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.
That is why I never used text messaging in the first place. THEY are watching us everywhere we go.
Be amusing when the judge asks for a translation of gems like "OMG! U R SO HOT, M8 LOL! CU@MY PLACE 4 SUM SEX & I WILL FELCH UR ASS!"
I think the more important thing to consider here is that this implies people actually care about the Kobe Bryant trial.
Scary.
I think if you communicate over a network that is regulated by the company itself, as well as a federal orginization, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. (like now)
This reminds me on, when the courts in Africa arranged, which "you i divorce" says three times by sms were not legally divorce. Sayings of "i divorce you" three times a certified divorce is, in the parts of the undeveloped world. I understand to separate they're, which goes, making it harder soon. you'll must it four times say.
Read journal when you are not understand
Judge: "Have the jurors reached a verdict?"
Jury: "Yes, your honor."
Judge: "Bailiff, please bring the vedrict to me."
(Bailiff brings paper to judge)
Judge: "Jurors, please state your verdict."
Jurors: "We find the defendant, Kobe Bryant, GLTY ON L CHRGS. LOL!!1! WTF?"
This is what I thought at first but then I RTFA and learned it is about being able to access the phone company's log of what you text message. I trust my privacy to no one and just assume that any thing I type is recorded and can be easily accessed. I find it best to whisper the important things directly in the persons ear.
Text messages bounce through the ether with no little or encryption, and can frequently be snooped upon with a little phone hardware hackery.
They're about as secure a form of communication as shouting across a room. A reasonable expectation of privacy would be "none at all".
"Don't ever say anything on e-mail or text messaging that you don't want to come back and bite you." Well Duh...
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
By memorizing the PGP source code, I'm able to encrypt all of my SMS. You'd think that'd be hard, but the really difficult part is keeping everyone's keys straight in your head.
They proved their inability or lack of desire to cooperate when GRC.com was getting DDoS from that kid using an earthlink acct.
But it goes without saying that any public or private service you use (tech wise) is going to be logged and stored.
I really dont worry about it much... if I have to do some mission impossible stuff I certainly dont use my cellphone or my cable modem. Low tech is the way to go. Payphones and Juno (sorry Juno).
Boredom's not a burden anyone should bear.
The providers have a TOS that you sign to get service. If you sign it, you allow them to log everything you do with their network, when you turn on your phone, who you call, a recording of the call, text messages, internet access (using mMode and such), and more.
got sig?
It must be noted that it is the accuser's text messages that are being retrieved.
This is not like a defendant is having his own messages used against him.
t
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?
The crazy thing is that in this age of EVERYTHING being recorded in some way or another (i.e. text messages, internet logs, etc.), there is no guarantee that your guilt or innocence is entirely accurate. I mean, although you might have a video recording of someone killing someone else, here's a news flash: YOU CAN EDIT VIDEOS! You can edit text. You can create a setup that will guarantee that someone will be thrown in jail, and there is nothing they can do to stop you. If, of course, you are skilled enough.
Note: I'm not claiming that Kobe is guilty or innocent, I'm just talking in general.
"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
So you think that if I FedEx a letter to someone I should expect FedEx to open it, photocopy it and store it in an archive somewhere? Or that if I make a phone call, I should expect that the telco tapes it and keeps the tape for an indefinite amount of time?
It's the same thing here really - SMSs are basically condensed phone messages, and it is definitely a reasonable expectation that your phone conversation is confidential between you and the other party, and that it stays that way.
There's a huge difference between storing who phoned who (or in the case of FedEx: "person Foo payed for a package to be sent to person Bar at YYYY-MM-DD") and actually storing the contents. In a reasonable privacy climate, phone companies should definitely be busted for this... but with Ashcroft et al. in charge, it is more likely that SMS retention becomes law rather than a punishable act.
The idea that the courts determine whether or not someone ACTUALLY IS GUILTY is a stupid and common American fallacy. (I don't know what it's like elsewhere.)
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, then if a court has found you guilty, then legally speaking you _are_ guilty, until and unless an higher court overturns that finding. It's called a "legal fiction" -- that is, it may not be true, but it is assumed to be for the purposes of running the legal system.
