensive to appeal and if you aren't an attorney you will immediately lose because they know you are unlikely to again appeal.
- crote 3y ago
  Speed cameras are usually tested and certified by an independent third party. With proper cause, there's probably a pretty good chance you could get an expert to review the design files after signing an NDA.
mike_d 3y ago
Defendants do have that right, and in practice Cellebrite has a handful of expert witnesses they will send out to answer the courts questions. In this case there is no "black box" because the Cellebrite has been litigated previously and is known to the court. If you want to challenge the reliability or accuracy of the process you need to have some basis to show the judge there is a thread to pull on and it isn't just a fishing expedition. For an idea of how courts handle this, look at breathalyzers. People occasionally get the bright idea to ask to inspect the source code of the machine, and it is routinely denied because it is not in the possession of the prosecution. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=wjlta https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
- j-bos 3y ago
  >People occasionally get the bright idea to ask to inspect the source code Isn't this a reasonable ask?
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    Absolutely. It's disgraceful that they can opt-out of discovery simply by outsourcing part of the investigation to a third-party.
  - c4mpute 3y ago
    Reasonable for the average computer geek. Not reasonable for a judge who wants to get things done and be on time for lunch. It is shocking and disgusting how ignorant the legal profession is about any real kind of science and engineering.
  - mike_d 3y ago
    Generally, no. As I mentioned up thread you need to have some basis to show the court there is some chance you'll change the outcome of your case if you are granted access to the source code. For example if a blood draw at the hospital yielded wildly different results, or the machine froze up multiple times during the test.

flir 3y ago

> Secret / Magic / black box processes can’t generate admissible evidence in criminal proceedings in the US. Speed cameras?

revscat 3y ago
Traffic violations have, I believe, a lower standard of evidence than criminal cases. I am very much not a lawyer, though.
- landemva 3y ago
  Traffic typically has lower standards because it is in county court with a clown presiding as magistrate. It becomes too expensive to appeal and if you aren't an attorney you will immediately lose because they know you are unlikely to again appeal.
crote 3y ago
Speed cameras are usually tested and certified by an independent third party. With proper cause, there's probably a pretty good chance you could get an expert to review the design files after signing an NDA.

mike_d 3y ago

Defendants do have that right, and in practice Cellebrite has a handful of expert witnesses they will send out to answer the courts questions. In this case there is no "black box" because the Cellebrite has been litigated previously and is known to the court. If you want to challenge the reliability or accuracy of the process you need to have some basis to show the judge there is a thread to pull on and it isn't just a fishing expedition. For an idea of how courts handle this, look at breathalyzers. People occasionally get the bright idea to ask to inspect the source code of the machine, and it is routinely denied because it is not in the possession of the prosecution. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=wjlta https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

j-bos 3y ago
>People occasionally get the bright idea to ask to inspect the source code Isn't this a reasonable ask?
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Absolutely. It's disgraceful that they can opt-out of discovery simply by outsourcing part of the investigation to a third-party.
- c4mpute 3y ago
  Reasonable for the average computer geek. Not reasonable for a judge who wants to get things done and be on time for lunch. It is shocking and disgusting how ignorant the legal profession is about any real kind of science and engineering.
- mike_d 3y ago
  Generally, no. As I mentioned up thread you need to have some basis to show the court there is some chance you'll change the outcome of your case if you are granted access to the source code. For example if a blood draw at the hospital yielded wildly different results, or the machine froze up multiple times during the test.