[nitrogen]

Page 16 has some wonderful lines:

  • “Fruit of the poisonous tree” can be circumvented
    • The use of backdoors cannot be detected or proven
    • Vendors are legally and commercially prevented from
      acknowledging their backdoors. Defense will not be
      able to prove their existence
    • The files can be described as “forensically obtained”

[fluidcruft]

...but how is the prosecution able to prove the files exist on someone's device if they don't have to disclose how they determined that the files were present? If all they have to do is assert that the files exist and were "forensically obtained" then why bother with the backdoor in the first place?

[DannyBee]

They are required to disclose everything. This slide reads like it was written by someone whose knowledge of criminal procedure comes from TV.

[nitrogen]

The title page credits the document to a presentation by a detective in Oregon. Have any journalists tried to verify the source and accuracy of this document? It's unclear from the article submission why it was submitted or how the submitter found it.

Edit: I just read the current top comment listing the names of the supposed presenters.

[dmourati]

FOTPT: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

[DannyBee]

This is of course, completely false in every way. No prosecutor would ever be dumb enough to say any of this.

[nitrogen]

Could it happen in some off-the-beaten-path courtroom that isn't being watched as closely, and whose defendants are less likely to know that? The title page of the document shows a county in Oregon, and the link at the end to the previous year's presentation points to North Dakota.