13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
13.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 20:36
13.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 20:36
Feb 3, 2017, 20:36
 
HorrorScope wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 18:09:
I just wonder how the drive is surrendered.
In pieces, after it accidentally went through a band saw.
"I expect death to be nothingness and by removing from me all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." Isaac Asimov
Avatar 58135
12.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 18:09
12.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 18:09
Feb 3, 2017, 18:09
 
For my understanding, how does this play out.

1. Zeni feels wrong.
2. Creates lawsuit.
3. Caramack supposedly wipes drive.

Got that, but what happens next?

Court order and FBI comes to office and confiscates system?

I just wonder how the drive is surrendered.
Avatar 17232
11.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 10:22
11.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 10:22
Feb 3, 2017, 10:22
 
its pretty obvious someone like Carmack would know how to zero-fill a drive... thats not really in question for anyone with even slight technical knowledge and an understanding of who the guy is

i was saying that falsifying an affidavit seemed like an extreme accusation, but i guess thats just another day at the office for some people
10.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 09:29
10.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 09:29
Feb 3, 2017, 09:29
 
For all anyone knows both "I never tried to hide or wipe any evidence" and wiping 92% if his HDD could be true. Maybe he just figured it was best to wipe out his embarrassing porn collection before anyone gets their hands on his computer, which wouldn't be evidence relevant to the case.
9.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 09:24
9.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 09:24
Feb 3, 2017, 09:24
8.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 02:21
8.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 02:21
Feb 3, 2017, 02:21
 
I believe it's called 'Burden of Proof'.
Avatar 12670
7.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 01:44
7.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 01:44
Feb 3, 2017, 01:44
 
Agent-Zero wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:29:
Scheherazade wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:26:
Agent-Zero wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:05:
Scheherazade wrote on Feb 2, 2017, 23:57:
We can be sure that the expert was either lying or retarded.

Also, you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact.

-scheherazade

if he was lying, then its not "giving their opinion"... lying is sorta the definition of "knew otherwise for a fact"

Prove it. He could have easily "made a mistake". No intent, no crime.

-scheherazade

you were the one who said you were sure the expert was lying or retarded

YOU prove it

I'll refer back to my earlier post :

"you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact."

The 'prove they knew' part is key.

Even if you can prove that an actual expert certainly should have known better, the expert need only say "I made a mistake".

Unless there was intent and the guy decided to write down his intentions in a diary, you won't be able to prove it - hence why the phrase "prove it" is on point.



To clarify, I was referring to 'Carmack googling how to secure erase a drive'.

The man is an expert among experts among experts... having to look up a command that basic IT guys know of the top of their head is a stretch.
Like claiming a car mechanic had to google how to change motor oil, or a carpenter googling how to swing a hammer.
It's just too basic - makes it incredibly hard to believe.

Keep in mind - I could be wrong.

If Carmack did in fact google secure erase for his own purposes, then he must have had a massive stroke of negligence and complacency - which I concede is in the realm of possibility for anyone. He's certainly aware of all the various logs that are kept in IT, meaning he'd be aware that he'd be producing an "orgy of evidence". Which again, seems an unlikely thing to do if one is actively up to no good.



edit : I'll end the posting here. I'm rambling on about earlier links that aren't even related to the non-literal copying element of the case (which is supposed to be the topic).

-schehearazade

This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2017, 02:55.
6.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 01:29
6.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 01:29
Feb 3, 2017, 01:29
 
Scheherazade wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:26:
Agent-Zero wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:05:
Scheherazade wrote on Feb 2, 2017, 23:57:
We can be sure that the expert was either lying or retarded.

Also, you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact.

-scheherazade

if he was lying, then its not "giving their opinion"... lying is sorta the definition of "knew otherwise for a fact"

Prove it. He could have easily "made a mistake". No intent, no crime.

-scheherazade

you were the one who said you were sure the expert was lying or retarded

YOU prove it
5.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 01:26
5.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 01:26
Feb 3, 2017, 01:26
 
Agent-Zero wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:05:
Scheherazade wrote on Feb 2, 2017, 23:57:
We can be sure that the expert was either lying or retarded.

Also, you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact.

-scheherazade

if he was lying, then its not "giving their opinion"... lying is sorta the definition of "knew otherwise for a fact"

Prove it. He could have easily "made a mistake"(optional sarcasm). No intent, no crime.

What's obvious to computer literates, and what you can 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' to computer illiterate plebs, are two different things.
I mean that regarding both the original case, and regarding the idea that the expert was full of crap.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2017, 02:41.
4.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 3, 2017, 01:05
4.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 3, 2017, 01:05
Feb 3, 2017, 01:05
 
Scheherazade wrote on Feb 2, 2017, 23:57:
We can be sure that the expert was either lying or retarded.

Also, you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact.

-scheherazade

if he was lying, then its not "giving their opinion"... lying is sorta the definition of "knew otherwise for a fact"
3.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 2, 2017, 23:57
3.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 2, 2017, 23:57
Feb 2, 2017, 23:57
 
(edit : Regarding Carmack needing to google how to secure erase. This is my opinion. Clearly I can't give physical evidence for it.)

We can be sure that the expert was either lying or retarded.

All it takes to secure wipe a drive is :

boot a linux live cd.
dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/<the drive>
[maybe even run it a few times over... if that makes you feel better]

If I know that, carmack definitely does.






(edit : in general regarding secure erasure artifacts - not specifically this case)

You can prove that any drive has been 'secure erased in the past' with 2 simple conditions :

1) It contained compressed data (zip, video, etc) (secure erased data appears random - as does compressed data. Regularity allows for compression, which is why compressed appears irregular (random))

2) It has been quick formatted in the past, and subsequently used. This will leave dangling chunks of random data with no file system entry associated. If the header of such files is overwritten, it can't be identified, and ends up appearing as previously secure erased blocks.





(edit: regarding computer cases in court - not just this case)

Given that juries are vetted for zero bias (i.e. they would be picked from computer illiterates that have no prior opinions), the 'experts' are considered unbiased authorities on the truth that the jury defers to for technical opinion.





(edit : regarding false expert testimony - in general, not specifically this case)

Also, you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2017, 02:08.
2.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 2, 2017, 21:39
2.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 2, 2017, 21:39
Feb 2, 2017, 21:39
 
Agent-Zero wrote on Feb 2, 2017, 20:58:
"the Court’s independent expert found 92 percent of Carmack’s hard drive was wiped - all data was permanently destroyed, right after Carmack got notice of the lawsuit, and that his affidavit denying the wiping was false. Those are the hard facts."

Wouldnt this be perjury? Carmack is denying this is true, saying the independent expert is wrong - so shouldnt he file a counterclaim for slander or something of that nature? Seems like a pretty big deal.

Because in court the onus in on the claimant to prove it. They have to prove that the data wiped belonged to them. He doesn't have to do shit. If they can't prove the claim then yes, he can sue them for libel in this case.
"Van Gogh painted alone and in despair and in madness and sold one picture in his entire life. Millions struggled alone, unrecognized, and struggled as heroically as any famous hero. Was it worthless? I knew it wasn't."
1.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Feb 2, 2017, 20:58
1.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Feb 2, 2017, 20:58
Feb 2, 2017, 20:58
 
"the Court’s independent expert found 92 percent of Carmack’s hard drive was wiped - all data was permanently destroyed, right after Carmack got notice of the lawsuit, and that his affidavit denying the wiping was false. Those are the hard facts."

Wouldnt this be perjury? Carmack is denying this is true, saying the independent expert is wrong - so shouldnt he file a counterclaim for slander or something of that nature? Seems like a pretty big deal.
13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older