There's a Problem In the Silk Road Trial: the Jury Doesn't Get the Internet 303
sarahnaomi (3948215) writes "The trial began this week for Ross Ulbricht, the 30-year-old Texas man accused of being the mastermind behind the dark net drug market, Silk Road. But as the jury began hearing testimony in the case, it was clear the technological knowledge gap would impede the proceedings. Judge Katherine Forrest said right off the bat when the case began that "highly technical" issues must be made clear to the jury. "If I believe things are not understandable to the average juror, we will talk about what might be a reasonable way to proceed at that time," she said. After the first day of proceedings, Forrest told the prosecution to be more clear with explanations of concepts central to the case, noting she was unhappy with its "mumbo-jumbo" explanation of the anonymizing service Tor. She also requested all readings of chat transcripts include emoticons."
Peers? (Score:3, Interesting)
If we're to believe that Ross Ulbricht is really a internet and tor mastermind surely a Jury of his peers would require some sort of technical experience. While this might not require someone to be a professional, it should require some level of subject matter experience. It does make me wonder, what other "for cause" jury selection criteria was also avoided?
Re:Peers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone in the US is a peer of everyone else. It has NOTHING to do with your 'profressional' status or any other such bullshit. Or do you think a banker accused of stealing from his customers should only be judged by other bankers? An accused rapist should only be judged by men?
Re: (Score:2)
If we're to believe that Ross Ulbricht is really a internet and tor mastermind surely a Jury of his peers would require some sort of technical experience.
Oh, hell.
Ulbrich isn't a master criminal mastermind --- he's just another greedy, babble-mouthed, geek with a handful of technical tricks and an ego the size of the planet.
Jury of your peers (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, in cases like this, the notion of a "jury of your peers" should be extended to include technical competence. In other words, instead of asking the prospective jurors about their views on the death penalty, they could ask about their knowledge of DNS or BGP.
Re: (Score:3)
So who serves on juries of those who are mentally unstable, or politicians (or am I repeating myself?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that to the list of politicians that should be locked up or maybe even just shot... (probably all of them)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jury of your peers (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, "jury of your peers" is British, not American. It means commoners get tried by a jury of commoners, whereas a lord is tried by jury of lords--usually the entire House of Lords convened as a jury, in fact. That happened very rarely; one can see a fictional account of how such a trial would be conducted in Dorothy Sayer's Clouds of Witnesses. Even in Britain, this is now obsolete, as the old legal distinctions of subject, commoner and lord are largely abolished; one is simply a British citizen, now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's true (mostly; it's really the English and Welsh legal system, not the non-existent British legal system) --- but it's missing the underlying point.
You have to realise that in the English and Welsh legal system that the progression of cases through appeals traditionally led to the House of Lords as the highest court of the land. Peers of the realm (including Lords) had the right to have their case first heard in the House of Lords --- but in doing so had no right of appeal to any judgement, as th
Re:Jury of your peers (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think of the easy solution, think of the worst-case scenario.
For instance, now you have gun-cases juried only by people knowledgeable about - and presumably pro - weapons. Or finance cases juried only by people who work in finance. Or cases against the judiciary juried by the judiciary themselves.
The idea of a jury is to be "the man on the street". If you can't explain the crime committed to the man on the street, when he's forced to do nothing BUT listen to you for weeks on end, then maybe that law is too complex to enforce anyway.
Juries are, and always have been, required to understand things way out of their normal scopes. Any half-decent defence/prosecution will get them to the level of knowledge they need quickly. Imagine juries on complex financial fraud cases, or in cases steeped in the interpretation of thousands of separate by-laws. It has to be done, it can be done, and if you can't do it then you won't find much of a career as a lawyer.
If you can't explain the crime committed in simple enough terms for average people to get their head around within a matter of weeks, how do you expect average people to stay on the right side of the law in their daily lives?
