![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Text Messages in the Courts 304
KennyG944 noted a story running on CNN which talks about Text Messages being used in the Kobe Bryant trial. This raises a host of issues about the phone company keeping these messages around and expectations of privacy.
Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Funny)
Funny... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Funny... (Score:2)
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
lockefire's and ItWasThem's levity aside, I find it ironic that people will invaribly be typing in messages on here about how their privacy is being invaded because records are maybe being kept of things they may have typed elsewhere.
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2, Funny)
You don't actually believe that the battery powers the secret tracking device, do you? No, the best option is to buy prepaid phones from convenience stores, paying only in cash and renewing your minutes at automated machines. Then you can talk all you want and even if they're listening, they don't know who the
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet you post to Slashdot with a registered account?
I say what I like in my text messages, I don't care if it embarrasses the snooping bastards who read them, they are supposed to be PRIVATE.
If I were to say something to incriminate me I would either speak in code, not use text messaging or claim my phone was stolen.
Re:Paranoia (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
Four months later, Bryant's attorneys subpoenaed AT&T Wireless Communications Inc., seeking the messages. The company fought the subpoena, but last month state District Judge Terry Ruckriegle ordered the company to turn the messages over to him.
ATT fought investigation of their privately held data. If they wont even present it in a criminal court case without a fight, for what reason would they keep it stored?
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Informative)
Not Paranoia Any Longer (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldnt call that paranoia, id call it reality.. as now shown in a court of law..
Often paranoid's are correct, just a little extreme..
Re:Not Paranoia Any Longer (Score:3, Interesting)
But really, people are far too trusting of the anonymity of the net. It's about as anonymous as any public place. Well, any public place in which you wear a name tag that is cross referenced to the phone book, your school records, and your past 7 years of credit card purchases.
And no, putting in phony information into web surveys doesn't help. Your IP is logged, which is traced back to your ISP, who knows what account you logged in
Re:Paranoia (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you even read the story that you linked to? The guy sent it to the wrong person, who called the police. No monitoring involved.
Great (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)
Felching [wikipedia.org].
Larger issues (Score:4, Funny)
Scary.
Re:Larger issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's bullshit. Honest to God rape versus date rape? Are you fucking kidding? Just because I go to dinner with a guy and make out on his couch afterwards doesn't mean I owe him a goddamn thing. Whether or not he paid for dinner.
It's not women who should be worried about being in bad situations, even though that is the reality. It's men who should be taught that they don't get to take whatever they want, and to respect a woman when she says no. That seems pretty simple to me.
On the Kobe note, do you honestly think he is going to get into serious trouble, even if it is proven that he did rape her? Mike Tyson went to jail for raping a woman and was applauded and welcomed back with open arms by many fans. Then he bit the ear of a man who intentionally walked into a boxing right to fight him and these same people went absolutely apeshit and called for him to be banned from boxing. What? The ear of a professional boxer is worth more than that which is most precious to a woman?
That's the message that is sent, though. Which is why athletes will continue to get away with this shit; they're treated like they're better than everyone else, even when they act just as awfully and cowardly as the next guy.
Re:Larger issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly why well publicized cases of rape are important...the more legitimate rape cases the population hears about, the less likely women will be afraid to bring charges. Frankly, what's bullshit (as you so elequently put it) is that women are afraid at all, but I can't profess to know how the female psyche works.
It's men who should be taught that they don't get to take whatever they want, and to respect a woman when she says no.
Standard female response. This will happen as soon as women are taught that they don't get to use their gender or sexuality to get what THEY want, and when they learn some guys are assholes and just because you think they're hot/cool/wealthy/[insert superficial property here], you could still get into trouble around them.
