At 11:16 AM 6/16/03 -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Monday June 16 2003 09:59, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
(ok, from slashdot..) http://www.newhouse.com/archive/jensen061203.html
I personally find the privacy implications of EDRs rather unsettling. This story doesn't change that one bit. However, in this particular case, I don't think what the EDR said really matters.
Not only the privacy implications, but also the legal evidence validity. When you get radared, or ethanol-tested, the measurements are calibrated. When your house or computer gets searched, there is a concept of a chain of control over the evidence, to assure that no one slips something incriminating into an evidence bag or onto your disk. Now, I don't know how subpeoned phone or other electronic records are handled ---has anyone ever questioned Telco's or paging company recordkeeping? Any readers know more? Are these records merely put forth for the jury to consider, on the assumption that they will consider them 'impartial' and also 'infallible'? (Note that when red-light-camera operators (TRW) get a cut of the $ take, judges/juries will sometimes throw out those tickets, on the basis of calibration & motivation. San Diego did this.) The different-diameter tire, and hacked control system *are* relevent, as well as the EDR system not being designed for legal-forensic reliability. Albeit in this particular case, the driver needs to be hung merely on what's been admitted and what happened. But in cases where the EDR is critical to an argument, I wonder. The PR aspect for the car companies is also very interesting. Of course, when an EDR *absolves* someone, they will surely play it up.