Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Text Messages in the Courts 304

Posted by CmdrTaco from the something-to-think-about dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Text Messages in the Courts More

Text Messages in the Courts

Comments Filter:

  • Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lockefire ( 691775 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:13AM (#9366316)
    That is why I never used text messaging in the first place. THEY are watching us everywhere we go.

    • Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Funny)

      by ItWasThem ( 458689 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:16AM (#9366350)
      We saw that
    • I'm so careful, I wrap my cellphone in tinfoil. I haven't gotten any calls lately. I'm not sure why...

    • Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wiggys ( 621350 )
      >That is why I never used text messaging in the first place. THEY are watching us everywhere we go.

      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:4, Informative)

      by captainClassLoader ( 240591 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:35AM (#9366618) Journal
      Well, I don't know about that, but if you send text messages in the UK, you can bet that the Special Branch is reading them. [devine.co.uk]

    • Not Paranoia Any Longer (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:09AM (#9367049) Homepage Journal
      I realize you were trying to be funny, but apparently the phone companies ARE keeping track, as many have suspected anyway...

      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..
      • Just because your are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.

        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)

      by jobbegea ( 748685 )
      They are even actively monitoring [bbc.co.uk] these messages. Be careful what you type, you might end up in the slammer sooner than you think.

      • Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Interesting)

        by lga ( 172042 ) *
        They are even actively monitoring these messages. Be careful what you type, you might end up in the slammer sooner than you think.
        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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:14AM (#9366330)
    Be amusing when the judge asks for a translation of gems like "OMG! U R SO HOT, M8 LOL! CU@MY PLACE 4 SUM SEX & I WILL FELCH UR ASS!"

  • Larger issues (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:15AM (#9366341)
    I think the more important thing to consider here is that this implies people actually care about the Kobe Bryant trial.

    Scary.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:15AM (#9366345)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • It must be noted that it is the accuser's text messages that are being retrieved.

      This is not like a defendant is having his own messages used against him.
      • "It must be noted that it is the accuser's text messages that are being retrieved. This is not like a defendant is having his own messages used against him."

        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)

      by __aagctu1952 ( 768423 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:27AM (#9366512)
      I think if you communicate over a network that is regulated by the company itself, as well as a federal orginization, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. (like now)

      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. :P

      • Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BillFarber ( 641417 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:11AM (#9367066)
        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.

        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.

      • The FedEx example isn't quite the same. If you encrypted your text message so the carrier only saw a 'package' then yes it's still about the same. (could the accuser be made to 'decrypt' the message....that's an interesting question too)

        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
      • While others here correctly pointed out that an SMS is more like a postcard instead of a sealed FedEx package, another important point is that the *judge ordered the SMS messages for his review*.

        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. If they have a warrent they can get text messages, email, wire taps and all the rest. If there is a cause. Otherwise does it matter?

      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)

        by lildogie ( 54998 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:52AM (#9366802)
        > If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info.

        You haven't been to the USA lately, have you?
      • If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info.

        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)

        by tsg ( 262138 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:23AM (#9367200)
        If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info.

        "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)

      by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:52AM (#9366813) Journal
      So, we need phones with automatic end to end encryption. First text, then eventually voice. Of course it would be kind of expensive at first, and would only work between models of the same phone, but for security end to end is the only way to go.

    • Re:Privacy? Yeah right. (Score:5, Informative)

      by nikster ( 462799 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:53AM (#9366831) Homepage
      From the Article: ATT didn't keep the messages, but they have a backup storage system which automatically backs up everything - including the text messages.

      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.
      • It's not that terribly difficult to design a system that keeps no data past the transfer (assuming they don't use forensic methods on the disks, and iffy even then). This should be a major design requirement fo any communication system that doesn't have storage as a feature.

        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)

        by JJ22 ( 558624 )
        These days, it is very odd that a company "forgets" to do something, especially if there is a cost involved (such as storage for billions of messages). Even if that cost is only a couple of hundred thousand a year, I find it hard to believe that someone didn't see that they could save some cash by getting rid of the text field after a few days.

  • reminds me (Score:3, Funny)

    by Milo of Kroton ( 780850 ) <[ ]o.of.kroton ( ... m ['mil' in gap]> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:16AM (#9366355) Journal
    This reminds me on, when the courts in Africa arranged, which "you i divorce" says three times by sms were not legally divorce. Sayings of "i divorce you" three times a certified divorce is, in the parts of the undeveloped world. I understand to separate they're, which goes, making it harder soon. you'll must it four times say.

  • I can see it now. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:16AM (#9366358)
    Judge: "Have the jurors reached a verdict?"
    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?"

  • Expectations (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Text messages bounce through the ether with no little or encryption, and can frequently be snooped upon with a little phone hardware hackery.

    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)

    by lecithin ( 745575 ) * on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:18AM (#9366386)
    "Don't ever say anything on e-mail or text messaging that you don't want to come back and bite you." Well Duh...

    • Re:The last sentence sums it all up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by whovian ( 107062 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:05AM (#9366998)
      Well, yes, duh. But note the other part of Kagan's statement:

      "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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:20AM (#9366419)
    By memorizing the PGP source code, I'm able to encrypt all of my SMS. You'd think that'd be hard, but the really difficult part is keeping everyone's keys straight in your head.

  • Use Earthlink (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jptechnical ( 644454 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:21AM (#9366438) Homepage

    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).

