Quote:
Originally Posted by MBates
I was meaning to reference the risk of people taking say an email or text message which purports to be from a specific person and just concluding it is what it purports to be.
I am amazed at how often I get disclosure where the 'evidence' presented of a harassing series of messages are photographs of a screen of a cell phone displaying a message with the name of the accused at the top. No actual data is obtained as part of the investigation.
There is zero ability to authenticate that type of 'evidence' and yet experienced legally trained people will say "this is a harassing text from the accused." It could be, but you have no proof whatsoever that is what it is.
I have a very qualified computer forensics expert I rely on to tell me things you could never otherwise know about online posts, text messages, digital photos / videos etc. In the end that kind of evidence is what you really need.
That same expert can show you how in about 10 minutes he can fabricate messages that look authentic and could offer them up as proof that the Prime Minister said or did something horrible. Lots of people can be fooled very easily this way.
|
What's wrong with electronic evidence?!
