[justin66]

I wonder how well that can possibly work in practice. It can't go over great in front of a jury when someone who is going to be punished for violating the rules talks about the evidence they've obtained, advocating for its legitimacy.

[ninalanyon]

There are no juries in Norway. Evidence is merely a collection of facts, how it was gathered does not alter its factual nature.

[justin66]

I expect the problems are similar in front of a judge.

> Evidence is merely a collection of facts, how it was gathered does not alter its factual nature.

That's obviously not true. The simplest counterexample is a witness report, where the credibility attached to the facts being reported will depend directly on the credibility of the witness. "The suspect verbally admitted he committed the crime while locked up in my car" will mean a lot less coming from a cop who lied to a judge while obtaining the arrest warrant.

[ninalanyon]

That officer is not relating a verifiable fact, it's not evidence. Eye witness testimony is well known to be unreliable. As are confessions. Besides, you've move the goalposts from how to by whom.

[justin66]

> it's not evidence

It’s boring to argue about the definitions of words, but you’re using English and in the countries where English is primarily spoken, testimony is considered evidence.