Slashdot Mirror
Text Messages in the Courts
KennyG944 noted a story running on CNN which talks about Text Messages being used in the Kobe Bryant trial. This raises a host of issues about the phone company keeping these messages around and expectations of privacy.
Yet you post to Slashdot with a registered account?
I say what I like in my text messages, I don't care if it embarrasses the snooping bastards who read them, they are supposed to be PRIVATE.
If I were to say something to incriminate me I would either speak in code, not use text messaging or claim my phone was stolen.
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
I guess this will lead people to reconsider exactly what kind of information they pass along on an unencrypted channel such as text messaging, now that it looks like Big Brother is more than willing to access it in order to put you away for crimes you probably didn't commit. I can only feel bad for Mr. Bryant, who, on the eve of winning the NBA championships, has to deal with this nightmare of government-sponsored privacy intrusion and wasn't smart enough to know better beforehand. I hope this serves as a lesson to others, before more people get burned.
How do they propose to deal with who actually was at the keypad? I mean, strong authentication is a real challenge with email systems, and is rarely employed. Forensics seems like an even bigger chore for SMS than it is for email. Or maybe it isn't?
Furthermore, its the recipient's lawyers who has subpoenaed them Actually, according to the article, "Bryant's attorneys subpoenaed AT&T Wireless Communications Inc., seeking the messages."
"In Conyers, Georgia, a 17-year-old boy was arrested for investigation of solicitation of sodomy after a 12-year-old girl's parents complained of sexually explicit messages she had received."
made me think out loud, "why does a 12 year old have/need a cell phone???"
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
-dunar
It depends how you read it. I think what the article means is...
"What's in those messages could help (the jury) determine whether the sex was consensual or whether Bryant is guilty of rape as charged."
So yes, the jury does want to find out if he "ACTUALLY IS GUILTY".
I could send a message to anyone I know, saying "XXXXX just forced me to have sex with him".
Doesn't mean he did it, just means *I* said it.
"I just had sex with someone famous, I'm going to brag about it"
"I was just forced to have sex with someone rich, I'm going to tell someone about it".
A text message isn't evidence. One persons account doesn't provide sufficient evidence in my view.
Oh look, I just flew to into space. Can I claim my $10m prize now. Oh, you need evidence? But I said it...
I'm not saying he did do it, and I'm not saying he didn't do it. But it seems everytime someone rich/famous has an indiscretion that wouldn't impact most people in the same way, it ends up in the news, and if you are a little different (think M Jackson, M Tyson), you are even more inclined to be sued/have a public "outing".
Actually, they may well be VERY relevent, depending on what the message contained.
There was a famous trial in the 1920's of a rags to riches hollywood comedian named Fatty Arbuckle, who was accused of raping a young woman with a coke bottle in his bathroom, during a party. He had actually gone to trial 2x on a hung jury, but on the 3rd trial, it was revealed that a star witness for the prosecution (a woman of dubious character) had sent a telegram to an associate a few hours after the alleged incident saying that she had Fatty over a barrel and was going to squeeze him, or something to that effect. He was aquitted on the third trial, although his career was destroyed by that time.
http://ms.essortment.com/arbucklefatty_rams.htm
My rights don't need management.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the evidence has been tampered with. That's the way it's always been. There are certain tell-tale signs that a video or picture has been edited. But to automatically assume that all evidence is completely worthless just because of "well it could have been edited ..." is just absurd and places a ridiculously high burden of proof on the prosecution and forces them to prove a negative -- that the evidence has not been tampered with.
For example, let's say that I'm on trial, and the prosecution thinks I might have sent an incriminating message to someone over AOL IM. AOL has logged this message, so they get subpoenaed for it. Once that text file finds its way into the court's hands, are you saying that I can actually claim that the evidence is not admissible because someone who works at AOL might have had a grudge against me and falsified the server-side logs? That's ridiculous. It'd be up to me to prove that the logs had been falsified. I could do this a number of ways. I could compare the server log to my machine's logs to find that the logs disagree or check to see if I was even logged into my computer at that time. If I was, check the IM process' logs to see if it recorded sending that message out at any time.
