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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon Oct  3 14:38:23 2005
From: lweast at (Lane Weast)
Subject: Careless Law Enforcement Computer
	ForensicsLacking InfoSec Expertise Causes Suicides

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

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.


-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Michael
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.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -

Powered by blists - more mailing lists