Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo 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/


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]