Just interesting, what's Chain of Custody rules going to be like for SMS?
(For those who've never seen this term, any legal issues dealing with digital technology have pretty complicated rules called Chain of Custody meant to ensure lack of tampering with evidence. I'm guessing same applies to non-digital evidence, but I only heard the term as applied to forensics related to computer security).
"The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
Our country has been reduced to a giant open prison, with cameras monitoring our movements to realtime analysis of data and communication, sometimes i wonder what D-Day was all about, all those yanks/uk/russia/human beings died and for what ? fucking waste
no wonder i don't log in to comment
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/03/text_punk
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004252004,,
By HARRIET ARKELL
and JOHN KAY, Chief Reporter
PUNK rock fan Mike Devine sent an innocent text message containing lyrics by The Clash -- and was quizzed as a terror suspect after it was INTERCEPTED.
Computer worker Mike, 35, was confronted by a Special Branch cop at his office and taken for a grilling.
He was stunned to be shown a printout of his text which contained the words "gun" and "jet airliner".
Mike, who in his spare time plays bass in a Clash tribute group, had sent the lyric from the song Tommy Gun to a bandmate a month earlier.
Grilled
The cop accepted his explanation and let Mike go. But last night experts said the amazing incident proved NO phone call or text was now safe from monitoring in the war on terror. Mike, of Bristol -- who works for mobile firm Orange -- admitted: "I was bricking it."
He told how his tribute band London Calling -- named after a Clash album -- had been struggling to remember a line in Tommy Gun. His text to singer Reg Shaw, 35, read:
"How about this for Tommy Gun? OK -- SO LET'S AGREE ABOUT THE PRICE AND MAKE IT ONE JET AIRLINER FOR TEN PRISONERS."
Mike told how he was leaving a meeting at work last week when a Special Branch detective introduced himself.
Mike said: "I was thinking, 'God, what have I done?' We went into a room and sat down and he asked me if I knew about Special Branch.
"I said, 'Yes' -- even though I didn't really.
"He asked me lots of questions about my phone, such as was this my number and did I use it at the end of April. Then he produced a printout of a text and asked me if I had sent it.
Punk idols
Picture: REX
"I said, 'That's the lyrics from Tommy Gun'. I explained, 'I'm in a tribute band and was sending the lyrics to the singer.'
"The bloke said, 'Oh I see' and looked a bit embarrassed."
The song, written in the late 1970s, is about terrorists.
Mike said: "It hadn't even occurred to me that it might look a bit dodgy. The man wrapped the interview up quite quickly. I was so relieved to find out that was all it was. It was quite nerve-racking for Special Branch to come looking for you at work."
Terrorism expert Chris Dobson said: "It is clear from this incident that the computers at the GCHQ listening operation in Cheltenham have been programmed to listen in on all vocal and textual mobile phone traffic.
"They are probably programmed to pick out key words like bomb and hostage.
"Having this kind of surveillance is the price we have to pay in a modern society to protect us from terrorists."
# ARMED cops arrested council worker David Grey, 59, in Lanchester, Co Durham, after he told colleagues at his leaving do: "The chief executive should think himself bloody lucky I'm not the kind of person to use a gun." He spent 17 hours in a cell before being freed without charge.
They are even actively monitoring these messages. Be careful what you type, you might end up in the slammer sooner than you think.
Net sa best, mar it koe minder
I am glad that they had a record of text messages. And if I had my way, there would be surveillence cameras on every street corner so I could wave hi to mom :-). Listen, if you can have an eye(or ear :)) witness testify in court based on what s/he heard, then there should be no problems to keeping records of those conversations, text or otherwise. Seems to me that all these privacy freaks are the ones that like to do the bad things, and so have things they want to hide.
