4 ms·
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 ther
by 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 agoAbsolutely. It's disgraceful that they can opt-out of discovery simply by outsourcing part of the investigation to a third-party.
- c4mpute 3y agoReasonable 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 agoGenerally, 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.