A similar thing is evident in civil procedures, where if you send a claim form to someone by first class post, it is assumed to arrive the next day. Even if it doesn't arrive until two weeks later, the counting of dates for procedure purposes still takes place from the day after it was sent. (Although in practice, the defendant can generally apply for an extension and will almost always get one).
Well yeah, that's why you have to also go to "Empty Recycle Bin"
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".
Remember in 1994 when Nicole Simpson's text archive had the ominous message:
Just to save you all a lot of trouble ...
If you are planning or executing a serious crime DO NOT BROADCAST INCRIMINATING MATERIALS using that text messaging that's all the rage now. Sure it may seem cool, but think about what you're doing.
__ I'm pushing the car and everything thats left into the river now __
__ It is two miles north of the bridge __
__ I hope no one other than you reads this message __
Of course, it would be better to not commit the crime to begin with. I'll wave the consulting fee since this is our first meeting.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Those "stupid messages" as you refer to them could shed a lot of light on the situation. A few possibilities:
1) text messages are consistent with what the defendant has been saying. Point for the prosecution, doesn't change things too much (IMO). Supporters of Bryant can argue that the text messages are there to help with the frame-up. Lots of legal stuff ensues.
2) text messages show the defendant boasting about sleeping with a celebrity or something along those lines. Major points for the defense. Shows inconsistencies in the defendent and behavior not consistent with someone who just went through a traumatic experience.
3) text messages are completely unrelated to the case.
The text messages are just another bit of evidence that can help push the case either way. If you don't want to rely on evidence for trials, what are you suggesting?
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
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.
You typically don't need a warrant to exhonorate someone.
There is the possibility that these messages could be used to acquit Kobe, but then be inadmissable against her if some perjury charge was brought up.
You generally don't have a right to keep evidence private (someone else's right to life trumps your right to privacy). You have a right to not incriminate yourself (I just love to blatantly split infinitives).
t
That joke sounds familiar...
You probably shouldn't click this.
I could send a message to anyone I know, saying "XXXXX just forced me to have sex with him".
Yeah, but if you wrote "I just had sex with Kobe Bryant, and it was totally great", then it's kinda hard to plea rape, now, isn't it?
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, then if a court has found you guilty, then legally speaking you _are_ guilty, until and unless an higher court overturns that finding.
I am not a lawyer, but...
From watching almost every episode of Law and Order, I believe it is the same way here in the States.
Uhh... I think you have your terms mixed up. The defendant in this case is Bryant. The plaintiff is the girl.
Here in Norway the phone companies store all text messages and phone logs for 3 months. The most scary thing is that they also store your position, the police can ask for your (cellphones) movements 2 months ago and the phone companies will willingly deliver this information.
I have been dreaming about the phone that could run java or C code fast enough to do real time encryption using gpg or some other secure system. I want both audio and text messages encrypted. IM (=jabber, anyway) systems for computers can already use GPG, but I am having a hard time convincing people I know to use it. They simply don't see the point. Most of them don't even use GPG for mail even though there are plug-ins available for almost any mail browser (using GPG for IM is somewhat harder).
I'm not sure the majority of people would bother to invest in a phone that could do encryption if it cost slightly more.
This reminds me of another "hot" issue: The Everywhere Outdoors Video surveillance System. This is coming to your local neighborhood soon. When I debate with people about this issue most people just say "So What?" and "I don't really care, I've got nothing to hide". Personally I would prefer big brother not being able to read my mail, listen in on my calls and view my movements live on cameras at all times - even if I don't have anything to hide....
Back to the secure phone: I am convinced phones like this never will be sold. The authorities won't allow not being able to listen in. So this would would require a phone that could run c or java or other code fast (for games or something) enough so the GNU community could make a open source solution for encryption that would work even though the phone was not intended for making secure calls.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
> If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info.
You haven't been to the USA lately, have you?
