3 ms·

1) The drive was very likely encrypted. The FBI deliberately waited until he was using the laptop in a public location, and tackled him so they could explore th

1) The drive was very likely encrypted. The FBI deliberately waited until he was using the laptop in a public location, and tackled him so they could explore the drive while it was still logged in. As to why he wrote everything down in a diary, or didn't plan for that eventuality...seems to be a combination of hubris, inexperience, and naivety. 2) Yes. They can be authenticated by the officers who took them. The officers merely state that they tackled Ross in the library, and that they personally photographed what was on the screen, and that the image you see is said photograph. You are of course correct that they could be fabricated, but that's up to his defense attorney to argue, and for a jury to believe is enough to constitute "reasonable doubt" in their collective minds. 3) Again, evidence does not have to be perfect. Everything you argue applies to any kind of evidence. What's to say the witnesses testimony wasn't coerced? The letter forged? The rules of evidence come into play here, as well as the jury's role in deciding what to believe. That said, it's certainly an interesting issue, and it would be great if there were stronger chain-of-custody and verification rules for digital evidence collected from a seized hard-drive, for example.

scenicBulimic 13y ago
Specifically in response to number 3: I contend that it is easier to coerce a machine than a witness, that forged bits can be perfectly identical whereas forged letters might not. Machines need to be held to different standards for different reasons. If we lend them a greater veracity than is appropriate, how unforgiving might such an error be? We live in a world of statecraft through malware with Stuxnet, Flame and Duqu. We live in a world where international telecommunications companies enable global eavesdropping and interception at the carrier-grade level. You cannot discount the idea that his entire machine might have been compromised all the way down to the firmware, to elicit highly specific programmable responses choreographed in real time. That much is is honestly unlikely, and unrealistic, but in theory, the possibility is there. Consider that he may have been a useful idiot. A patsy. That he was framed, does the physical evidence and circumstantial evidence seal off that path of doubt? How advanced could the Silk Road's administrators actually be? Could they have crafted such malware, to root kit his laptop and lead investigators to a fall guy, and then temporarily close up shop if he goes down? I don't think that's what happened, but when a laptop is a key piece of evidence that a case may hinge on, The first thing I think of is how much control I honestly have over my own laptop. Fabricating bits is not the same as fabricating other evidence. Machines are different. As for your points #1 and #2, yeah, I'll agree that those are valid points and that sounds pretty damning, and I'll give it up on those.

scenicBulimic 13y ago

Specifically in response to number 3: I contend that it is easier to coerce a machine than a witness, that forged bits can be perfectly identical whereas forged letters might not. Machines need to be held to different standards for different reasons. If we lend them a greater veracity than is appropriate, how unforgiving might such an error be? We live in a world of statecraft through malware with Stuxnet, Flame and Duqu. We live in a world where international telecommunications companies enable global eavesdropping and interception at the carrier-grade level. You cannot discount the idea that his entire machine might have been compromised all the way down to the firmware, to elicit highly specific programmable responses choreographed in real time. That much is is honestly unlikely, and unrealistic, but in theory, the possibility is there. Consider that he may have been a useful idiot. A patsy. That he was framed, does the physical evidence and circumstantial evidence seal off that path of doubt? How advanced could the Silk Road's administrators actually be? Could they have crafted such malware, to root kit his laptop and lead investigators to a fall guy, and then temporarily close up shop if he goes down? I don't think that's what happened, but when a laptop is a key piece of evidence that a case may hinge on, The first thing I think of is how much control I honestly have over my own laptop. Fabricating bits is not the same as fabricating other evidence. Machines are different. As for your points #1 and #2, yeah, I'll agree that those are valid points and that sounds pretty damning, and I'll give it up on those.