More here and here.

The court’s full order here.

MFIA and EFF’s amicus brief here.

Why Doesn’t it Look Like it Does on Television? The Presentation of Forensic Evidence Using Digital Technologies

Watch Video Here

Abstract:

Courtroom environments, which have been one of the last bastions of the oral tradition, are slowly morphing into cinematic display environments. The persuasive oral rhetoric of lawyers is increasingly being replaced by compelling visual media displays presenting a range of digital evidence in a convincing and credible manner.

There are a number of fundamental implications inherent in the shift from oral to visual mediation that need to be investigated and analyzed. At first glance, graphical reconstructions may be seen as potentially useful in many courtroom situations, and they are often treated like any other form of digital evidence regarding their admissibility. However, this specific form of digital media may warrant special care and attention due to its inherently persuasive nature, and the undue reliance that the viewer may place on the evidence presented through a visualisation medium.

This talk will give a range of examples of where evidence has been presented in courtrooms using video games technology (particularly forensic animation and virtual crime scene reconstructions). The talk will conclude with a discussion of the potential benefits and problems of implementing this technology in courtroom settings.

Bio:

Dr. Schofield is currently Director of Human Computer Interaction at the State University of New York (SUNY). Dr. Schofield also remains a director and major shareholder of Aims Solutions Ltd., a UK based company created in 2000 to provide computer graphics visualization services and virtual reality based simulation training products to a wide range of public and private sector organizations.

Dr. Schofield has been involved in research examining the use of digital evidence in courtrooms, particularly virtual reconstructions, for many years. He is specifically interested in the representation and understanding of visual evidentiary information in the courtroom environment. Dr. Schofield has been used as an expert witness in courts all over the world and has worked on many high profile cases.

Please watch Video of talk here.

 Abstract:

On the Internet, obscure information has a minimal risk of being discovered or understood by unintended recipients. Empirical research demonstrates that Internet users rely on obscurity perhaps more than anything else to protect their privacy, yet online obscurity has been largely ignored by courts and lawmakers. Hartzog argues that obscurity is a critical component of online privacy, but it has not been embraced by courts and lawmakers because it has never been adequately defined or conceptualized.

This lack of definition has resulted in the concept of online obscurity being too insubstantial to serve as a helpful guide in privacy disputes. In its place, courts and lawmakers have generally found that the unfettered ability of any hypothetical individual to find and access information on the Internet renders that information public, or ineligible for privacy protection. Drawing from multiple disciplines, Hartzog aims to develops a focused, clear, and workable definition of online obscurity: Information is obscure online if it exists in a context missing one or more key factors that are essential to discovery or comprehension. We have identified four of these factors: 1) search visibility, 2) unprotected access, 3) identification, and 4) clarity.

This framework could be applied as an analytical tool or as part of an obligation. Obscurity could be relied upon as a continuum to help determine if information is eligible for privacy protections. Obscurity could be used as a protective remedy by courts and lawmakers; instead of forcing websites to remove sensitive information, a compromise could be some form of mandated obscurity. Finally, obscurity could serve as part of an agreement. Internet users bound to a “duty to maintain obscurity” would be allowed to further disclose information, so long as they kept the information generally as obscure as they received it.

Bio:

Woodrow Hartzog is an Assistant Professor at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University. He is also an Affiliate Scholar at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. His research focuses on privacy, human-computer interaction, online communication, and electronic agreements. He holds a Ph.D. in mass communication from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, an LL.M. in intellectual property from the George Washington University Law School and a J.D. from Samford University.