6 ms·

All of these analyses of how they might have located the server are great. I'm pleased to see folks trying to prove or disprove that the FBI is not trying some

All of these analyses of how they might have located the server are great. I'm pleased to see folks trying to prove or disprove that the FBI is not trying some parallel construction here. But what worries me is that all of this will have to be eventually dumbed down to an explanation that a jury of average joes can understand. The increasingly technical complexity of evidence in some of these cases worries me that our system doesn't have an adequate way to deal with it.

dobbsbob 12y ago
They probably won't argue this in front of a jury since it's a pre-trial motion to challenge the evidence the FBI collected. No idea how a judge will understand this, I guess they bring in experts to testify if the FBI's claim is possible or not.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Honestly I have no worries about this or any other "technical" issue like financial fraud cases. If a cop can learn enough to catch someone then it is possible to explain that to a nurse or an electrician. Jurors don't switch off because they are learning how to move money between banks or break into servers - they switch off because it takes three months to present a case.
- EpicEng 12y ago
  > If a cop can learn enough to catch someone then it is possible to explain that to a nurse or an electrician. You think a cop did this? No... the FBI has technical personnel. Just like any corporation, they have different departments to fulfill different needs.
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    Not quite what I meant - no I don't think cops were writing SQLi but they learnt enough to laugh at Little Bobby Tables, just as they can learn enough to follow the money through 17 bank accounts. This is the equivalent of is the FBI allowed to search my trash if the trash is in a trashcan on my property or on the sidewalk, being pulled by a street cleaner or knocked over by a fox. We can make it as complicated as we like but the law needs to draw some lines somewhere and stick to them.
cookiecaper 12y ago
I share that concern in general (and in particular with regard to software patent cases, which often cover highly technical material and where the jury has no context about the novelty of the patented inventions), but I think this case is pretty much a slam dunk however you approach it. Regardless of how they obtained the IP, they got to the box to find it running Silk Road code, they got to the box's owner to find him holding Silk Road bitcoins, etc. This isn't a case that hinges on a technical nuance. It will be practically impossible for DPR to convince a jury that there is any reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  Except that if they obtained the IP illegally, and the defense can prove it, all the evidence obtained based on that is thrown out. Which is why they're pursuing it so vigorously: as you've noted, it's the code they found on the box and the bitcoins they found by finding the box's owner that pin him so severely.
  - PeterisP 12y ago
    Wouldn't the only evidence obtained through that hack be the actual IP and related data? I mean, the actual box was presumably seized after a proper warrant for searching a specific physical location. The question is would the fact that his stuff was searched be considered "fruit of the poisoned tree" since the servers were identified through that IP or as "inevitable discovery" since if he's a suspect, it's standard procedure to search his stuff anyways. But IANAL so I'm not sure how it works in USA.
- roel_v 12y ago
  If the evidence was obtained using illegal methods, all that evidence can't be presented at trial and the jurors can't take that information into account when deciding guilty or not. There are many people who are acquitted for things they obviously did, but for which there is no formal legal way of proving it.
  - spindritf 12y ago
ptaipale 12y ago
<i>The increasingly technical complexity of evidence in some of these cases worries me that our system doesn't have an adequate way to deal with it. reply</i> Indeed. Then, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and you have some ingredients for a witch-hunt.
gwern 12y ago
> But what worries me is that all of this will have to be eventually dumbed down to an explanation that a jury of average joes can understand. Not necessarily. They could give up the right to a jury trial and go for a bench/judge trial. That's often done in complex or technical cases (the reasoning being that, despite the pro-state biases, better to appeal to an experienced and known-intelligent person like a judge than to risk the prejudices of the common man).

dobbsbob 12y ago

They probably won't argue this in front of a jury since it's a pre-trial motion to challenge the evidence the FBI collected. No idea how a judge will understand this, I guess they bring in experts to testify if the FBI's claim is possible or not.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

Honestly I have no worries about this or any other "technical" issue like financial fraud cases. If a cop can learn enough to catch someone then it is possible to explain that to a nurse or an electrician. Jurors don't switch off because they are learning how to move money between banks or break into servers - they switch off because it takes three months to present a case.

EpicEng 12y ago
> If a cop can learn enough to catch someone then it is possible to explain that to a nurse or an electrician. You think a cop did this? No... the FBI has technical personnel. Just like any corporation, they have different departments to fulfill different needs.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  Not quite what I meant - no I don't think cops were writing SQLi but they learnt enough to laugh at Little Bobby Tables, just as they can learn enough to follow the money through 17 bank accounts. This is the equivalent of is the FBI allowed to search my trash if the trash is in a trashcan on my property or on the sidewalk, being pulled by a street cleaner or knocked over by a fox. We can make it as complicated as we like but the law needs to draw some lines somewhere and stick to them.

cookiecaper 12y ago

I share that concern in general (and in particular with regard to software patent cases, which often cover highly technical material and where the jury has no context about the novelty of the patented inventions), but I think this case is pretty much a slam dunk however you approach it. Regardless of how they obtained the IP, they got to the box to find it running Silk Road code, they got to the box's owner to find him holding Silk Road bitcoins, etc. This isn't a case that hinges on a technical nuance. It will be practically impossible for DPR to convince a jury that there is any reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

akerl_ 12y ago
Except that if they obtained the IP illegally, and the defense can prove it, all the evidence obtained based on that is thrown out. Which is why they're pursuing it so vigorously: as you've noted, it's the code they found on the box and the bitcoins they found by finding the box's owner that pin him so severely.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  Wouldn't the only evidence obtained through that hack be the actual IP and related data? I mean, the actual box was presumably seized after a proper warrant for searching a specific physical location. The question is would the fact that his stuff was searched be considered "fruit of the poisoned tree" since the servers were identified through that IP or as "inevitable discovery" since if he's a suspect, it's standard procedure to search his stuff anyways. But IANAL so I'm not sure how it works in USA.
roel_v 12y ago
If the evidence was obtained using illegal methods, all that evidence can't be presented at trial and the jurors can't take that information into account when deciding guilty or not. There are many people who are acquitted for things they obviously did, but for which there is no formal legal way of proving it.
- spindritf 12y ago

ptaipale 12y ago

<i>The increasingly technical complexity of evidence in some of these cases worries me that our system doesn't have an adequate way to deal with it. reply</i> Indeed. Then, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and you have some ingredients for a witch-hunt.

gwern 12y ago

> But what worries me is that all of this will have to be eventually dumbed down to an explanation that a jury of average joes can understand. Not necessarily. They could give up the right to a jury trial and go for a bench/judge trial. That's often done in complex or technical cases (the reasoning being that, despite the pro-state biases, better to appeal to an experienced and known-intelligent person like a judge than to risk the prejudices of the common man).