Keyloggers Now Classified Technology

general_re writes: "The New York Times (free reg required blah blah blah) is reporting that the Department of Justice is still refusing to turn over details of how the keystroke loggers used against Nicky Scarfo worked, claiming that revealing how it works "would render it useless in future investigations" as well as claiming that it is classified information. Nevermind that this also prevents his lawyers from evaluating or attacking the credibility or accuracy of the evidence arrayed against him. One interesting question raised is whether it's always been classified, or if they're retroactively classifying it in order to avoid revealing how they work."

Comments

Abuse of power

[sourcehunter]

I'm sorry, I don't care WHAT kind of technology you use against a criminal to gather evidence, it should be open to scrutiny.

I believe the same to be true of the Carnivore system, even though I readily defend its use as legitimate.

What if they classified the tape and tape recorder they used to tape a conversation - no one would be able to check the tape to see if it was or could have been altered!

Evidence would not be admissable in UK courts

[new500]

. . .

Must make this short (as there's a god long debate behind what follows) but this would make inadmissable any collected evidence in a UK court.

This would be because there is then no person or other body of evidence available to question regards veracity.

Evidence rules here very tough, and the case would be almost immediately thrown out.

This is tantamount to claiming the Ivisible Man as witness and the prosecutor or plaintiff claiming they cannot bring him for cross examination because they cannot find him.

The anaology is the same, if something cannot be shown to court, it may not bear witness.

This is the first basic rule of civilisation and law over hearsay, rumour and superstition.