Actually, Todd, I read the report a little differently. Since we're getting into this level of depth anyhow, what Kerr says is that there's really three broad categories of "computer data": 1) Data that was created by a human and is stored on a computer, which is subject to the same conditions of evidence as any other human communication (that is, the hearsay issues -- was the human an expert authority, was the comment reported accurately, etc.) 2) Data that is generated by a computer, stored on a computer, and is not touched by human hands -- this is subject to legal questions about whether or not the program was running correctly, but is >not< hearsay and is not subject to any of the case law around human statements 3) Data that contains both human-generated and machine-generated values, such as spreadsheets -- which is much more complicated, big surprise, and is subject to all sets of conditions. There's nothing I read in Kerr's report that suggests that purely machine generated data ever qualifies as hearsay, whether or not someone is challenging their authenticity or integrity. I would also argue that most courts don't have staff biochemists who are capable of assessing the quality of a DNA test, but that's why we have expert witnesses. t. Where did ThunderGal come from, anyhow? On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, todd glassey wrote: > Bill - I disagree with much of what you said and I have no doubt that you > have trained the 3000 law enforcement folks that you claim to have, I have > run into a number of them I think in other workshops - but I gotta tell you > that I think what you trained them in was wrong. > > Thanks Tina to the pointer > http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/usamarch2001_4.htm - in the first > portion of the paragraph we have a statement of admissability - > unfortunately it also requires the Court to make a finding of compentence in > the capture and mainatence of the log data. > Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or > data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or > diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, > a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted > business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business > activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as > shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless > the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation > indicate lack of trustworthiness. > > (BTW - who makes this analysis as to what is trustable - most Court's have > not forensic's people competent to do this.) > > The term "business" as used in this paragraph includes business, > institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, > whether or not conducted for profit. > > See, e.g., United States v. Cestnik, 36 F.3d 904, 909-10 (10th Cir. 1994); > United States v. Moore, 923 F.2d 910, 914 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. > Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 1494 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Catabran, 836 > F.2d 453, 457 (9th Cir. 1988); Capital Marine Supply v. M/V Roland Thomas > II, 719 F.2d 104, 106 (5th Cir. 1983). > > Applying this test, the courts have indicated that computer records > generally can be admitted as business records if they were kept pursuant to > a routine procedure for motives that tend to assure their accuracy. > > AND OTHERWISE THEY ARE HEAR-SAY since there is no other way to admit them. > However most courts would just say that they are inadmissible. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: loganalysis-unsubscribeat_private For additional commands, e-mail: loganalysis-helpat_private
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Dec 18 2001 - 16:50:46 PST