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.
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".
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
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"
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