Comment Re:My juror experience in a computer forensics tri (Score 1) 82
Well... I have much to say....
First of all, I think it is unfair to say that all Police officers plant evidence. There are some really decent and intelligent LEOs out there. And.. There are some really indecent and dumb LEOs out there too..
In my field (and Digital Forensics is my field), there is too much room for error to automatically assume that because someone has CP on their machine, they must be guilty of the criminal act of possessing it, or because they may have had in in a shared folder they must be guilty of promoting it with criminal intent. I think the really "computer literate" people here know what the possibilities are. Between the ignorance of the "dumb cops", and the ignorance of the average computer user that just uses his or her computer for checking email and browsing the Internet, there is MUCH room for an innocent person to get caught up in a scenario where they are facing jail time for something which they are not criminally culpable of. And this is why we need GOOD Forensic Examiners on both sides of this issue. Now before you belabor this paragraph with arguments, learn what "criminal intent" means, "mens rea" means, and understand that "ignorance" is not a negative word and nor does it equate to guilt; as a matter of fact, often times it proves just the opposite.
Now I am not sure that requiring a Forensic Examiner to have a P.I. License is the right way to go. The average P.I. that has managed to get into the Computer Forensics field is going to have less than 10 years of experience, and in most cases with this becoming a booming industry, less than 5 years; now. How can these guys expect to hold a candle to people like Brian Carrier, Dan Farmer, and Andrew Rosen, who would have a hard time getting the required hours that most states expect to grant a P.I. License? So, in requiring that P.I. License for Forensic Examiners, we have eliminated the most skillful examiners from working very critical cases; that can have life altering effects on people. By requiring Computer Forensic Examiners to have a P.I. License we are forsaking TRUE skill for control of the digital forensics industry. This is not very comforting to me.
The scariest thing about a criminal prosecution for CP related charges, is to have a "computer illiterate Jury" that can be swayed by a load of crap for a Prosecutor and/or the ignorance of a Detective. This is why a GOOD Forensic Examiner will not only know how to properly conduct a Computer Forensic Examination, but also how to explain what he or she has done in layman's terms, where a Jury can understand it. It should not be taken so lightly that the allegations that a Law Enforcement Officer might make could take 20 years of a person's life away from them.
R U Digital?
First of all, I think it is unfair to say that all Police officers plant evidence. There are some really decent and intelligent LEOs out there. And.. There are some really indecent and dumb LEOs out there too..
In my field (and Digital Forensics is my field), there is too much room for error to automatically assume that because someone has CP on their machine, they must be guilty of the criminal act of possessing it, or because they may have had in in a shared folder they must be guilty of promoting it with criminal intent. I think the really "computer literate" people here know what the possibilities are. Between the ignorance of the "dumb cops", and the ignorance of the average computer user that just uses his or her computer for checking email and browsing the Internet, there is MUCH room for an innocent person to get caught up in a scenario where they are facing jail time for something which they are not criminally culpable of. And this is why we need GOOD Forensic Examiners on both sides of this issue. Now before you belabor this paragraph with arguments, learn what "criminal intent" means, "mens rea" means, and understand that "ignorance" is not a negative word and nor does it equate to guilt; as a matter of fact, often times it proves just the opposite.
Now I am not sure that requiring a Forensic Examiner to have a P.I. License is the right way to go. The average P.I. that has managed to get into the Computer Forensics field is going to have less than 10 years of experience, and in most cases with this becoming a booming industry, less than 5 years; now. How can these guys expect to hold a candle to people like Brian Carrier, Dan Farmer, and Andrew Rosen, who would have a hard time getting the required hours that most states expect to grant a P.I. License? So, in requiring that P.I. License for Forensic Examiners, we have eliminated the most skillful examiners from working very critical cases; that can have life altering effects on people. By requiring Computer Forensic Examiners to have a P.I. License we are forsaking TRUE skill for control of the digital forensics industry. This is not very comforting to me.
The scariest thing about a criminal prosecution for CP related charges, is to have a "computer illiterate Jury" that can be swayed by a load of crap for a Prosecutor and/or the ignorance of a Detective. This is why a GOOD Forensic Examiner will not only know how to properly conduct a Computer Forensic Examination, but also how to explain what he or she has done in layman's terms, where a Jury can understand it. It should not be taken so lightly that the allegations that a Law Enforcement Officer might make could take 20 years of a person's life away from them.
R U Digital?
