Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
RE: Acqusition of time
From: "Paul D. Robertson" <proberts () patriot net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:55:51 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, dave wrote:
Actually a good attorney could tear up any log system even with perfect time stamps. All that need would need to be proved was the fact that it could have been faked.
This simply isn't true. Just as physical evidence can be planted, photographic evidence could be faked, or forensics could be falsified, saying "it possibly could have been..." won't win you an instant acquittal. It takes lots of bumbling by the prosecution and its witnesses to give you a "Mark Furman" kind of out, even if you hire the dream team for your defense. Log files are admissable as machine records, and as such, they're valid evidence. While it'd be difficult to get a conviction on log files alone, it's not impossible, and really what you really want is enough to get the person to plea out anyway, it's much cheaper on the entire system. If you were to challenge the admissability, you'd have to show why they weren't admissable, and possibility isn't as strong in admissibility as it is in guilt. If I can show that the logs are normal, and how they produce their records, and what you would have done to make that happen, "they could be changed!" won't get you off any easier than "my PC was trojaned!" Which appears to be the new "dog ate my homework" excuse of note. Please note that for criminal cases (in .us anyway) the standard for not guilty is _reasonable_ doubt, not _any_ doubt. Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions proberts () patriot net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact." probertson () trusecure com Director of Risk Assessment TruSecure Corporation _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- Acqusition of time Brian Monkman (Jan 29)
- Re: Acqusition of time R. DuFresne (Jan 29)
- Re: Acqusition of time Paul D. Robertson (Jan 29)
- Re: Acqusition of time Volker Tanger (Jan 29)
- Re: Acqusition of time Charles W. Swiger (Jan 29)
- Re: Acqusition of time Luis Bruno (Jan 29)
- Re: Acqusition of time Charles W. Swiger (Jan 29)
- Re: Acqusition of time Luis Bruno (Jan 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Acqusition of time Noonan, Wesley (Jan 29)
- RE: Acqusition of time dave (Jan 29)
- RE: Acqusition of time Paul D. Robertson (Jan 29)
- RE: Acqusition of time dave (Jan 29)
- RE: Acqusition of time Paul D. Robertson (Jan 29)
- RE: Acqusition of time dave (Jan 29)
- RE: Acqusition of time dave (Jan 29)
- RE: Acqusition of time Tina Bird (Jan 29)
- Re: Acqusition of time Volker Tanger (Jan 29)
- Re: RE: Acqusition of time Paul D. Robertson (Jan 29)
- Re: RE: Acqusition of time Joseph S D Yao (Jan 30)
- Re: Acqusition of time Volker Tanger (Jan 29)