Canada doesn't put much stock into any technical device or technique unless it is backed up by corroborating evidence from unrelated devices and techniques. Even the breathalyzer doesn't count in court on its own accord here. It also requires failing a significantly better breath test an hour after the mobile device test, and observational evidence on top of that. None of this movie stuff where a single test on the spot is all you need. Technical evidence is a lead, and not a conclusion.
So the lie detector, finger prints, DNA, hard drive searches, etc, which all have been used here, are permissible in court, but not the deal maker or breaker without other corroborating evidence. "Beyond a doubt" is taken very seriously.
We even use both md5 and sha256 hashes together. While collisions may happen, the same collision happening with both algorithms is simply not going to happen. And if it's a drive image, you also need the meta data from the drive itself to prove it wasn't modified during the inspection process.
All that to say, you won't end up in jail just because one of your finger prints match the one on the trigger. Same goes for DNA evidence.
Statistics presents problems in all kinds of ways, when processes wish to seek absolutes. Interesting that the one polity with a "maybe" verdict: Scotland which has "not proven" -is walking away from it, because of the taint on somebody who otherwise would be found innocent, being held to "if we find more evidence, you're back for another go-around"
If you ranked DNA, lie detectors, hidden memory and facilitated communications, where do you put it? I still put it ahead of the others.
Canada doesn't put much stock into any technical device or technique unless it is backed up by corroborating evidence from unrelated devices and techniques. Even the breathalyzer doesn't count in court on its own accord here. It also requires failing a significantly better breath test an hour after the mobile device test, and observational evidence on top of that. None of this movie stuff where a single test on the spot is all you need. Technical evidence is a lead, and not a conclusion.
So the lie detector, finger prints, DNA, hard drive searches, etc, which all have been used here, are permissible in court, but not the deal maker or breaker without other corroborating evidence. "Beyond a doubt" is taken very seriously.
We even use both md5 and sha256 hashes together. While collisions may happen, the same collision happening with both algorithms is simply not going to happen. And if it's a drive image, you also need the meta data from the drive itself to prove it wasn't modified during the inspection process.
All that to say, you won't end up in jail just because one of your finger prints match the one on the trigger. Same goes for DNA evidence.
Statistics presents problems in all kinds of ways, when processes wish to seek absolutes. Interesting that the one polity with a "maybe" verdict: Scotland which has "not proven" -is walking away from it, because of the taint on somebody who otherwise would be found innocent, being held to "if we find more evidence, you're back for another go-around"
If you ranked DNA, lie detectors, hidden memory and facilitated communications, where do you put it? I still put it ahead of the others.