3 ms·

Add to that AI generated photographs and video. BTW, I've always wondered about the validity of email evidence. Email is text on a computer. You can edit it to

Add to that AI generated photographs and video. BTW, I've always wondered about the validity of email evidence. Email is text on a computer. You can edit it to say whatever you want.

michaelbuckbee 2y ago
I'm aware of using DKIM signing records to prove that certain emails were actually sent through systems at certain times as there are headers that change based on them in the actual emails. Note: pretty sure I got the concept right and misused a few terms here.
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
It is true in a very general kind of way, but we no longer live in a world when one admin controls every aspect of company's IT ( with maybe exception of small mom and pop shops ). As a result, default controls in place have gotten a little more granular ( and annoying ). All that said, the evidence by itself is not as useful as the hired expert, who explains what the evidence is, how we know it is good and so on.
mholt 2y ago
In a lawsuit in the early 2000s where my family member was the defendant, the plaintiff had forged emails. In the end, my family member won the lawsuit, so whatever they did, worked! I wish I could remember the details. I will have to go back and ask them how they did it.
- kragen 2y ago
  I'm interested to see whether they attempted to show that the email was forged. Are the filings in the case a matter of public record? Usually they are in countries like the US and UK.
kragen 2y ago
You may be interested the decision in the COPA vs. Wright case https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/copa-v-wright/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/copa-v-wright/ where Craig Wright falsely claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto and forged many kinds of text on computers in order to support his baseless claims, including emails. The COPA's experts, among others, found lots of cases where he slipped up, and the court's decision and its appendix go into a great deal of detail about how those slipups were detected.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Thank you. Interesting! His mistake was faking the destination address, which did not exist at the time of the timestamp.
  - kragen 2y ago
    In one case! He made lots of different mistakes.

Add to that AI generated photographs and video. BTW, I've always wondered about the validity of email evidence. Email is text on a computer. You can edit it to say whatever you want.

michaelbuckbee 2y ago

I'm aware of using DKIM signing records to prove that certain emails were actually sent through systems at certain times as there are headers that change based on them in the actual emails. Note: pretty sure I got the concept right and misused a few terms here.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago

It is true in a very general kind of way, but we no longer live in a world when one admin controls every aspect of company's IT ( with maybe exception of small mom and pop shops ). As a result, default controls in place have gotten a little more granular ( and annoying ). All that said, the evidence by itself is not as useful as the hired expert, who explains what the evidence is, how we know it is good and so on.

mholt 2y ago

In a lawsuit in the early 2000s where my family member was the defendant, the plaintiff had forged emails. In the end, my family member won the lawsuit, so whatever they did, worked! I wish I could remember the details. I will have to go back and ask them how they did it.

kragen 2y ago
I'm interested to see whether they attempted to show that the email was forged. Are the filings in the case a matter of public record? Usually they are in countries like the US and UK.

kragen 2y ago

You may be interested the decision in the COPA vs. Wright case https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/copa-v-wright/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/copa-v-wright/ where Craig Wright falsely claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto and forged many kinds of text on computers in order to support his baseless claims, including emails. The COPA's experts, among others, found lots of cases where he slipped up, and the court's decision and its appendix go into a great deal of detail about how those slipups were detected.

WalterBright 2y ago
Thank you. Interesting! His mistake was faking the destination address, which did not exist at the time of the timestamp.
- kragen 2y ago
  In one case! He made lots of different mistakes.