Tor can be explained quite quickly. I could get a bunch of schoolkids to understand it in an hour, with zero computing knowledge at all. To get that into the heads of a bunch of non-computing 60-year-olds will take longer but not THAT much longer.
And, at the end of the day, even the judge has to understand what case they are trying. If they don't, they can't possibly guide the jury if they are ever required to.
If you or your opposition can't explain why what you did was, or was not, illegal in a matter of weeks to the majority of a bunch of average people, then the case is so grey-area that it's likely to collapse anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, now you have gun-cases juried only by people knowledgeable about - and presumably pro - weapons. Or finance cases juried only by people who work in finance. Or cases against the judiciary juried by the judiciary themselves.
There are plenty of people such as retired army and other law enforcement personnel, antiques dealers, pawn brokers, etc that would have extensive knowledge of guns and not necessarily have a strong political opinion on gun rights for or against.
The idea of a jury is to be "the man on the street". If you can't explain the crime committed to the man on the street, when he's forced to do nothing BUT listen to you for weeks on end, then maybe that law is too complex to enforce anyway.
Juries are, and always have been, required to understand things way out of their normal scopes. Any half-decent defence/prosecution will get them to the level of knowledge they need quickly. Imagine juries on complex financial fraud cases, or in cases steeped in the interpretation of thousands of separate by-laws. It has to be done, it can be done, and if you can't do it then you won't find much of a career as a lawyer.
The problem isn't teaching them so much as their in ability to assess truthfulness. I could make lots of very misleading statements on tor to someone who knows nothing or very little about it. The jury does not get to ask questions. If they find a statement to so
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of people such as retired army and other law enforcement personnel, antiques dealers, pawn brokers, etc that would have extensive knowledge of guns and not necessarily have a strong political opinion on gun rights for or against.
I guess you didn't understand what ledow meant when he wrote, "think of the worst-case scenario".
Re: (Score:2)
Jurors, at least in the USA, are able to ask questions during a trial. They can't ask them directly while court is in session but they are allowed and sometimes encouraged to relay questions in written form to the judge.
The case I sat as a juror for we didn't end up needing to ask any questions because the judge asked them all when the lawyers on both sides appeared to be incapable of doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, now you have gun-cases juried only by people knowledgeable about - and presumably pro - weapons.
I can imagine a jury of informed gun people laughing at the definitions of "assault" weapons, that are virtually identical to other weapons in all the ways that really matter, but are illegal simply because "it looks dangerous".
But then again, when you have Diane Feintein saying that a certain configuration of an otherwise acceptable deer hunting rifle makes it "legal to hunt humans" (yes, she said that), you end up with a law based on hysterics.
Re:Jury of your peers (Score:5, Interesting)
There is currently a big debate within legal circles in the UK as to what to do about juries in complex fraud cases, where its near to impossible to explain to a lay person actually was, and how it was conducted, because they have no understanding of major international financial markets.
One proposal is to have a board of judges which are well versed in the financial profession sit in such cases without a jury, which understandably makes some people uneasy.
Jury-less cases have been heard in the UK as far back as the 1970s when related to terrorism offences, where the offence was of a complex type (eg, financial in nature - funding and money laundering for terrorist groups in Northern Ireland) or where there has been a history of proven jury tampering.
A proposal gathering speed is to include level of education and area of employment in jury selection, so rather than a completely random jury you do indeed get a jury which has a greater understanding of the specifics involved.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
where its near to impossible to explain to a lay person
If there is a law that the majority of people do not understand - either because it is too complex to understand (unlikely) or because nobody is good at explaining it (more likely) - then there is a problem with the law. I'd go further an argue that if a person of reasonable intelligence cannot defend themselves, i.e. if a person has a better chance of winning a case depending on the lawyer they pay for, then the law cannot deliver justice.
The exceptions to jury trial that have existed in the UK are usually
Re: (Score:3)
If there is a law that the majority of people do not understand - either because it is too complex to understand (unlikely) or because nobody is good at explaining it (more likely) - then there is a problem with the law.