So, we need phones with automatic end to end encryption. First text, then eventually voice. Of course it would be kind of expensive at first, and would only work between models of the same phone, but for security end to end is the only way to go.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
From the Article: ATT didn't keep the messages, but they have a backup storage system which automatically backs up everything - including the text messages.
So it's not that they wanted to keep the messages - they just forgot to tell the backup program not to back them up, or delete them after a certain period of time.
Very interesting. I would be surprised if the other wireless companies (which immediately claimed they didn't keep messages around) didn't have the same problem.
Any professional company would have a backup system for their main servers. You really think they would go through the trouble and remove the text messages from that? What if the text message can't be delivered instantly and the server crashes? You would want to retrieve them from the backup system of course. This is not a trivial problem - you would really have to give this some thought.
Do i really think that the marketing-drones who were quick to repeat the official company line really thought this through? No.
If the news media is to be believed it would seem that any and all electronic documents of this nature - log files, etc. - are accepted at face value, while in reality the documents in question are only text files that could be fabricated by anyone with a text editor and a sense of humor.
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
Don't trust centralized electronic communications services. Period.
You're better off sending your personal communications via a $0.37 stamp in a tamper-evident envelope.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
- sending people who looked like they might drive while intoxicated to prison for years;
- castrating people who we arbitrarily decided might commit rapes at some point in the future;
- executing people who we felt might commit murder in the future?
Actually, that last one would probably be a real time saver, since the trial would be much shorter than it is now ("Who do you think?". "That guy over there". "What, the one with the squinty eyes?". "Yeah". "OK, he'll do")I realize you were trying to be funny, but apparently the phone companies ARE keeping track, as many have suspected anyway...
I wouldnt call that paranoia, id call it reality.. as now shown in a court of law..
Often paranoid's are correct, just a little extreme..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Something like this never has been a punishable act. Your comparison to FedEx is inane. The simple act of transmitting it means that multiple copies are generated all over the place. A better comparison would be calling somebody on the telephone and leaving a message for them when they are not home. You have no idea what happens to that sticky or who might happen to see it. Plus, the person who wrote the message down for you certainly is not obligated to destroy it or face criminal charges.
I always find it ironic that many of the people who are SO concerned about privacy are the same people who are always yakking on their cell phones, in public, about everything.
If you really want a private conversation with someone, you need to meet them face-to-face.
Proverbs 21:19
It would be nice of this was a standard part of the phone's firmware. I suspect many police/security services would not like it. They've successfully suppressed digital end-to-end encryption in the USA for all but "authorized" users.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The article gives examples from Medford, Oregon and Conyers, Georgia in which the defendants Text Messages were used.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has been used by governments the world over to justify eroding privacy for the sake of security. Whether the Fourth Amendment says anything about the legality of requiring text communications to be recorded, the intent is that the government must have good reason to suspect the person being searched, and be reasonably sure of what they expect to find and where they expect to find it. Requiring monitoring of citizens "just in case" they commit a crime flies in the face of that ideal.
It is eventually deleted and I'm not going to send anything important over something like a text message.
This is where "reasonable expectation of privacy" comes in. If a reasonable user of such a system is unaware that the messages may be saved, his expectation of privacy may be higher than if he was aware. If his conversations are being recorded without his knowledge, he is less likely to be careful about what he says. What makes wiretaps different from this is that the conversations cannot be recorded without him being a suspect first, and, theoretically at least, law enforcement must show reasonable cause that he is a suspect before the conversations can be recorded. Allowing law enforcement to retrieve conversations that took place before he was a suspect also violates this ideal.
The main problem, as stated in the article, is that most people aren't aware their messages can be retrieved as much as four months after they were sent.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
with text messaging along with camera phones, we need to really revisit privacy, and what's allowed where. it used to be the 'video vigilantes', but now with everyone and their grandma being more wired and armed (with recording and communication devices) things are going to change for good as far as peoples privacy. will we be carrying around personal 'jammers' to scramble any pics that others are trying to snap of us as we walk around the mall? it could happen, and tin foil hat folks will appreciate the 'freedom' that the tech brings...
dcvsdf
free ipod and free gmail!
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..."
