----- Original Message ----- From: "Tina Bird" <tbird@precision-guesswork.com> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glasseyat_private> Cc: "Bill Spernow" <bill.spernowat_private>; "'jamie rishaw'" <jrishawat_private>; "'Log Analysis Mailing List'" <loganalysisat_private> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:29 PM Subject: 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). This is the key here - The concept of proving that the record was functioning properly. My point is that the burden is shifting to a modality wherein we will be called to prove that our systems are functioning properly and that there will likely be BCP metrics for looking at what is and is not considered "right". > > --> 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. No I see your point - mine is that like PKI this is a moving target and I am predicting where it will be in 6 to 9 months and then beyond that. The issues are of establishing a set of metrics for addmisibility for digitally generated testimony. > > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 17:39:45 PST