You are assuming the problem is with the law, when in many cases the problem is not with the law but rather with what the defendant did to break the law.
Its very well to say "trying to gain monetary reward through dishonesty is illegal" rather than having complex fraud laws - but you still have to explain to a jury just how that ponzi scheme that spans 15 shell companies, 8 futures markets, 4 currency markets and 32 bank accounts and involves moving pennies around several million times a day or purchasing 3
Re: (Score:3)
Your thinking is what fuels the divide in punishments between the thug who mugs a person for $63, and the Wall Street bankster who mugs the nation for trillions. Your inner-chimp can understand instinctually why mugging a person is wrong, and why the law should be against it -- the complex multi-layered fancy suit wearing type of mugging however, is completely incomprehensible on that instinctual level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That you have a right to a "Jury of your peers" is a misunderstanding; it is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. That concept was a British common law one, established by the Magna Carta, wherein nobles would be tried with a jury composed of nobles, and commoners with a jury of commoners. Since titles of nobility, etc. are blocked by U.S. Constitution, that means everyone is a "commoner", so everyone is your peer.
However, if I ever found myself being prosecuted, I would certainly much rather the jurors be com
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is a fucking stupid idea and anyone who thinks it is a good idea is an idiot.
Lets say you have a fund manager (say Bernie Madoff) who is accused of mishandling the clients money and enriching himself. Who should be on the jury, other fund managers? You have just created a situation where there basically are no enforcable laws.
If you want a real life example of how stupid an idea this is, look no farther than the police. Ever hear of a cop getting a traffic ticket? Of course not. As soon as they
Reality is the absolute opposite (Score:2)
In US jury trials, there are almost never any jurors really knowledgeable about the topic of the trial, if the topic is of any complexity. These candidate experts are reliably weeded by by peremptory challenges during the jury selection by the side with the weaker arguments.
This is a perennial problem with US patent trials with regular international repercussions: Every other civilized nation lets expert judges decide these trials, the US uses farmer jurors from certain Eastern Texas districts who are quick
Re: (Score:2)
However is slashdot is any indication. It may be hard to find bias jury of peers on technical topics.
The amount of passion I have seen about topic like Text Editors, Operating Systems, Programming Languages, Data interchange formats... It may be hard to pick a jury of people who knows about this stuff, however is able to make an unbiased opinion from the facts.
Lets say we were jury for a hacking case.
Bias one: Many people feel that hackers are justified because it was the victim's fault for not having supe
A lot of circumstance and some suspicious experts (Score:2)
My read so far based on the video blogpost I saw on http://beta.watchmybit.com last night is that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence and not a lot of hard facts.
Also, the agent who worked Chicago border control seems to know an aweful lot about IT and TOR that makes me wonder why he's working packaged duty.
Starting to smell like a lot of planted evidence...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Dumb it down? (Score:2)
Perhaps some pictures, with primary colours only, might help? Narrated by Dora the Explorer maybe? Or Peppa Pig?
Sometimes you just need a better, more educated jury rather than a dumbed down series of explanations - the Judge would probably have an issue if the prosecution spent a week explaining Tor in single syllable words and interpretive dance...
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe have the ability to provide a "friend to the jury". Much like an opinion or statement about a case can be filed as a "amicus curae" brief (friend of the court), perhaps being able to give the jury a (hopefully neutral re: the case) expert in the field to ask questions of.
Re: (Score:2)
Any such opinions or statements would have to be signed off by both prosecution and defence before the jury sees it, as its an outside influence on the case. I can see many situations where wording alone would be an issue for either party in the case...
Emoticons make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
They help go toward intent and mood of the conversation. There's a difference between "I'll kill you" and "I'll kill you :)" as part of a conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
SILENCE ... I KILL YOU!!!!!!
