Nmap Announce mailing list archives
RE: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court
From: "Meritt, Jim" <Jim.Meritt () wang com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:45:45 -0400
They MAY be used in court as evidence, not "proof" (whatever that means) if: 1. They must be produced, maintained and used in the general course of business. 2. They must be authenticated - that is, they must be shown, by qualified witnesses, to be reliable 3. They must meet the "best evidence" rule; that is, what is produced must be the best evidence available (not simply a copy of it, if the original is also available) In addition, the investigators themselves must have the necessary expertise to testify about the investigation and the evidence collected. Reference: Computer Crime: A crimefighter's Handbook by O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. p. 197 _______________________ The opinions expressed above are my own. The facts simply are and belong to none. James W. Meritt, CISSP
Senior Security Systems Engineer at Wang Global ---------- From: Sebastian[SMTP:scut () nb in-berlin de] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 5:56 PM To: Ken Williams Cc: Fyodor; nmap-hackers () insecure org Subject: Re: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court
[snip]
But in my view logs have never been a real proof itself. They can just give some points where you might find proofs.
[snip]
In my opinion logs should indeed be used in court, but not as proofs.
[snip]
Current thread:
- decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court Ken Williams (Apr 10)
- Re: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court Sebastian (Apr 10)
- Re: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court Andreas Bogk (Apr 11)
- Re: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court David Pick (Apr 10)
- Re: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court Adam Shostack (Apr 10)
- Re: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court Ron Hale (Apr 12)
- Re: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court Philip Ehrens (Apr 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court Meritt, Jim (Apr 12)
- Re: decoy traffic and legal admissibility of logs in court Sebastian (Apr 10)