To paraphrase Chris Rock, as a man I know that when I'm arguing with another, much larger/more agressive/less controlled man, there's an area I just do go. Is it right that I could get shot wearing a "I hate n***ers" sandwich board through downtown? No, but it could very well happen so I wouldn't do it. Common sense, really. Just like it's common sense to not be alone with a person who gets payed to work on their physique, building up endorphins and testosterone all day, and be physical and sometimes violent for their living. Cry me a river.
--trb
Re:Larger issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it my fault for getting shot while driving through a bad neighborhood shouting slurs out the window? Probably not, but I'm certainly provoking the situation. Same with a girl dressing provocatively, getting drunk, flirting insatiably and going home with some guy. Neither is technically our fault, but I wouldnt' feel sorry for either of us...we were being stupid in a situation we KNEW was dangerous.
In an actual rape, it's the fault of whomever didn't have consent. However, proving consent (or lack thereof) is incredibly difficult with no eyewitnesses, and neither person involved can be considered credible. Men have to be careful to not get accused, but women have to be even more careful to not let themselves get into those situations...not because it would then be their fault, but because they may not be able to do anything to prevent it and they won't be able to prove it afterwards.
--trb
Re:Larger issues (Score:3, Insightful)
No. In a true case of rape, where a woman has struggled but the man forced himself on her, there are indications in the genital area of such actions. When reported quickly, the first thing done is a medical check. Tissue, blood, semen can usually be collected...at the very least, pictures can be taken of her genitals. If it was truly a rape, there have got to be signs of s
Re:Larger issues (Score:3, Interesting)
See, you're missing exactly my point. "if a woman doesn't want to have sex, but just lays there or doesn't struggle, is it rape?" I never said anything about saying 'No'. Many women will not vocally consent, but they won't say stop either. They may not want to, but they don't say no. Is this rape? One of my friends got caught in just this situation...she said he raped her, he said she consented by being there, in his bedroom, not saying no.
Re:Larger issues (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't mean to nitpick, or try to argue against your point, but I feel compelled to point out that men can be raped [rapecrisiscenter.com] by both men and women. [columbia.edu] (see the second paragraph of the answer)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:3, Informative)
This is not like a defendant is having his own messages used against him.
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:2)
The article gives examples from Medford, Oregon and Conyers, Georgia in which the defendants Text Messages were used.
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you think that if I FedEx a letter to someone I should expect FedEx to open it, photocopy it and store it in an archive somewhere? Or that if I make a phone call, I should expect that the telco tapes it and keeps the tape for an indefinite amount of time?
It's the same thing here really - SMSs are basically condensed phone messages, and it is definitely a reasonable expectation that your phone conversation is confidential between you and the other party, and that it stays that way.
There's a huge difference between storing who phoned who (or in the case of FedEx: "person Foo payed for a package to be sent to person Bar at YYYY-MM-DD") and actually storing the contents. In a reasonable privacy climate, phone companies should definitely be busted for this... but with Ashcroft et al. in charge, it is more likely that SMS retention becomes law rather than a punishable act.
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Something like this never has been a punishable act. Your comparison to FedEx is inane. The simple act of transmitting it means that multiple copies are generated all over the place. A better comparison would be calling somebody on the telephone and leaving a message for them when they are not home. You have no idea what happens to that sticky or who might happen to see it. Plus, the person who wrote the message down for you certainly is not obligated to destroy it or face criminal charges.
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:2)
But since the text message was essentially a postcard (and say they scan the card to read the address they've got the whole content) anyone along the way can read it.
As for storing phone conversations, don't you think that if the technology were in place to do it the
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:3, Informative)
I compose a text message and hit send. It is sent to the network. There is now two copies on the message - the one on my phone and the one on the network. The network determines the closest access to the recepiant and forwards the message - there are now three copies of the message. If the recepiant is not available, the message is transfered to storage instead of to the access point closest to the recepiant - still three copies, but now when the recipiant is available, the network forwards t
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is important because the messages wouldn't have been available to just anyone, except that a judge found the evidence potentially important to finding the truth. A judge could also order that FedEx package opened, and it would be justified if it helped discover the truth in a case. It's also important to note
You have privacy to a point (Score:2)
I come back to the argument. If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info. It is eventually deleted and I'm not going to send anything important over something like a text message. Maybe to the gf to see when she is coming over. They can read those till they are blue in the face. As long as they don't
If you have nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
You haven't been to the USA lately, have you?