Comment removed (Score:3)
"cloistered plutocracy" attempted defintion (Score:2)
"cloistered plutocracy" = rich fat people who are members of the clergy
Intelligence insulted? (Score:2)
That's sort of insulting IMHO, to refer to a technical description as "mumbo-jumbo". Also, having once had a web site titled "mumbo jumbo" that caught me some flack for the name itself, I know that the words "mumbo jumbo" are racially charged. Overall, not words that should be coming from this judge's mouth. Who cares about the jurors when this judge's manners are clearly setting a bias against the defendant as just one member of this "mumbo jumbo" society of shady "techies" that go around mucking up our si
Asked That All Chat Transcripts Include Emoticons (Score:5, Funny)
not just the jury (Score:4)
It's always seemed to me that it is critical that the judge be, if not expert, at least well-educated in areas of science, philosophy, religion, etc. which are pertinent to the case. How can a judge properly rule on admissibility of evidence (e.g. all those cases involving data sent through an open home router) or validity of objections if he doesn't comprehend the technological or cultural situation?
Re: (Score:2)
Admissibility of evidence is a question of law, not a question of fact. The judge *is* the expert in those questions for the purpose of the trial. The factual nature of evidence is not relevant to whether it is legal to present. Appeals courts are where a superior expert (judge) or a panel of experts examines where the questions of law were determined correctly.
Questions of fact are determined by juries. In the American system at least it is the job of the opposing counsel to to question the relevant and va
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, questions of law and questions of fact are not entirely separable. Being able to apply the law correctly often calls for an proper understanding of the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Juries aren't supposed to bring in outside information? Yet many of them are empaneled already having a firm grasp of arithmetic and the English language and how a gun works and how Tor works etc etc.
Juries aren't supposed to have outside information about the specific case at hand. Information about the world in general is expected, including aspects of the world relevant to the case. Otherwise all trials would start with a jury of newborns.
The Only Concept Juries Need To Understand (Score:4, Informative)
Jury Nullification
http://www.vocativ.com/underwo... [vocativ.com]
Re:The Only Concept Juries Need To Understand (Score:5, Insightful)
... Jury nullification seems to be massively overstated here on Slashdot - another meme that just wont die?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, we're just more logical. I'm not a libertarian, per se, but I understand that jury nullification is a check on abuse of power. It has downsides (see the history of the South), but it also is an escape hatch for an draconian government. Our constitution guarantees you a trial by your peers (i.e. you are supposed to be judged by the community, not the government) and if that community finds you innocent then away you go. We swept jury nullification away because trials by "peers" weren't working so well wi
Re: (Score:3)
Your explanation leaves something to be desired, it never points out what the crime was, who the victim was and how the perpetrator escaped punishment.
Jury nullification happened when a white person was brought to trial for a crime against a black person, that the jury of white people then refused to find the accused guilty, or actaully acquitted them.
I'm sure there have been other more positive instances of Jury Nullification, but the racially charged and obviously unjust misuse is what gets trotted out as
Does the judge understand? (Score:2)
If the judge orders the lawyers to give inaccurate information it could lead to an injustice in either direction.
There is no right to a jury "of one's peers" (Score:2)
In the US we have no right to a jury "of our peers" as we generally think of it.
It's one of those things that people think is in the Constitution but in reality is not [usconstitution.net].
We have the right to a jury trial. The jury has to be impartial.. It has to be in the state that the crime was committed. And that's it.
The only way we get a jury "of our peers" is if you consider that the American ideal says that we are all peers, regardless of gender, race, religion, education, experience, etc.
In the case of this specifi
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but you spelled it wrong!
Re: (Score:3)
Have I forgotten something else you're likely to say?
English noobs
I'm not sure whether it's okay by /.'s terms of use to share an account between multiple persons, but anyway: Pleased to meet you.