Satellites that can see your infrared image as you flee persecution. Cops that dress in military-style uniforms. Our local gendarmes look like a cross between US Marines and Batman: Jarheads with batbelts. And they're so on-edge that every "violater" doing 5 over the limit is for-sure cop killer (in their own heads), that they're ready to blow your head off in an atomic instant, one hand perched on their holster. By the time she gets to your car, her partner behind you maintaining a clear shot to the back of your head, she herself circling you like a mongoose approaching a snake, only to shine a 500 watt halogen flashlight in your eyes, then complain that you can't find your wallet (the light burned your retinas, but it's your own stupid fault for speeding). And they know, based on a quick "background" check, that your ATM card placed you at a convenience store in the last half hour and *know* that the address on your license is wrong even before they see it (the latter actually happened to me, but then again I was going 10 over).
Building-penetrating radar imaging. Cell phone tracking and triangulation. It goes on and on. The irony is that it's paid for by tax dollars and rammed-through legislation because of sensationalistic reporting like this Kobe thing.
It's not just the USA. I read somewhere the average Londoner gets photographed 300 times a day. Look out Australia, Canada, and every other place that thinks, "it can't happen here!" It probably already has.
It's merely a symptom of a much more significant syndrome: "Anguish of nations not knowing the way out..."
But really, people are far too trusting of the anonymity of the net. It's about as anonymous as any public place. Well, any public place in which you wear a name tag that is cross referenced to the phone book, your school records, and your past 7 years of credit card purchases.
And no, putting in phony information into web surveys doesn't help. Your IP is logged, which is traced back to your ISP, who knows what account you logged into, and usually where you were calling from. I've dimed out a fair number of wannabee crackers out there.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
They are even actively monitoring these messages. Be careful what you type, you might end up in the slammer sooner than you think.
Did you even read the story that you linked to? The guy sent it to the wrong person, who called the police. No monitoring involved.
A latent existence
Once your message is deposited on a drive that someone else owns, you've lost the chance to protect your privacy.
You're at the mercy of the people with access to your messages. I learned that when, months after cancelling a broadband IPS account, I discovered that the supposedly-defunct email accounts were left active and that ISP employees had access to the usernames and passwords for those accounts.(It wasn't a mistake; they keep email accounts alive in case an old customer comes back, and employees -- supervisors, in this case -- have access to passwords in case customers forget them.)
When I asked about privacy issues, the ISP told me they'd fire anyone who abused access to those accounts. Of course, that's if they get caught. Since I thought the account was cancelled and stopped looking at it months ago, my chances of catching someone posting email on that account were pretty slim. Text messages are no different.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
To me it is. Any publicized rape case is important, for two reasons. First, if the defendant did in fact rape the girl, it should be brought to light publicly and he should be punished appropriately...in the hopes that a highly publicized conviction will make people think twice before raping someone.
Secondly, I hate it when girls cry rape when it wasn't. Personally, I don't think Kobe did it, and if these text messages or an eyewitness prove he didn't, I hope he'll be exonerated and this girl publicly humiliated.
Do I care about this case because it's Kobe? No, but rape is a very real problem and it's stupid...with many rapes (I am NOT talking about honest to God, breaking into your car/house, rape at gunpoint, or the like), women could prevent them by not getting into a bad situation, and not using sex to get attention. Anything that makes men and women each think twice about their situations is a good thing, IMHO.
--trb
As soon as someone says 'No.', 'No, I don't want to.', stop.
See, you're missing exactly my point. "if a woman doesn't want to have sex, but just lays there or doesn't struggle, is it rape?" I never said anything about saying 'No'. Many women will not vocally consent, but they won't say stop either. They may not want to, but they don't say no. Is this rape? One of my friends got caught in just this situation...she said he raped her, he said she consented by being there, in his bedroom, not saying no. Surprised the hell out of him when she voiced her opinion the following day...
--trb