[roel_v]

Yeah, no. I know that us 'computer people' like to think that it's different but it's not. Anything you do digitally leaves traces. Sure, 'if done properly' (like if you're some sort of Mission Impossible or CSI: Cyber style 'hack god'), anything is possible. But that's the same for physical break ins - if you do it 'properly' you can frame someone else, too. No sure why you think the 'associate' scenario would be different between digital and physical either; why would a computer tech not 'roll on you'?

This discussion is in the context of evidence. People are insinuation that somehow digital crime is different because you can't 'prove' one thing or the other, because anything could be faked (that's the gist of the argument). My point is that this is vastly ignorant of the hundreds of years of experience dealing with such uncertainty in the judicial system. Sure, it's not statistics and it's not 'logic' the same way 'we' (i.e., quantitatively, closed-system oriented people) interpret those terms, but that doesn't mean we're now somehow in a completely different world. Put differently, the STEM mindset doesn't have a monopoly on 'the truth', as much as we like to think we do.