Re:Jurors (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that hard to explain this shit to people. I explain asymmetric encryption and routing to accountants all the time; it just takes some 20-30 minutes. Knowledge transfers surprisingly quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not write-up an easy to understand guide online & send them links instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you need to be obscenely verbose, or you need to teach people how to learn. People aren't taught to learn, so we can't reliably create a document that follows a fast-uptake model. We can teach any individual or small group something by interacting with them--by talking to them, answering their questions, and watching their reactions to see when we're losing them--and we can write books which will teach nearly anyone anything, but we can't write books that will teach all individuals in the same sh
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't help when the other side benefits from obfuscation and ambiguity and essentially trying to screw up your understanding.
Re:Jurors (Score:5, Insightful)
But it doesn't help when the other side benefits from obfuscation and ambiguity and essentially trying to screw up your understanding.
If the prosecution tries to obfuscate, the judge can sanction them, and the jury can see they are being treated like fools. The basics of this case are not even technical:
1. Some people set up a marketplace where consenting adults could exchange goods and services.
2. The government thinks that should be a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's the defence that has more to gain by confounding the jurors.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
And the defense can accomplish this best by doing very little while letting the prosecution lead the jury through the muddy waters.
Re:Jurors (Score:5, Interesting)
It's very hard to explain "this shit" to people when there's someone else equally knowledgeable as you determined to explain why your explanation is wrong.
Asymmetric encryption. Do you explain P vs NP, why NP-Complete is almost certainly not in P but the problems that asymmetric encryption are built on aren't known to be either NP-Complete or P.
NP is a decision problem - but encryption isn't a yes/no problem. How can problems that only have yes/no answers be used to encrypt?
Muddy the water some more - PRIMES is in P. Do you really want to have to explain the difference between constructive and existential proofs while someone is interrupting every time you say anything that isn't 100% accurate.
You've only got to look at the climate change "debate" to see this effect in force. Climate scientists are playing a game of whack-a-mole and the general public cannot tell which side to believe. There are always questions and doubts that can be raised - the mark of a good scientist is asking the questions for which the answer is interesting. The mark of a good defense attorney is raising questions for which cast doubt on the reliability of the witness. The role of the judge is to make sure that the questions that the lawyer asks is relevant to the case - and that's where it gets hard when you've got two experts in their field debating something and one (or both) has an agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if it's in any way relevant. Since whats-his-name admitted he set it up and it wasn't cracked, no.
Re: (Score:3)
The best explanation of asymmetric crypto (not taking authentication into account) that I've seen is mixing two colors of paint to create a third color. Each party can derive the other party's color by "subtracting" their color from the shared mixture. But an intermediary has no way of determining which two colors were mixed. This is an example that pretty much anyone can understand.
Re: (Score:3)
Been counters just decided there was no material difference between actually understanding and faking it so you would stop babbling at them.
Did you test them?
Re:Jurors (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of recent trials that required expert witnesses or forensic investigtators to ask the jury to believe them simply because of their credentials fell flat. The Casey Anthony trial is an example- the pathologist described the unique smell of death in the defendant's trunk, but obviously as she was acquitted they did not find his testimony compelling enough.
By contrast there's no real-world analog in this case; they can't have an investigator describe their gut feelings at smelling death. They have to demonstrate how, despite a service meant to help anonymize people, they found him, and the processes through which they were able to do so.
Re:Jurors (Score:5, Informative)
Ambiguity is safer for the defense, not the prosecution. The prosecution has to demonstrate that a crime occurred and how that crime was carried out, beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor cannot describe, beyond a reasonable doubt, how the crime was conducted then the prosecutor will probably fail to get a conviction.
No, that's not true-- formally, they have only to show that a crime occurred. (That's called corpus delicti [merriam-webster.com]-- which, despite popular misconception, does not require a corpse.)
However, what they do have to show is how they know that the defendant is the one who did the crime. If understanding how they know this means they need to explain an internet investigation unmasking Tor anonymization, they may very well need some technical explanations.
Re: (Score:2)
Have we considered that the Casey Anthony jurors were total fucking idiots? To have perverted justice in this way?
(obviously I don't mean this if they were people of color
Re: (Score:3)
this is why slashdot needs a +1 sad but true tag
Re: (Score:3)
That's the secret: the side that uses a car analogy secures the victory.
