Analysis of MediaSentry Wins Music-Download Suit 51
An anonymous reader writes "A Dartmouth professor's analysis of MediaSentry problems helped win a New Hampshire woman's RIAA music-download lawsuit. 'Since all of Plaintiffs' claims are based on the assumption that MediaSentry's software and computer configuration are trustworthy and free of errors, and this log clearly represents a failure of the MediaSentry software to perform the operation it claims to describe, the reliability and validity of the MediaSentry method should be questioned,' wrote professor Sergey Bratus in his report, dated May 30. 'In my opinion, these materials leave critical aspects of MediaSentry's evidence collection process undocumented. In my opinion, they express unwarranted assumptions regarding both software and network technologies involved, and attempt to create an illusion of evidence-supported certainty where it does not exist.'"
The full report (PDF) is available online. It's worth noting that this victory was not the outcome of a court ruling; rather, a settlement was reached that did not require the defendant, Mavis Roy, to pay anything to the RIAA.
Rate (Score:1, Informative)
Holy shit, 100$/hour for writing that, 200$/hour for being in court!
Re:Spy sappin' my MediaSentry (Score:3, Informative)
If the DNA lab says that the victim's blood was found on your clothing, you can't just cry out "the records were falsified" without good reason to believe so.
Actually, you can. It is the responsibility of the forensic expert to demonstrate that there is a proper evidence chain and that every piece of software and hardware employed is approved for use in gathering evidence and can be held to the required standard. This is part of the reason why computer forensics evidence is expensive to obtain. Every step of the procedure has to be documented. MediaSentry didn't do this, they just ran a proprietary, unreviewed, uncertified, program and said 'look, magic 8-ball says this person did it! Trust us, we're experts!'