  • The providers have a TOS that you sign to get service. If you sign it, you allow them to log everything you do with their network, when you turn on your phone, who you call, a recording of the call, text messages, internet access (using mMode and such), and more.
  • there's a high probability that it's still around somewhere that someone can find it if they look hard enough. It's a fact. If you want something private, don't type it into a digital device, don't write it down... You probably shouldn't even think it since the CIA is working on reading your thoughts, too. We're all screwed. Have a nice day.

    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

  • Authentication anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by philntc ( 735836 )
    How do they propose to deal with who actually was at the keypad? I mean, strong authentication is a real challenge with email systems, and is rarely employed. Forensics seems like an even bigger chore for SMS than it is for email. Or maybe it isn't?
  • Regardless of the outcome of this trial a lot of businesses are storing this data. Sarbanes & Oxley generated a lot of new rules for us. We now have retention rules for about everything, and restrictions on which IM and related packages we can use. I used to think quite a few are the result of overzealous or just plain fearful executives but then I forget just how much revolves around the legal profession and other people's money.

  • The crazy thing is that in this age of EVERYTHING being recorded in some way or another (i.e. text messages, internet logs, etc.), there is no guarantee that your guilt or innocence is entirely accurate. I mean, although you might have a video recording of someone killing someone else, here's a news flash: YOU CAN EDIT VIDEOS! You can edit text. You can create a setup that will guarantee that someone will be thrown in jail, and there is nothing they can do to stop you. If, of course, you are skilled eno

  • From the article... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dunar ( 575371 )
    "In Conyers, Georgia, a 17-year-old boy was arrested for investigation of solicitation of sodomy after a 12-year-old girl's parents complained of sexually explicit messages she had received."

    made me think out loud, "why does a 12 year old have/need a cell phone???"
    • This is not at all uncommon to see. I've seen children even younger than 12 with cell phones. Parents in latchkey homes use these as contact and emergency location tools for their kids.

      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
  • "One of the false assumptions that people make is that when they hit the delete button, messages are gone forever, but nothing can be further from the truth," said Jeff Kagan, an independent telecommunications analyst in Atlanta.

    Well yeah, that's why you have to also go to "Empty Recycle Bin"

  • if you were to write someone with good ole pen and ink, wouldn't that be admissable?

    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

    • deliver it youself
    • in a very short lived format
    • in other words get in a tinfoil room and whisper

    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)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:31AM (#9366567)
    Just to save you all a lot of trouble ...

    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.
  • Its a well known fact that the feds watch txt msgs, as can be substanciated by the fact that people have been contacted by the authorities after sending msgs that looked suspicous, like secret messeges to start bombings and such. By using a cellphone, a communication device that broadcasts its information to a company that I have little/no control over, I assume I am being watched at any given moment, with both txt msging and the actual calls I make. If you believe that you have privacy while carrying aroun
  • Don't expect *any* privacy unless explicitly stated somewhere exactly what information will remain private. Even then, policies can change.

    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.
  • "It's just a common practice," said Kagan, the telecoms analyst. "I don't know an instance where they delete them."

    If the cell phone providers never see a reason or need to delete messages, they have way too much space.

    • Except they are pretty cheap. And they're not really using hard drives - they're being archived, probably using one of those IBM backup systems with the robotic arm that have terabytes and terabytes (thank you Carl Sagan) of storage space.

      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
  • Time to bust out the strong encryption!

  • Too bad there is no such thing as encryption --yet (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xiando ( 770382 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:48AM (#9366740) Homepage Journal
    Here in Norway the phone companies store all text messages and phone logs for 3 months. The most scary thing is that they also store your position, the police can ask for your (cellphones) movements 2 months ago and the phone companies will willingly deliver this information.

    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)

    by Tenebrous ( 119888 )
    If the news media is to be believed it would seem that any and all electronic documents of this nature - log files, etc. - are accepted at face value, while in reality the documents in question are only text files that could be fabricated by anyone with a text editor and a sense of humor.

  • Chain of Custody? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dvk ( 118711 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:58AM (#9366909) Homepage
    Just interesting, what's Chain of Custody rules going to be like for SMS?

    (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)

    by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:04AM (#9366991)
    Don't trust centralized electronic communications services. Period.

    You're better off sending your personal communications via a $0.37 stamp in a tamper-evident envelope.

  • Privacy irony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wcrowe ( 94389 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:13AM (#9367092)
    I always find it ironic that many of the people who are SO concerned about privacy are the same people who are always yakking on their cell phones, in public, about everything.

    If you really want a private conversation with someone, you need to meet them face-to-face.

  • Maybe someone in the law firm is following the case on closed circuit TV and giving Kobe's attornies clues as to what to call the prosecutor on?

    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)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:18AM (#9367156) Homepage
    A quick check with google revealed that there are some products [fortressmail.net] that will encrypt/decrypt SMS messages, although you have to have the right make/model of phone to run the software.

    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.

  • with text messaging along with camera phones, we need to really revisit privacy, and what's allowed where. it used to be the 'video vigilantes', but now with everyone and their grandma being more wired and armed (with recording and communication devices) things are going to change for good as far as peoples privacy. will we be carrying around personal 'jammers' to scramble any pics that others are trying to snap of us as we walk around the mall? it could happen, and tin foil hat folks will appreciate the

  • Your Words On Someone's Else Drive = No Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:46AM (#9367484)
    Once your message is deposited on a drive that someone else owns, you've lost the chance to protect your privacy.

    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)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @12:04PM (#9367716) Homepage
    This is my job. I work for a major law firm loading data into a searchable database.

    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)

    by Jerk City Troll ( 661616 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @01:00PM (#9368349) Homepage

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close