Re:You have privacy to a point (Score:2)
IMO that's wrong on a couple levels.
First, not commiting a crime and not being investigated for a crime are two different things.
Second, you're not necessarily the one who had to do something wrong. There just needs to be "probable cause" that something you have may be relavent -say you videotape a crime or have other information that may be important. Presumably neither Kobe's accuser or the people she sent messages to
Re:You have privacy to a point (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has been used by governments the world over to justify eroding privacy for the sake of security. Whether the Fourth Amendment says anything about the legality of requiring text communications to be recorded, the intent is that the government must have good reason to suspect the person being searched, and be reasonably sure of what they expect to find and where they expect to find it. Requiring monitoring of citizens "just in case" they commit a crime flies in the face of that ideal.
It is eventually deleted and I'm not going to send anything important over something like a text message.
This is where "reasonable expectation of privacy" comes in. If a reasonable user of such a system is unaware that the messages may be saved, his expectation of privacy may be higher than if he was aware. If his conversations are being recorded without his knowledge, he is less likely to be careful about what he says. What makes wiretaps different from this is that the conversations cannot be recorded without him being a suspect first, and, theoretically at least, law enforcement must show reasonable cause that he is a suspect before the conversations can be recorded. Allowing law enforcement to retrieve conversations that took place before he was a suspect also violates this ideal.
The main problem, as stated in the article, is that most people aren't aware their messages can be retrieved as much as four months after they were sent.
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:5, Informative)
So it's not that they wanted to keep the messages - they just forgot to tell the backup program not to back them up, or delete them after a certain period of time.
Very interesting. I would be surprised if the other wireless companies (which immediately claimed they didn't keep messages around) didn't have the same problem.
Any professional company would have a backup system for their main servers. You really think they would go through the trouble and remove the text messages from that? What if the text message can't be delivered instantly and the server crashes? You would want to retrieve them from the backup system of course. This is not a trivial problem - you would really have to give this some thought.
Do i really think that the marketing-drones who were quick to repeat the official company line really thought this through? No.
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:2)
It's one thing for the FBI, et al. to want to wiretap someone under investigation. It's quite another for them to want to go back in history should you every come under investigation.
TW
Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:3, Insightful)
reminds me (Score:3, Funny)
I can see it now. (Score:5, Funny)
Jury: "Yes, your honor."
Judge: "Bailiff, please bring the vedrict to me."
(Bailiff brings paper to judge)
Judge: "Jurors, please state your verdict."
Jurors: "We find the defendant, Kobe Bryant, GLTY ON L CHRGS. LOL!!1! WTF?"
Re:I can see it now. (Score:2)
Judge: "Kobe Bryant, this court has found you guilty and sentences you to be OMG PWNx0R3D!"
Expectations (Score:2, Insightful)
They're about as secure a form of communication as shouting across a room. A reasonable expectation of privacy would be "none at all".
The last sentence sums it all up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The last sentence sums it all up (Score:5, Insightful)
"I think in these days of corporate fraud and in these days of terrorism we're seeing more and more reason to store forever," Kagan said.
I'm reading that as a slip-up on his part. To me it says that there is already or going to be long-term data storage real soon now.
I encrypt all my SMS (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I encrypt all my SMS (Score:2)
Either you learn how to spell, or you stop claiming you can encrypt on the fly.
You must show the true Guru's the respect they deserve, you infidel.
Use Earthlink (Score:5, Insightful)
They proved their inability or lack of desire to cooperate when GRC.com was getting DDoS from that kid using an earthlink acct.
