4 ms·
Somehow id always figured this would be fairly easy. Would something like this be considered proof? Now ive never tried it myself, but i cant imagine theres mu
by marak830 11y ago
Somehow id always figured this would be fairly easy. Would something like this be considered proof?
Now ive never tried it myself, but i cant imagine theres much(if any), security on a history?
- gruez 11y agoIt's trivial to convince the judge and jury that the history is real. Who are they more likely to believe, the investigators or the guy in the orange jumpsuit that swears it was planted? After all, the "it was planted!" excuse is the oldest one in the book.
- marak830 11y agoId have honestly thought it would be inadmissable as its (assumably), not difficult to fake.
- psgbg 11y agoAt that point it will be the victim the one that should prove his/her innocence. And I think this will remain true in many countries.
- mirimir 11y agoIn US criminal cases, defendants are presumed innocent, and prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". So defendants don't need to prove anything. They just need to invalidate prosecutors' evidence. But defendants are often toast if they lose the expert witness credibility contest.
- scintill76 11y agoOn the other hand, the prosecution might overlook history because it's in Firefox instead of IE[1]. It's kind of tangential to this subthread, but to tie it back somewhat, that article notes that some browser history entries came up in court, and this bungling doesn't reflect well on the competence and credibility of computer expert witnesses. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/25/casey-anthony-suffocation-google/1725253/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/25/casey-a...
- emergentcypher 11y agoHeh, as soon as you mentioned looking at the wrong browser's history, I thought of the Casey Anthony trial. Oops!
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]