|
"Regarding your distinction between real and cyber crimes, digital evidence can certainly be relevant in a murder case, e.g. iMessages, location history, search history." But the cameras are supposed to completely cover society, so we don't need the cyber info. Indeed, perhaps the perpetrator has a secret paper diary, written in code, where he writes down his exploits. Who cares? We have signed imagery, of him commiting the crime. Any extra information is useful in the statistical sense (to understand what drives a person to do this or that, or to better prepare citizens on how to prevent falling victim to such and such crime), but should be unnecessary to convict a person. The most relevant are the actions themselves I think. About location history: the camera system is more reliable than the cell phones since a cell phone may be given to a friend willing to provide an alibi, alternatively GPS spoofing etc. The major reason these cell phone messages, search history etc are highly relevant is simply because we lack the community camera system. Another problem is phone evidence is highly irregular: some people are more aware of mass surveillance then others (which is also highly correlated to status in society!) when communicating, some people refuse to have a cell phone on them, ... When they lack enough evidence, the prosecution is forced to grab at straws (irrespective of guilt or innocence of the defendant), and then the value of computer/phone activity seems very high, especially if boots on the ground or scientifiic investigation of crime scenes is so much more expensive. Then it is easy to view this digital data as highly relevant and reliable. |