Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Careless Law Enforcement Computer ForensicsLacking InfoSec Expertise Causes Suicides
From: "Lane Weast" <lweast () leeclerk org>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:38:16 -0400
In theory, what you say is incorrect. They may take you in but, in court they have to prove it was yours. It is not your responsibility to prove your innocence. It is their responsibility to prove your guilt. In fact, there are more that a couple cases where the prosecutor told the jury the defenses job was to prove the defendant innocent of the charges. Which shortly there after resulted in a mis-trial. The defenses job is to call into question the evidence used to attempt to prove guilt. There by providing reasonable doubt. The stash was in the bushes out side the residence. The kid and anyone else passing by had access to it. Reasonable doubt of ownership exists. In my opinion there is a big difference. Additionally there exists "Jury Nullification" which most prosecutors will dismiss you from Jury duty if you say you are aware of its existence. Def: The Jury has a responsibility to vote their conscience. If the law is unjust the jury has the right to refuse to convict. With out this, there is no need for a jury to act as a balance to the law. Lane -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of Michael Holstein Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:17 AM To: Full-Disclosure Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Careless Law Enforcement Computer ForensicsLacking InfoSec Expertise Causes Suicides
As long as the possession itself is a crime, this is just a waste of resources. I tend to agree that the current situation in most countries is difficult because of the elusive nature of purely electronic evidence.
Old problem, new kind of evidence .. if someone were to stash their dope in my bushes while running from the cops, and that's later discovered by my neighbor's kid .. guess who's going to end up down at the station looking stupid? .. ME. Possession is 9/10 of the law. Once you've got dirt on your hands, it's your responsibility to prove it isn't yours. Unfortunately, in the digital world, that means you've got to be able to afford an expert to rebut the techie on the prosceution's payroll. Curiously, here in Ohio, we have a law that says (in part) that the police must *prove* that any digital kiddie porn is a "real" kid, and not an image altered to look like one. Wrong or right, that little loophole has aquitted several defendents that have the means to hire an expert witness. Michael Holstein CISSP GCIA Cleveland State University _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- RE: Careless Law Enforcement Computer ForensicsLacking InfoSec Expertise Causes Suicides Lane Weast (Oct 03)
- Re: Careless Law Enforcement Computer ForensicsLacking InfoSec Expertise Causes Suicides Michael Holstein (Oct 03)
- RE: Careless Law Enforcement Computer ForensicsLacking InfoSec Expertise Causes Suicides Paul Schmehl (Oct 03)
- Re: Careless Law Enforcement Computer ForensicsLacking InfoSec Expertise Causes Suicides Steve Kudlak (Oct 03)
- Re: Careless Law Enforcement ComputerForensicsLacking InfoSec Expertise Causes Suicides Greg (Oct 05)