4 ms·
Tbh, this is what scares me about tech illiterate juries. Many of these cases hang on key pieces of evidence that are literally the FBI's word against the defen
by opendais 12y ago
Tbh, this is what scares me about tech illiterate juries. Many of these cases hang on key pieces of evidence that are literally the FBI's word against the defendants.
- spiritplumber 12y agoGood thing these things come up to make the FBI's word worth less, then! We need some sort of standardised trust metric....
- opendais 12y agoI'd prefer a better educated populace that realizes the "technical evidence" being submitted in many cases is essentially witness testimony and not physical evidence [e.g. fingerprints on the murder weapon] which I think many people believe. Witness testimony is perfectly fine as long as it isn't implied to be anything greater than that.
- AnimalMuppet 12y agoSay the issue is call metadata. They showed that I called the murderer, who then murdered someone I had a grudge against. So this evidence doesn't prove that I did order a hit, but at least proves that I had the opportunity to have done so. The metadata is technical evidence, not witness testimony. But... Who wrote the software that collected the metadata? Any bugs in it? Any possibility that I did not, in fact, make that call? Where was the metadata stored? Who had access to it? Could anybody have altered it, perhaps even to cover their own tracks? Who had custody of the data after the records got pulled from the database? Any chance that they could have altered it? Maybe they knew that the prosecution's case was weak, and they wanted to make it look better? In this way, technical evidence does in fact depend on witness testimony.
- opendais 12y agoDoes that happen in every case for every piece of technical evidence?
- AnimalMuppet 12y agoI think it has to. The only way it could not is if you had a piece of physical evidence, and you were going to extract the technical evidence from it there in the courtroom in front of the jury. But even then, you have to worry about the chain of custody of the physical evidence, and about the tool you're going to use to extract the technical evidence in the courtroom...
- opendais 12y agoPerhaps it does but I'm not convinced without evidence it happens and I can't find any that shows it happens the majority of the time let alone all the time :/
- AnimalMuppet 12y agoWell, I think what happens in an actual court case is, you check out the chain of custody if you suspect that anything is actually fishy, or if you can make the prosecution's case look weak. If there's nothing there that you can use in your defense, then it never comes up in court.
- opendais 12y agoCould be. But imo, anything the FBI touched would be suspect.
- spopejoy 12y agoWhy would a tech-savvy jury be more inclined to discount testimony or non-technical evidence from the prosecution? It seems that the word of law enforcement has an advantage in the courtroom regardless of someone's literacy in any field. In any case, I think a bigger problem isn't juries, but the huge amount of cases that never see a jury, via absurd overcharges leading to plea bargains. Only a judge is involved, and judges are much more "reliable" than a jury ... Besides, when would an incident like this ever get in front of a jury? I can't think of a single case where the FBI was in the dock for COINTELPRO shenanigans like this.
- opendais 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov would be an example of what I mean. :P