Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd May 2011 22:11 UTC
Permalink for comment 471717
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-04-03
Yes, and of course this moves the onus from proof of guilt to proof of innocence, which is TOTALLY contrary to how our legal systems are supposed to work. The problem for authorities is that the very means they use to implicate someone in a cybercrime - to gather all of this very circumstantial evidence - can be used to defend the individual from that crime, because at the end of the day there is no actual PROOF unless there is an eyewitness, that is was any specific individual. Keyloggers, screen recorders, packet recorders - all prove nothing about an individual unless there is something that can specifically tie that individual to the recorded actions.
Heck, according to some major news sources this is the very reason the US killed Bin Laden in cold blood - because it was going to be too complicated to prove his guilt at a trial. So it would seem a single bullet solved that problem for them.
That being said, it's also the case that on a daily basis court decisions are handed down based on so-called evidence that is at very best dubious, and incredibly circumstantial, so to a big degree the whole legal system is a joke anyway.