Manuel Piñeiro's List: Wikileaks

Digital evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2010)

Evidence
Part of the common law series
Types of evidence
Testimony · Documentary
Real (physical) · Digital
Exculpatory · Scientific
Demonstrative
Eyewitness identification
Genetic (DNA) · Lies
Relevance
Burden of proof · Laying a foundation
Public policy exclusions · Spoliation ·
Character · Habit · Similar fact
Authentication
Chain of custody
Judicial notice · Best evidence rule
Self-authenticating document
Ancient document
Witnesses
Competence · Privilege
Direct examination
Cross-examination  · Redirect
Impeachment · Recorded recollection
Expert witness · Dead Man's Statute
Hearsay and exceptions
in English law · in United States law
Confessions · Business records
Excited utterance · Dying declaration
Party admission · Ancient document
Declaration against interest
Present sense impression · Res gestae
Learned treatise · Implied assertion
Other common law areas
Contract · Tort · Property
Wills; trusts and estates
Criminal law
v · d · e
Digital evidence or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial.[1] Before accepting digital evidence a court will determine if the evidence is relevant, whether it is authentic, if it is hearsay and whether a copy is acceptable or the original is required.[1]
The use of digital evidence has increased in the past few decades as courts have allowed the use of e-mails, digital photographs, ATM transaction logs, word processing documents, instant message histories, files saved from accounting programs, spreadsheets, internet browser histories, databases, the contents of computer memory, computer backups, computer printouts, Global Positioning System tracks, logs from a hotel’s electronic door locks, and digital video or audio files.[2]
Many courts in the

6 Я. Adrian Lamo
Telling an inconvenient truth isn't bias. It's an act of ethics.
15 hours ago

bailey_carlson Bailey Carlson
@
@6 I dont believe you are a liar or bad person, I just think youre too confident in your position. Arrogance is typical in hackers.
15 hours ago
in reply to ↑

@6
Я. Adrian Lamo
@bailey_carlson It's hard to be too confident in your position when it's correct. The logs were forensically verified, as WP reported.

Adrian Lamo
‎"The logs — Lamo provided The Post a small portion — have been authenticated by Army investigators, according to an intelligence official familiar with aspects of the case. According to a second source, the investigators matched the logs on Lamo’s hard drives with logs found on Manning’s hard drive."

Bradley Manning is at the center of the WikiLeaks controversy. But who is he?
www.washingtonpost.com
How did a young man of such promise wind up in a brig? And how was he in a position to potentially access sensitive material given what the Army knew — or should have known — about him?

evin Poulsen

On Wednesday 25th May 2011, @kpoulsen said:

In #Frontline chat on #WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning's father says he had @lockean removed from Manning's visitor list "Brad only met David House once in that 'geek' party. Then out of the blue he started visiting Bradley. We think another friend had Brad put House on the list. When we found out he only visiting to suck information for he own use we ppulled his access."

lockean
Posted 3 days ago
May 25 2011
 
Below is a brief partial analysis of recent statements made by Brian Manning regarding the removal of David House from Pvt. Bradley Manning's visitation list. The statements below were responses by Mr. Manning during a PBS public web chat, a transcript of which is available here: http://to.pbs.org/l41Kh9 
 
The first of three examined statements is in response to questions about removals from Bradley Manning's visitation list. Brian Manning says:
 
1:39pm - Brian Manning:
Brad only met David House once in that "geek" party. Then out of the blue he started visiting Bradley. We think another friend had Brad put House on the list. When we found out he only visiting to suck information for he own use we ppulled his access.

Based on the statement "we ppulled his access" it is evident that Brian Manning and/or his affiliates ("we") were responsible for removing House from Bradley Manning's visitation list. Note the "we" group does not include Bradley based on the context of "We think... Brad put House on the list." 

In response, a user asks if Bradley Manning agreed with Brian Manning's decision to remove House from the list. The exchange:

1:49pm - guest:
Did Bradley agree with having David House pulled from his visitor list?
 
1:50pm - Brian Manning:
He never mentioned it.
 
From this exchange we can gather that Bradley Manning's explicit agreement either was not required or was not sought during the period that Brian Manning or his affiliates ("we") moved to remove House from the visitation list. Later, a user asks Brian Manning what led him to take control of the visitor list and subsequently revoke House's access. Brian responds:
 
2:11pm - Brian Manning:

I never "took" over the visitor. No one and I mean none but Brad and the Quantico staff controlled the list. Call the brig and ask for yourself.

This message relates that only two entities have the authority to revoke visitor access rights. In making this claim Brian Manning seems to contradict his previous statement