It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Digital Evidence No Longer Valid For Court Of Law

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tranceopticalinclined
No only what the OP has said but I've always wondered about the following:

Malware is so rampant today and easy to create or customize that it's not hard for someone to " target " others and use the malware to infect someone's PC or phone and upload files to their drives. We're talking any files, bad images, gov secrets, whatever they wanted to plant.

You'd need some clever folks to even think about checking when those files were uploaded and to even check about malware. Then what about those really clever malware scripts that will delete all their tracks upon a reboot, some once uploaded and even after their task is carried out will cause an issue that will warrant a reboot.

That's just with having files on your system.

This doesn't even go into the realm of someone using your system while you're not aware to carry out attacks and get you blamed or at least targeted by others.

If someone wanted to troll you hard, digital harassment has come a long way and law enforcement isn't very equipped to handle it.


Its even worse the possibility, its all build in windows 10 from microsoft, thats why I use UBUNTU Linux




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
It's a extremely thin line to walk on either side of the debate and as much as I would like to agree with you, I cannot.

Example,
Someone hacks into a server and steals your digital bank account information. They then proceed to take all of your digital funds and transfer them to a different digital bank account. What evidence can be used against them?
See where I am going with this?

Or another example,
A murder is committed. The case seems cut and dry, all the evidence proves this. Except the man walks free. Why? Crimes screen photos where stored as digital files, so the evidence is omitted. DNA evidence is all produced and stored digitally, so the evidence is omitted. Sworn testimonies are stored as digital text files, so the evidence is omitted. Any of it, at any time, could of been "technically" falsified, correct?



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ProjectedLogic
It's a extremely thin line to walk on either side of the debate and as much as I would like to agree with you, I cannot.

Example,
Someone hacks into a server and steals your digital bank account information. They then proceed to take all of your digital funds and transfer them to a different digital bank account. What evidence can be used against them?
See where I am going with this?

Or another example,
A murder is committed. The case seems cut and dry, all the evidence proves this. Except the man walks free. Why? Crimes screen photos where stored as digital files, so the evidence is omitted. DNA evidence is all produced and stored digitally, so the evidence is omitted. Sworn testimonies are stored as digital text files, so the evidence is omitted. Any of it, at any time, could of been "technically" falsified, correct?


don't get me wrong, the secret services like AIVD, NSA, CIA have good intentions, trying to keep us save from terrorists, OK, we must have a system that guarantees that no moles, even worse of whole hierarchy of mole cells, exists in the pan global conglomerate of secret services of the western world. These moles do the excesses



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ProjectedLogic

We must go back to a paper / all cash based system



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: galien8


I think if photo or video editing is done "State-of-the-Art" even the experts can be in doubt, I recall a photo of Harvey Oswald with an rifle which no one was sure about whether it was fake or not,

Then 'state the art' photos alone should only be used in conjunction with other forensic evidence, sworn testimony, etc.

A single photograph is like a single witness, too little. Oswalds photo was one item of evidence presented. His wife knew he had a rifle( it was missing) and a coworker saw Oswald bring (curtain rods) to work that day. I think there was a receipt, too. Thats off the top of my head...

Imo, Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. Moments before Kennedy was shot. Look at all those open windows...




posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: galien8

DNA evidence isn't as clear cut as they like to make out. There are different standards of testing available but the typical standard used in the UK brings the Match down to about 1 in a 1,000,000. Sounds great but that means there are statistically over 60 more people in the country with the same markers. Some jurisdictions use even simpler tests that confirm to about 1 in 100,000 (which would match 3,000 different people in the United States).

When the police are building cases on nothing but a trace of DNA it is a dangerous road. For some reason we have bought the propaganda of this being infallible and unquestionable and it really isn't.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cheesyleps
a reply to: galien8

...

Some jurisdictions use even simpler tests that confirm to about 1 in 100,000 (which would match 3,000 different people in the United States).

...

...For some reason we have bought the propaganda of this being infallible and unquestionable and it really isn't.



Maybe this 1 in 100,000 is "beyond reasonable doubt" you got to apply statistics ...there is no truth outside statistics, and inside statistics there is only probability...



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Some said on the Oswald with rifle photo, shadow of the nose was wrong did not match the other lights



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
How does this work with "Rule 41"?


Ohw and more importantly, is there any source for what the OP states? I didn't see any in here yet. But I little link would be appreciated.
edit on 4-12-2016 by Dumbass because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: galien8

Digital evidence no longer valid, That would be great news for people behind pizzagate and people like hillary (same thing really)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: galien8

There's a reason they call it the CRIMINAL JUST US $Y$TEM. They dont realize when the lawless make the laws the laws become irrelevant. They cant even follow the most decent moral and no brainer laws of 1. Thou shall not kill, 2 Thou shall not steal, 3. Thou shall not rape, 4, Thou shall not pillage.

