4 ms·

This is one of the better litmus tests to see if the expert witness is knowledgeable in the field, and more importantly, up-to-date on the tech. some really sma

This is one of the better litmus tests to see if the expert witness is knowledgeable in the field, and more importantly, up-to-date on the tech. some really smart but definitely older expert witnesses will fumble this very hard. Its not like those kinds of processes, the "enhancing" filters, are inherently bad or inadmissible, you just have to be clear with the judge and jury what the hell is actually happening.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
This also came up in the Johnny Depp trial, where evidence was challenged and there was a long discussion about whether a video that had been shared over AirDrop was admissible, or whether that should be considered tampering, due to the possibility of it being re-encoded / compressed (which is a theoretically possible concern, as doesn't iPhone record in HEVC but change it to H.264 when shared with people?)
thfuran 3y ago
>This is one of the better litmus tests to see if the expert witness is knowledgeable in the field, and more importantly, up-to-date on the tech It's an absolute travesty that it should fall to expert witnesses at all. Judges, police, and criminal trial lawyers should know how common forms of evidence work in general.
- Lord-Jobo 3y ago
  In my experience its just that technological ignorance muddies things so much that smart judges who otherwise understand evidence and admittance well will be silent when they arent sure, or worse, get actively bamboozled by shitters.
brigade 3y ago
And conversely, it's a good litmus whether to listen to the "experts" on websites like this one. So many would discount literally any image/video evidence just because of JBIG2's pattern matching or Samsung's ML model of the moon, without bothering to think about what's actually happening in the relevant pipeline.

4 ms·

This is one of the better litmus tests to see if the expert witness is knowledgeable in the field, and more importantly, up-to-date on the tech. some really sma

by Lord-Jobo 3y ago

gjsman-1000 3y ago
This also came up in the Johnny Depp trial, where evidence was challenged and there was a long discussion about whether a video that had been shared over AirDrop was admissible, or whether that should be considered tampering, due to the possibility of it being re-encoded / compressed (which is a theoretically possible concern, as doesn't iPhone record in HEVC but change it to H.264 when shared with people?)
thfuran 3y ago
>This is one of the better litmus tests to see if the expert witness is knowledgeable in the field, and more importantly, up-to-date on the tech It's an absolute travesty that it should fall to expert witnesses at all. Judges, police, and criminal trial lawyers should know how common forms of evidence work in general.
- Lord-Jobo 3y ago
  In my experience its just that technological ignorance muddies things so much that smart judges who otherwise understand evidence and admittance well will be silent when they arent sure, or worse, get actively bamboozled by shitters.
brigade 3y ago
And conversely, it's a good litmus whether to listen to the "experts" on websites like this one. So many would discount literally any image/video evidence just because of JBIG2's pattern matching or Samsung's ML model of the moon, without bothering to think about what's actually happening in the relevant pipeline.