RIAA Security Expert's Quest For Reliability

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the ongoing case of UMG v. Lindor, Ms. Lindor has now moved to exclude the trial testimony of the RIAA's 'expert' witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson. Jacobson is the CTO and co-founder of Palisade Systems, Inc, and a teacher of internet security at Iowa State, but in his February 23rd deposition testimony she argues he failed to meet the reliability standards prescribed by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Groklaw and Slashdot communities participated in both the preparation of the deposition questions, and the vetting of the witness's responses."

Comments

Re:Geez too many links

[Tickletaint]

$50 says the submitter is from Windows/Linux land, where bombarding the user with useless options at every opportunity is somehow considered helpful.

Why exclude? No real problem with his testimony.

[The Rizz]

I don't see what the problem with his testimony is. He stated exactly what he was looking for, and exactly what he found within those parameters. Frankly, the defense attorney grilling him was being a complete dick for the most part by repeatedly asking him to verify something out of his area that he was never supposed to investigate. He freely admitted that any identification of who that IP address belonged to was not done by him, and he had no way to verify it; his testimony was about what IP was being used for filesharing, not who that IP belonged to.

Really, I'm surprised the defense isn't begging for him to be put up on the stand; from what I read I'd say that his testimony does more for the defense than the prosecution:
1) He states that the file was sent to that IP, but there is no way to know what computer actually received it. (helps with reasonable doubt)
2) He states that from the information obtained from her hard drive, that computer (or hard drive, at least) is definitely not the one used for file sharing. (The way this damages the prosecution's case should be obvious.)

The only problems I've seen anyone have with his testimony are that he's relying on the data he's given to be accurate (HTF else is he supposed to operate?), that he made a few minor errors in his testimony - i.e. mixing up some terms (this happens to people, and unlike a written deposition he cannot go back over it for mistakes before sending it in), and that he is inaccurate with some of what he says while trying to explain complex technical details to a layperson (everything taught to laypeople is like this; generally correct, even if not correct in specifics).

Going over his testimony, I did not see anything he actually did wrong; everything he stated was correct and he drew no conclusions that were not supported by the data he was given.

Re:Routine Motion

[Just Some Guy]

This sounds like an RIAA troll to me.

Ray, I know you mean well, and I'm glad that you post here.

Having said that, you have to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being an RIAA troll. This is Slashdot; people will argue with you for the sake of argument. That doesn't mean they're on some sinister agency's payroll, though. You'd even "foe'd" me once after calling me one. I'm not. I'd just disagreed with you on some point or another, but I probably hate them more than you (since it's your job to keep things on a professional level and I'm not so bound).

Again, thanks for contributing real content to Slashdot. Please don't cheapen it, though, by slinging names at everyone who argues with you. Want to see real trolling? Let people figure out that they can get a rise out of you. That will definitely draw them out.