Re: [logs] Data for Court

From: Tina Bird (tbird@precision-guesswork.com)
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 15:29:54 PST

  • Next message: todd glassey: "Re: [logs] Data for Court"

    I'm not sure what you're quoting, Todd, and I'd love to
    know, but according to Kerr pg. 2, last complete paragraph
    at the bottom of the page:
    
    "However, the fact that a computer, rather than a human
    being, has created the record alters the evidentiary issues
    that the computer-generated records present.  See, eg. 2 J. 
    Strong, McCormick on Evidence 294, at 286 (4th ed. 1992).
    The evidentiary issue is no longer whether a human's out of
    court statement was truthful and accurate (a question of
    hearsay), but instead whether the computer program that
    generated the record was functioning properly (a question
    of authenticity).
    
    --> followed by more legal citations
    
    So in most cases, if we're talking about purely machine-
    generated logs, where there's no evidence of tampering,
    the data is >not< considered hearsay and can be admitted
    as evidence into court.
    
    It is also worth pointing out, as a reader did off-line
    this morning, that paper, chemical tests, and all sorts
    of other forensic results can also be tampered with,
    and have their reliability questioned.  So I remain
    unclear on whether or not computer logs are intrinsicly
    any more unreliable than other types of forensic data.
    
    Yours in multiple negatives -- tbird
    
    On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, todd glassey wrote:
    
    > ThunderGal - Tina
    > 
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Tina Bird" <tbird@precision-guesswork.com>
    > To: "Bill Spernow" <bill.spernowat_private>
    > Cc: "'jamie rishaw'" <jrishawat_private>; "'Log Analysis Mailing List'"
    > <loganalysisat_private>
    > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 8:32 AM
    > Subject: RE: [logs] Data for Court
    > 
    > 
    > > Logs do >not< fall under the hearsay exception unless they
    > > contain data manually entered by a human.  According to the
    > > Justice Department report I quoted, hearsay is specifically
    > > designed as information provided by a person, not information
    > > automatically generated by a machine -- so different rules
    > > apply.
    > 
    > "Hear-say is any evidence that cannot be directly substantiated by first
    > hand testimony."  I.e. evidence that one "potentially not credible source"
    > would enter into the record. Up until now it has been tradtionally human
    > generated or rendered but...
    > 
    > As to why Computer Testimony is Hear-Say - Computers have exactly this same
    > problem especially with Ethernet interconnects. The problem is that the
    > Courts do not know how to audit these systems and becuase of that are making
    > all sorts of funny decisions at the lower offices of the court that are
    > being refuted at appeal.
    > 
    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 - 16:51:49 PST