On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 08:38:21 -0700 Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net> wrote:
>> >At best we could identify the account from which the post originated,
>> >perhaps even the computer. But it still would not provide courtroom
>> >*proof* of which carbon unit made the post. spike
>>
>> John Calvin wrote: Gee Spike, isn't handwriting admissable as evidence?
>
>It is. We have none.
I used the handwriting example to bring up the point that there are many ways to identify individuals that, while not nearly as "certain" as DNA testing are reliable enough for use as evidence in a Court of Law. How much text would be required to state that duplication of style would be say 1:1000 chance? Could even that level of assurance be accomplished? Will text analysis ever be used by FOrensic scientists in the future?
>> Wasn't it you who mentioned the availability of pattern recognition software usable on text files?
>
>It is, but such evidence is good enough to convince *us* and to find
>truth for practical purposes. The level of proof required for a court
>case is another level.
>
>> With a fairly substantial test run would anyone be able to demonstrate the reliability of such pattern recognition software enough to clearly show that even though anyone could have used that particular machine and account they could not have so exactly duplicated style of some named individual? Is that doable?
>
>Hmmm, probably not. At least not for court case evidence. The text
>pattern recognition is really good for figuring out if an author used a
>ghost writer, etc, but recall a game we were playing last April Fools
>Day where I suggested we parody each other and post under each
>other's names etc. A few did so, and wrote parodies of me. At least
>one of these, Damien's, was not only a very good parody, it was
>hilarious. My point here is that if someone wanted to claim non-authorship,
>I dont see how we could prove otherwise in court, ever. The perp
>could always claim someone studied the vocabulary, writing style,
>and wrote an intentional look-alike.
I would not argue that we ought to use text analysis as stand-alone evidence. Though if reliable enough then it could certainly tip the scales in the preponderance of evidence.
Example:
we have the address from which an offending post was allegedly sent.
The audit logs from that computer also show that the appropriate e-mail account was in fact accessed from that machine, and that account is password protected.
The Audit logs also show that a secure connection was created to amazon.com, and that several other message boards to which the owner of the account regularly posts were also accessed and some of them posted too.
A supboena of records from amazon show that a book was ordered using a credit card held by the owner of the e-mail account and sent to that persons address. etc.
Library cameras show that person to have been in the library at the appropriate time, and a book was checked out using his library account.
The individual in question says that he went to the bathroom and when he returned he found that he had not logged out of his e-mail.(Plenty of time for someone else to post under his name) To which textual analysis shows that the post in question is so similar to his style that it would be unlikely that anyone could duplicate it without hours of study. case proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even if it were only reliable enough to legally subpoena other data then it would still be a valuable tool.
John Calvin
_____________________________________________________________
Email your boss can't read - sign up for free disinfo.net email
at http://www.disinfo.com, your gateway to the underground
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:20 MDT