"What's in those messages could help determine whether the sex was consensual or whether Bryant is guilty of rape as charged."
The text messages will determine whether his is guilty of rape? How about, they'll determine whether or not he's FOUND guilty of rape.
His guilt is completely separate from those stupid messages. The idea that the courts determine whether or not someone ACTUALLY IS GUILTY is a stupid and common American fallacy. (I don't know what it's like elsewhere.)
How could you possibly know the relevance of them without seeing them? What if she msgd a friend with 'LOL im gonna waste kobe in court he's so dumb lol time 2 get PAID!1!!!1!11!!
I would think that would be relevant. Also, if the msg was 'OMG Kobe Bryant just raped me!' that would be relevant too. Is it proof either way, nope. But then many cases are decided by circumstantial evidence such as this. Without a high-quality tamper-proof videotape or other bit of mostly never-existing proof, you have to work with what you have. When it's a case of 'he said, she said' like this one, anything can potentially help. Just because something isn't indisputable proof does NOT mean that it isn't evidence.
http://xkcd.com/386/
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"
These days, it is very odd that a company "forgets" to do something, especially if there is a cost involved (such as storage for billions of messages). Even if that cost is only a couple of hundred thousand a year, I find it hard to believe that someone didn't see that they could save some cash by getting rid of the text field after a few days.
ASCII files like emails/text messages are loaded directly.
Other documents, such as Word docs, faxs, etc. are OCR'ed (accuracy is not very good).
Next they run compelx searches for word combinations.
And low level lawyers/paralegals then read either everything, or sometiems just the search results, flagging things as Relevant/not-relevant.
The amount of data is HUGE. A certain level of Privacy is created by the hugeness of the data. The effect is similar to looking at an apartment building across the street, without optical aid. Someone might be naked with the shades open, but the amount of stuff you have to look at is is so much and your ability to retrieve fine detail is so little that you see nothing. Like it takes the binoculars/telescope to see the naked person, it takes a HUGE amount of cash to pay for man hours/computer time to wade through all the junk text to find the relevant details.
Now, if you know to start off looking at only a single person's stuff, from x date to y date, then you can find some interesting bits...
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This is important because the messages wouldn't have been available to just anyone, except that a judge found the evidence potentially important to finding the truth. A judge could also order that FedEx package opened, and it would be justified if it helped discover the truth in a case. It's also important to note that, for now, the only person reading these SMS messages is the judge himself, so he can decide if they are relevant. If they are, he turns them over to the lawyers so they can use them or prepare to argue against them. If they really aren't relevant, no one else will get to see them.
Boom Shanka
Could someone tell me what bearing this could possibly have on determining if Kobe is guilty?
If the messages contain something along the lines of "hey, I just got laid by Kobe, isn't that awesome?", then it would quickly dismantle the plaintiff's case. However, how can we be certain the messages have not been tampered with? If the messages indicate that the accusation is bullshit, then the plaintiff could simply say the messages were not her's. There could be no proof either way.
On the otherhand, if the messages express "hey, Kobe just raped me!", we still know nothing. If the victim is claiming she was raped now, how is a message at any point in time after the rape going to strengthen her case? The answer is, it does't. If I am lying at t[n+1], the same lie at t[n] does not make my statement true.
So what we ultimately have here is... nothing. You would think that a judge with a strong comprehension of logic would realize this and not even bother.
Join Tor today!
Let me see...
I compose a text message and hit send. It is sent to the network. There is now two copies on the message - the one on my phone and the one on the network. The network determines the closest access to the recepiant and forwards the message - there are now three copies of the message. If the recepiant is not available, the message is transfered to storage instead of to the access point closest to the recepiant - still three copies, but now when the recipiant is available, the network forwards the message to the closest access point (copy four, now) for delivery.
For those with per-message pricing, there is additional accounting and possibly copies for use in billing disputes (RTFA, this is mentioned).
The postcard CAN be read by anyone handling it in the system but there is no need for copies to be made (same for th eFedEx example) while the text message REQUIRES copies - multiple copies - for delivery.
Interesting article from just two days ago...
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.