lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20050705152143.71A67684@lists.grok.org.uk> Date: Tue Jul 5 17:06:21 2005 From: le at evidencetechnology.net (Evidence Technology) Subject: RE: Tools accepted by the courts Jason, the summary of your position seems to be that every CF witness for the prosecution should basically testify that, "yes, that image is there but since it came from the Internet, it's impossible to tell whether it got there intentionally or not." That's flat wrong. Sometimes you can't tell. Many times you can indeed. It's done in forensic exams on a routine basis. As for the "absurdity" of my prediction about more evidence being booted in the future due to poor forensic technique, I guess we'll see, won't we? In any event, I'm not sure what all your hostility is about. You seem to think you have everything figured out, while essentially the entire CF industry has it all wrong? You continue to talk about some mythical pursuit of truth as if no one but you has any interest in it, as if the rest of us are in it for a buck and don't give a rat's boohonkus if poor innocent people get locked away as long as the check clears. THAT is absurdity on parade. -------------------------- Craig, thanks for the comments. I concur. Jerry Hatchett, CCE Evidence Technology, LLC Computer Forensics, Forensic Video/Audio, Data Recovery www.evidencetechnology.net -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/39 - Release Date: 7/4/2005
Powered by blists - more mailing lists