Ah ha! I think we've just reached convergence. Yes, I think that the burden of proof will shift towards whichever party in a given case wants to use the computer records, to validate that the system is functioning properly. And I think we-the-mailing-list are a good group of people to develop those baselines and metrics. I suspect we've got longer than 6 to 9 months before the case law will change substantially, but that's a good a time frame as any... On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, todd glassey wrote: > > ----- 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 17:44:51 PST