Chris <nimbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > How do you ensure that the digital evidence contains no manipulation that > would alter the meaning of the evidence? The simplest reading of that question is that you're asking for perfection. You won't, of course, get it. Just as cops have been known to lie under oath on the stand, and DNA testing laboratories have been known to fake results. Legally, the photo alone isn't evidence; the testimony of someone who was there saying "that's what I saw" is evidence. There are technical potentials in digital photography that might make it safer against casual attack. They're not yet widely implemented; but imagine a camera with a public/private keypair which digitally signed each original image it captured. To break that system, you'd have to physically attack the hardware in the camera, or else find an implementation flaw that released information it shouldn't have. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