But it goes without saying that any public or private service you use (tech wise) is going to be logged and stored.
I really dont worry about it much... if I have to do some mission impossible stuff I certainly dont use my cellphone or my cable modem. Low tech is the way to go. Payphones and Juno (sorry Juno).
Their network, you can't complain (Score:2, Insightful)
If it's ever been in digital form... (Score:2)
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Authentication anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Text Messaging, Instant Messaging, E-Mail... (Score:2)
The ridiculous thing is that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The ridiculous thing is that... and OJ used tha (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, let's say th
Pre-emptive sentencing? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article... (Score:2, Interesting)
made me think out loud, "why does a 12 year old have/need a cell phone???"
Re:From the article... (Score:2, Informative)
What is interesting in my opinion is how when children start sending hateful messages on devices that record activity, suddenly schoolyard bickering becomes a fully punishable hate crime. This doesn't just apply to texting, it applies to email, web forums and the whole gamut. My local school tried to suspend some children fo
Re:From the article... (Score:2)
Obviously... (Score:2, Funny)
Well yeah, that's why you have to also go to "Empty Recycle Bin"
Expectation of privacy? (Score:2)
If you sent them, an email? left a voice message?
What about voicemail that is stored on the carriers system?
If you don't wan't something to come back to bite you in the ass
They also made no mention about what the content is, it may very well be that they are using the information to verify time, plaes, people, as opposed
Don't be Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
If you are planning or executing a serious crime DO NOT BROADCAST INCRIMINATING MATERIALS using that text messaging that's all the rage now. Sure it may seem cool, but think about what you're doing.
__ I'm pushing the car and everything thats left into the river now __
__ It is two miles north of the bridge __
__ I hope no one other than you reads this message __
Of course, it would be better to not commit the crime to begin with. I'll wave the consulting fee since this is our first meeting.
Privacy is non-existant (Score:2)
Expectations ? (Score:2)
What it really comes down to is that you do not have much control over data about your or created about you unless you are the keeper of the data.
Once data is transmitted somewhere it is probably logged, stored, and copied.
Hard drives are too cheap... (Score:2)
If the cell phone providers never see a reason or need to delete messages, they have way too much space.
Re:Hard drives are too cheap... (Score:2)
If each message is 1024 characters (which they most certainly aren't that big usually) then 2.1 billion messages would be 1.96 terabytes. Which really ain't much, given the 200 gigabyte hard drives you can find at any Office Depot. And thats for a whole month.
Google has
There is a solution to this... (Score:2)
Too bad there is no such thing as encryption --yet (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been dreaming about the phone that could run java or C code fast enough to do real time encryption using gpg or some other secure system. I want both audio and text messages encrypted. IM (=jabber, anyway) systems for computers can already use GPG, but I am having a hard time convincing people I know to use it. They simply don't see the point. Most of them don't even use GPG for mail even though there are plug-ins available for almost any mail browser (using GPG for IM is somewhat harder).
I'm not sure the majority of people would bother to invest in a phone that could do encryption if it cost slightly more.
This reminds me of another "hot" issue: The Everywhere Outdoors Video surveillance System. This is coming to your local neighborhood soon. When I debate with people about this issue most people just say "So What?" and "I don't really care, I've got nothing to hide". Personally I would prefer big brother not being able to read my mail, listen in on my calls and view my movements live on cameras at all times - even if I don't have anything to hide....
Back to the secure phone: I am convinced phones like this never will be sold. The authorities won't allow not being able to listen in. So this would would require a phone that could run c or java or other code fast (for games or something) enough so the GNU community could make a open source solution for encryption that would work even though the phone was not intended for making secure calls.
Forgery (Score:2, Insightful)
Chain of Custody? (Score:3, Interesting)
(For those who've never seen this term, any legal issues dealing with digital technology have pretty complicated rules called Chain of Custody meant to ensure lack of tampering with evidence. I'm guessing same applies to non-digital evidence, but I only heard the term as applied to forensics related to computer security).
Lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
You're better off sending your personal communications via a $0.37 stamp in a tamper-evident envelope.
Privacy irony (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really want a private conversation with someone, you need to meet them face-to-face.
Oh my God, they killed KennyG944! (Score:2)
Hey wasn't there a movie like that, where the lawyer got sick and his friend posed as him, and he tried to listen in on a walkie talkie and honked the car horn to tell him what objection to use?
Or then again, maybe Kobe's lawyer is just a stand in, and is getting text messages from India where the real lawyer is? Gotta love outsourcing!
Encrypted SMS (Score:4, Informative)
It would be nice of this was a standard part of the phone's firmware. I suspect many police/security services would not like it. They've successfully suppressed digital end-to-end encryption in the USA for all but "authorized" users.
lots of tech challenges like this to come... (Score:2, Insightful)
Your Words On Someone's Else Drive = No Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
You're at the mercy of the people with access to your messages. I learned that when, months after cancelling a broadband IPS account, I discovered that the supposedly-defunct email accounts were left active and that ISP employees had access to the usernames and passwords for those accounts.(It wasn't a mistake; they keep email accounts alive in case an old customer comes back, and employees -- supervisors, in this case -- have access to passwords in case customers forget them.)
When I asked about privacy issues, the ISP told me they'd fire anyone who abused access to those accounts. Of course, that's if they get caught. Since I thought the account was cancelled and stopped looking at it months ago, my chances of catching someone posting email on that account were pretty slim. Text messages are no different.
How it works... (Score:3, Insightful)
ASCII files like emails/text messages are loaded directly.
Other documents, such as Word docs, faxs, etc. are OCR'ed (accuracy is not very good).
Next they run compelx searches for word combinations.
And low level lawyers/paralegals then read either everything, or sometiems just the search results, flagging things as Relevant/not-relevant.
The amount of data is HUGE. A certain level of Privacy is created by the hugeness of the data. The effect is similar to looking at an apartment building across the street, without optical aid. Someone might be naked with the shades open, but the amount of stuff you have to look at is is so much and your ability to retrieve fine detail is so little that you see nothing. Like it takes the binoculars/telescope to see the naked person, it takes a HUGE amount of cash to pay for man hours/computer time to wade through all the junk text to find the relevant details.
Now, if you know to start off looking at only a single person's stuff, from x date to y date, then you can find some interesting bits...
And what exactly would this prove? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could someone tell me what bearing this could possibly have on determining if Kobe is guilty?
If the messages contain something along the lines of "hey, I just got laid by Kobe, isn't that awesome?", then it would quickly dismantle the plaintiff's case. However, how can we be certain the messages have not been tampered with? If the messages indicate that the accusation is bullshit, then the plaintiff could simply say the messages were not her's. There could be no proof either way.
On the otherhand, if the messages express "hey, Kobe just raped me!", we still know nothing. If the victim is claiming she was raped now, how is a message at any point in time after the rape going to strengthen her case? The answer is, it does't. If I am lying at t[n+1], the same lie at t[n] does not make my statement true.
So what we ultimately have here is... nothing. You would think that a judge with a strong comprehension of logic would realize this and not even bother.
Re:Insider tips (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the same thing... (Score:2)
Supposedly the person involved got permission from the bailiff since it was not a recording device. But the bailiff probably didn't really understand what the device was doing and probably shouldn't have allowed it.
I was hoping that the article was going to say that people were being allowed to text message reports out of a live
Even important (Score:2)
How woud you be able to tell the difference in court anyway?
Kobe's accuser all of a sudden gets:
"I DUPED KOBE"
"KOBE IS MINE"
"KOBES MONEY IS MINE"
"KOBE FELL 4 R TRAP"
"WE SCAMMED THEM"
etc on her text messaging files stored on the server.