Re: (Score:2)
Trials should be about truth, and knowledge. However, they are not.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, these are people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Probably not educated professionals.
Re: (Score:3)
An accountant has no frame of reference for this shit. Education doesn't magically make you understand things; you have to have something to attach it to. Accountants are not mathematicians and do not have any theoretical basis to understand the security concepts behind any form of encryption (plaintext and ciphertext analysis, key exchange protocols, etc.) or routing protocols.
What education do you think an accountant has which makes it easier for them to understand that, for example, a computer doesn
Re: (Score:3)
Well, accountants by trade are:
Re:Jurors (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody outside of IT is going to have a clue how tor works.
Plenty of people have hobbies and interests outside of work. Lots of tor knowledge would be hard but you probably don't really need that you just need someone who knows about ip and routing, and tunneling which are common. The litigators should be able to explain the necessary elements of tor to someone with at least that much background. If they can't I'd say they don't understand themselves and therefor haven't got a case.
Should you limit the jury selection to IT professionals?
Limit to IT professionals no but I think a "jury of your peers" really ought to mean people with some knowledge about the tools used in the crime at least as much knowledge as the defendant is supposed to possess. Rather than what most voir dire process seem to do to day which is select for people who know nothing about the issue involved.
If you ran a construction firm and we being prosecuted for fraud or something after a bridge collapse don't you think the jury should have members that know somethings about materials science and masonry? I think that would be fair.
Who guards the guards? (Score:2)
If you ran a construction firm and we being prosecuted for fraud or something after a bridge collapse don't you think the jury should have members that know somethings about materials science and masonry? I think that would be fair.
The jury of your peers is supposed to be representative of the community as a whole --- and that is essential to keep the system from being corrupted for "the good of the team."
Think of the rage that surrounds every police shooting or choke-hold death.
Rape on campus. Bishops sheltering priests who sexually abuse children. The "watchdogs" who presided over the physical decay and medical malpractice in our Veterans' Hospitals.
Re: (Score:3)
If you ran a construction firm and we being prosecuted for fraud or something after a bridge collapse don't you think the jury should have members that know somethings about materials science and masonry? I think that would be fair.
Not necessarily, it would depend on your defense. You may not want someone who understands civil engineering because they may disagree with the facts you present and be able to convince the other jurors to ignore them or to downplay them. You have weakened your lawyer's ability to tailor the narrative to your advantage and thus increased the risk of you losing. Having a jury your expert can educate and whose testimony supports your lawyer's narrative would be more beneficial. As anecdotal evidence, I was on
Re: (Score:3)
Limit to IT professionals no but I think a "jury of your peers" really ought to mean people with some knowledge about the tools used in the crime at least as much knowledge as the defendant is supposed to possess.
If you take this idea to its logical conclusion, you would have only police officers on the jury for crimes committed by police officers. Do you see any problem with that?
Re: (Score:3)
Limit to IT professionals no but I think a "jury of your peers" really ought to mean people with some knowledge about the tools used in the crime at least as much knowledge as the defendant is supposed to possess
I don't think you know how messed up our courts are. You're not supposed to rely on your pre-existing knowledge of what tor is or how it works. You are supposed to work with the definition given by the expert witness.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What an idiotic idea. First of all, everybody in the US is a peer of everyone else. We don't have nobility or castes. You may think you are somehow special, but you are not.
Other than that, you think a medical malpractice suit should only have physicians on the jury? Maybe a rape trial should only have men on the jury.
There is nothing special about IT. If a jury can have explained to them medical terms, it can have IT explained. If a jury can have a crash reconstruction explained, it can have IT expla
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They don't just 'draw names at random'. The lawyers, in front of a judge, get to question the prospective jurors. Someone with an IQ of 50 is not going to be selected.
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of juries everyone (currently) is a peer of everyone else. I would have thought that was obvious.
