Couldn’t you always claim that malware caused the offending clicks/placed the illegal files on your disk and is hiding/obfuscating itself so well that it’s not detectable by forensic methods? What’s the logic here to still get the criminal?
The standard is not as high as most technically-minded people think. Juries can convict defendants on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness: https://newrepublic.com/article/152305/who-to-believe-sexual...
The game takes place in a slightly fictionalized version of Japan and is made by a Japanese game developer noted for making games steeped in contemporary Japanese culture. I guess that's important to note.
Infamous cases were difficult in the age of newspapers when they got hold of a story, but now everyone can begin their own agendum.
If you jokingly imply that jury duty is for suckers, you’re undercutting the system and supporting bad outcomes. For example, one of the few checks on the drug war or bad policing has been juries refusing to accept bad police work.
And while that's likely a game you win, I also wear my seatbelt despite not betting on crashing my car.
I think most people know this and figure they’re just going to have to waste a few hours only to be sent home (or worse, get selected and then sent home after settlement).
I didn't mean to be glib, but it got me dismissed immediately. It seems to me that any knowledge of law or procedure will get you dismissed.
point is, if you want to be on a jury, work hard NOT to give away any knowledge of the legal system.
I was asked about possible conflicts of interest and indicated that my father is an attorney who practiced in the same state. Asked for my profession, I replied that I am a bioinformaticist and was asked to explain the term. I said "I write computer code to help biologists analyze and use their data." This was in a university town. The prosecutor opined that I must be "pretty smart" and that she expected I came with an understanding of biology and biotechnology, all of which I affirmed. She asked if I would use that knowledge to assess DNA evidence that could be presented during the trial. I responded "No, I would limit my interpretation to only what was provided by testimony or otherwise affirmed during the trial." The prosecutor looked momentarily surprised at the precision with which my answer addressed the legal burdens required of a finder of fact, and then simply replied, "Ok, thank you." I was then immediately named to the jury.
Perhaps your attitude or delivery got you dismissed, or perhaps your choice of words suggested the opposite of what you imply here - a fundamentally flawed perception of the role of the prosecution? It's certainly technically correct that the prosecutor represents the state, not the victim, and that victim representation is its own ball of wax. Your reasoning, however, seems suspect. Paraphrasing: "Because the victim is not represented by the prosecutor, I have no problem with his not testifying." That's a non sequitur; the antecedent in no way implies the consequent. I could see the prosecutor rejecting you for appearing to be trying to impress (and failing) with your grasp of legal reasoning, fearing that you might not faithfully execute the court's instructions.
Then again, there are probably plenty of attorneys that just don't trust smart people.
> “Those who say there’s no corroborating evidence are thinking very narrowly,” Victor Vieth, the founder of the Gundersen center, told me. “They’re thinking of hair, DNA, the things you see on television dramas. I’ve never worked on a case of child abuse where, if you look hard enough, you won’t find corroborating evidence.” Vieth invited me to imagine a child who describes that his or her assault occurred in a room painted blue. Police should obtain a warrant and visit the room. Were its walls blue? If so, that was corroborating evidence.
This is of course not corroborating evidence that a sexual assault was committed. But sure, it corroborates that the room exists, and why would a child know what color the walls inside a room were unless they had been the victim of a sexual assault there?
This type of logic has been used plenty in court, it being in your possession, digital or not, is sufficient.
The claim here is that due to the vulnerabilities Cellebrite has, the offending item may never have been on your device. This is more similar to saying that the images the police took in your house of drugs were kept on an unsecured server, there are recorded vulnerabilities for it, and therefore the images could have been digitally edited to show drugs where none were present.
The problem is that a report about a phone scanned on 2020-02-01 can be altered by a phone scanned on 2020-05-01 to say that there was porn when there wasn't. Oh, and that scan left a running program which will cause 5% of the phones scanned after that to randomly also claim porn that is not on the device.
Therefore if a single phone with Signal was scanned at the kiosk, NOTHING from that kiosk can be trusted.
If the USER could select the action, for research purposes, that might a different story.
If he winds up in court, I'd love it if he sticks to his, "the files are there for artistic effect".
Saying those decorative files tampered with evidence is equivalent to admitting that everything the Cellebrite claims to do, it doesn't do and never has done.
In absence of write-once media, they are betting that the hashes they capture will be the same every time they image the device because they never modify the device.