Slashdot Mirror
There's a Problem In the Silk Road Trial: the Jury Doesn't Get the Internet
sarahnaomi (3948215) writes "The trial began this week for Ross Ulbricht, the 30-year-old Texas man accused of being the mastermind behind the dark net drug market, Silk Road. But as the jury began hearing testimony in the case, it was clear the technological knowledge gap would impede the proceedings. Judge Katherine Forrest said right off the bat when the case began that "highly technical" issues must be made clear to the jury. "If I believe things are not understandable to the average juror, we will talk about what might be a reasonable way to proceed at that time," she said. After the first day of proceedings, Forrest told the prosecution to be more clear with explanations of concepts central to the case, noting she was unhappy with its "mumbo-jumbo" explanation of the anonymizing service Tor. She also requested all readings of chat transcripts include emoticons."
They help go toward intent and mood of the conversation. There's a difference between "I'll kill you" and "I'll kill you :)" as part of a conversation.
It's not that hard to explain this shit to people. I explain asymmetric encryption and routing to accountants all the time; it just takes some 20-30 minutes. Knowledge transfers surprisingly quickly.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I know a lot about Linux, but I do not work with Linux. However if there would be an issue at the department where I work and it would need some knowledge of Linux, I would be the go-to guy.
For all I know he used to work as an IT person and used TOR against the will of his employer and the only job he could get was as a border control person. ...
Or he hinks doing IT as a job sucks. Or
I know a LOT of people who have knowledge of other things outside their field of work. That does not mean anything by itself.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Don't think of the easy solution, think of the worst-case scenario.
For instance, now you have gun-cases juried only by people knowledgeable about - and presumably pro - weapons. Or finance cases juried only by people who work in finance. Or cases against the judiciary juried by the judiciary themselves.
The idea of a jury is to be "the man on the street". If you can't explain the crime committed to the man on the street, when he's forced to do nothing BUT listen to you for weeks on end, then maybe that law is too complex to enforce anyway.
Juries are, and always have been, required to understand things way out of their normal scopes. Any half-decent defence/prosecution will get them to the level of knowledge they need quickly. Imagine juries on complex financial fraud cases, or in cases steeped in the interpretation of thousands of separate by-laws. It has to be done, it can be done, and if you can't do it then you won't find much of a career as a lawyer.
If you can't explain the crime committed in simple enough terms for average people to get their head around within a matter of weeks, how do you expect average people to stay on the right side of the law in their daily lives?
Tor can be explained quite quickly. I could get a bunch of schoolkids to understand it in an hour, with zero computing knowledge at all. To get that into the heads of a bunch of non-computing 60-year-olds will take longer but not THAT much longer.
And, at the end of the day, even the judge has to understand what case they are trying. If they don't, they can't possibly guide the jury if they are ever required to.
If you or your opposition can't explain why what you did was, or was not, illegal in a matter of weeks to the majority of a bunch of average people, then the case is so grey-area that it's likely to collapse anyway.
Ambiguity is safer for the defense, not the prosecution. The prosecution has to demonstrate that a crime occurred and how that crime was carried out, beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor cannot describe, beyond a reasonable doubt, how the crime was conducted then the prosecutor will probably fail to get a conviction.
Lots of recent trials that required expert witnesses or forensic investigtators to ask the jury to believe them simply because of their credentials fell flat. The Casey Anthony trial is an example- the pathologist described the unique smell of death in the defendant's trunk, but obviously as she was acquitted they did not find his testimony compelling enough.
By contrast there's no real-world analog in this case; they can't have an investigator describe their gut feelings at smelling death. They have to demonstrate how, despite a service meant to help anonymize people, they found him, and the processes through which they were able to do so.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
But it doesn't help when the other side benefits from obfuscation and ambiguity and essentially trying to screw up your understanding.
If the prosecution tries to obfuscate, the judge can sanction them, and the jury can see they are being treated like fools. The basics of this case are not even technical:
1. Some people set up a marketplace where consenting adults could exchange goods and services.
2. The government thinks that should be a crime.
Everyone in the US is a peer of everyone else. It has NOTHING to do with your 'profressional' status or any other such bullshit. Or do you think a banker accused of stealing from his customers should only be judged by other bankers? An accused rapist should only be judged by men?
... Jury nullification seems to be massively overstated here on Slashdot - another meme that just wont die?