Define peers. (Score:2)
Should someone with a BS in Computer Science accept someone with a BA in Computer Information Systems as a peer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes in fact you should limit it to I.T. professionals. After all they would be a jury of peers.
Wouldn't it make more sense to limit it to drug dealers?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes in fact you should limit it to I.T. professionals. After all they would be a jury of peers.
Depends if they are using TOR or smother network...
Re: (Score:2)
How do you fill that knowledge gap? Nobody outside of IT is going to have a clue how tor works. Should you limit the jury selection to IT professionals?
Tor works via a series of tubes.
uh, if this is a bag of pipes, isn't it bad music? (Score:2)
so I'm so confused, your honor. there is this thing of radio pipes, right? but you can hide pipes inside of pipes, so you are running poo inside of drinking water? but it's drugs instead of poo? and they are stuffing fake money in with the poo, except it runs the other way? and it's all hidden so we can't see it, except bad guys can, and sometimes the cops? except it wasn't really there?
you got any booze in that desk? I need a big swallow...
Re: (Score:2)
Tor is like caller ID block, how hard is that. someone can still figure out who is calling you if you have access to the right data and equipment
Re: (Score:2)
Should you limit the jury selection to IT professionals?
Well, at least in the US, it's supposed to be "a jury of your peers", so they should select only from people with similar qualifications and similar intelligence. I'd never be worried about going before a jury of my peers, but I'd never want my fate in the hands of the average retards picked for jury duty.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of IT people don't know how IT works. Because a lot of IT people aren't really in IT, but are managers of change. Very few IT people follow enough of the IT world to be able to have divergent conversations spanning various IT related issues.
Hell, I've met "Networking" professionals who don't have a clue about the OSI model and what it means. To them networking is plugging a bunch of switches together. These people couldn't build a patch cord to save their life.
And quite frankly, a jury of his peers do
Re: (Score:2)
These people couldn't build a patch cord to save their life.
That's not IT either. And cheaper to just buy them. (Having said that, yes, I can build a patch cord....)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jurors (Score:5, Funny)
Probably at Monoproce.
Re: (Score:2)
Right next to the switches that can handle that extra 578 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
So where can I buy 900 foot runs of cable that have the ends already on them that I can fish through conduit easily? Right next to the switches that can handle that extra 578 feet.
Why are you assuming Ethernet?
Re: (Score:2)
So where can I buy 900 foot runs of cable that have the ends already on them that I can fish through conduit easily?
Monster Cable - and they're made with gold for extra data clarity.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't explain the joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. Twisted pair ethernet is limited to 100 meters per cable run.
Somebody wanting to run a 900 foot patch cable through conduit is going to be unhappy if he succeeds.
A competent IT person would save him/her from shooting themselves in the foot. Have you ever pushed cable down conduit? How about more than an eighth of a mile of conduit?
Please stop using 'meme' for everything. It's too new a word to have its definition decimated.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been in IT since Moby Dick was a minnow and traveled a long toad in order to understand Tor so I can follow this case because it's a better reality show than Survivor®.
My expertise is in keeping my coworkers productive. Making money is the reason we all gather here at work each day.
My research time is limited and I focus on what I need to know best in order to further the business objective of making money.
We don't use Tor. We don't need Tor.
The Open Systems Interconnection model (OSI) is a conceptual model that characterizes and standardizes the internal functions of a communication system by ...
Sorry. Gotta go. Main printer is being a jerk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any technical evidence the FBI (or police, or a private investigator, or John, the really knowledgeable) present to a jury is supposed to be believed to be obtained legally. Because the way to exclude improper evidence is with a motion before the judge and/or at appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the defence puts together a convincing reason why certain evidence should be excluded, there should be no question about its legality. If the evidence was obtained illegally, it should be easy for the defence to discredit it.
Any instruction given to the jury is to counter comments designed to do nothing more than cast doubt about the legality which a juror may have heard online or through their friends etc.
No court case starts off by requiring the prosecution to establish the legality of its evidenc