Think Tacitus said, The more corrupt the state is the more numerous its laws.

fkem



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




The problem that you often encounter is whether or not the person doing the tampering is more technologically advanced than the people tasked in finding the evidence of tampering.


This is the whole case in point.

I was going refer to expert witness testimony, but I won't go there.
This is not " How to be a crook 101 class."

Buck




edit on 4-12-2016 by flatbush71 because: Too damned old to get it right the first time



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dumbass
How does this work with "Rule 41"?


Ohw and more importantly, is there any source for what the OP states? I didn't see any in here yet. But I little link would be appreciated.


No its like a deal with the devil: NSA gets total awareness, total control (can plant fake digital evidence anywhere) but can't do anything with it

edit on 2016-12-4 by galien8 because: copy paste



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Without going into details, it seems the courts here are having problems submitting CCTV from third parties, because of the number of different codecs and formats used. This has created a backlog of cases in the courts, and the prosecution has to go back and get a "working" copy of the CCTV footage...

This is where it gets complex, and I dont know if any other jurisdictions have it; if the prosecution has to adjourn the trial, then the defense doesnt have to pay their lawyer--the prosecution does.

This is great for people who are wrongly arrested on CCTV footage, but when you consider the legal costs falling back onto the state, its almost to the point where there needs to be some policy/statutory instrument to address this issue.

The notion of scrapping digital evidence does appeal to me on some levels, but not all "digital evidence" is CCTV (or photos), and things like server logs are crucial evidence when it comes to cyber crime.

I know there will be some balanced solution in the not too distant future, but for now there is a genuine problem with CCTV evidence.

I see people mentioning manipulating digital evidence; have a hamburger:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: PBL666

Without going into details, it seems the courts here are having problems submitting CCTV from third parties, I

see people mentioning manipulating digital evidence; have a hamburger:
en.wikipedia.org...



CCTV is that security camera stuff?



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: galien8

Closed Circuit Television, so yeah security cams is the main issue with CCTV evidence at this time. Please be mindful that non-security CCTV exists, and if its legality is under question--yet not be admissible, then someone may be getting away with what might normally be considered illegal surveillance.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: galien8
Video, audio, photo can all be photoshopped. Search behavior in Internet Providers databases can be faked, manipulated, created, deleted and edited, by internal and external parties, ...its only one mouseclick away...


All evidence is suspect. Video can be edited, audio can be edited, documents can be faked. Chemical tests have margins of error, can be contaminated, or (as in a recent case that came to light) the results can be deliberately skewed by the lab worker.

Eyewitnesses can forget things, or mis-remember things, or even outright lie.

That's why evidence is tested in court. That's why lawyers cross examine witnesses.

If a defendant is telling his lawyer "that's not me, that's been edited" then his lawyer should be exploring that route and testing the evidence accordingly.

Making digital evidence inadmissible is not the way forward and would essentially make a lot of very serious crimes impossible to prosecute.

"Sorry, though we have 87 different CCTV cameras that all recorded your family member being murdered in the middle of the street in high definition and from multiple angles, the cameras were fed into a digital storage system so they are inadmissible as evidence. We're releasing the suspect."



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: galien8
Yes, the only things left for the court of law are, witnesses and DNA tests, these cannot be so easy manipulated


You are kidding, right?

I can tell you, with professional certainty, that witnesses are terrible and easily manipulated.

DNA tests - indeed, all forensic tests - are subject to quality control issues. There are thousands of possible cases in the US alone that have been called into question due to the forensic technicians either failing to follow basic protocols, not knowing how to perform certain tests, or in some cases simply fabricating results.

Just to round off, here's a guy who was convicted of murder based on DNA evidence, despite CCTV footage placing him somewhere completely different at the time of the offence. His conviction was later overturned. DNA tests say nothing about how the DNA got there, which is really the most important thing.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: galien8

I am a part of the national forensics lab for one of the alphabet agencies--it's (relatively) easy to determine if something has been tampered with. Even if something is done in real time by use of a program, there will be digital fingerprints of such a thing.



Agreed. I do digital forensics for law firms occasionally. Spotting tampering with the available tools for digital forensics is easy if you know what you're looking for.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: galien8

I am a part of the national forensics lab for one of the alphabet agencies--it's (relatively) easy to determine if something has been tampered with. Even if something is done in real time by use of a program, there will be digital fingerprints of such a thing.



Agreed. I do digital forensics for law firms occasionally. Spotting tampering with the available tools for digital forensics is easy if you know what you're looking for.


GREAT!!! What if the criminals are smarter?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join