Re:Insider tips (Score:2, Funny)
Remember in 1994 when Nicole Simpson's text archive had the ominous message:
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, then if a court has found you guilty, then legally speaking you _are_ guilty, until and unless an higher court overturns that finding. It's called a "legal fiction" -- that is, it may not be true, but it is assumed to be for the purposes of running the legal system.
A similar thing is evident in civil procedures, where if you send a claim form to someone by first class post, it is assumed to arrive the next day. Even if it doesn't arrive until two weeks later, the counting of dates for procedure purposes still takes place from the day after it was sent. (Although in practice, the defendant can generally apply for an extension and will almost always get one).
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:3, Funny)
I am not a lawyer, but...
From watching almost every episode of Law and Order, I believe it is the same way here in the States.
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:2, Interesting)
"What's in those messages could help (the jury) determine whether the sex was consensual or whether Bryant is guilty of rape as charged."
So yes, the jury does want to find out if he "ACTUALLY IS GUILTY".
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:3, Insightful)
Those "stupid messages" as you refer to them could shed a lot of light on the situation. A few possibilities:
1) text messages are consistent with what the defendant has been saying. Point for the prosecution, doesn't change things too much (IMO). Supporters of Bryant can argue that the text messages are there to he
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:2)
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, they may well be VERY relevent, depending on what the message contained.
There was a famous trial in the 1920's of a rags to riches hollywood comedian named Fatty Arbuckle, who was accused of raping a young woman with a coke bottle in his bathroom, during a party. He had actually gone to trial 2x on a hung jury, but on the 3rd trial, it was revealed that a star witness for the prosecution (a woman of dubious character) had sent a telegram to an associate a few hours after the alleged incident saying that she had Fatty over a barrel and was going to squeeze him, or something to that effect. He was aquitted on the third trial, although his career was destroyed by that time.
http://ms.essortment.com/arbucklefatty_rams.htm
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:2)
If this goes to trial, I'd expect those messages to be critical evidence for the defense OR the prosecution. They may not prove guilt per se, but they could prove non-guilt and will certainly prove state of mind.
Rape is a horrible crime. Why else the long sentences? Why else the (well meaning but misguided imo) rape-shield
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:2)
The concept of guilt is a legal one in this context. If a court finds you guilty your are guilty, under the law, of that crime. Only a secondary trial as a result of the granting of an appeal and/or a higher court can over turn such a conviction. This is true in the United State and in most places in the world with any type of modern legal system.
Cu
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:2)
It's not a fallacy, it's a definition. Guilt in this context is a legal concept. If the court finds you guilty, you are guilty. If it finds you not guilty, you are not guilty. Whether or not you did it is an entirely different question. Ideally the two should coincide, but sometimes they don't. In such cases, innocent men are guilty. But they are innocent in fact and guilty in law.
"His gu
Re:It's this kinda shit that pisses me off (Score:2, Insightful)
The text messages will determine whether his is guilty of rape? How about, they'll determine whether or not he's FOUND guilty of rape.
His guilt is completely separate from those stupid messages. The idea that the courts determine whether or not someone ACTUALLY IS GUILTY is a stupid and common American fallacy. (I don't know what it's like elsewhere.)
How could you possibly know t
Re:Everyone is being watched... (Score:2)
I would have assumed that phone companies didn't keep copies of the messages. It must be a hugely redundant database they've got there.
Re:The U.S. judicial system (Score:2, Informative)
There is the possibility that these messages could be used to acquit Kobe, but then be inadmissable against her if some perjury charge was brought up.
You generally don't have a right to keep evidence private (someone else's right to life trumps your right to privacy). You have a right to not incriminate yourself (I just love to blatantly split infinitives).
Re:evidence? I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but if you wrote "I just had sex with Kobe Bryant, and it was totally great", then it's kinda hard to plea rape, now, isn't it?
Re:Why am I not surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
Satellites that can see your infrared image as you flee persecution. Cops that dress in military-style uniforms. Our local ge