Horst Herb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday 28 July 2006 09:38, Tim Churches wrote: > > Good idea, but from an evidentiary point of view, you need to send us > the > > screenshots as well so that we can collectively or individually attest > to > > the fact that the MD5 digests correspond to unaltered screenshots. > > Otherwise (playing Devil's advocate here and anticipating the argument > > which might be put in court by AMH's legal counsel), we have no way of > > knowing whether these MD5 digests are for screenshots which have > already > > altered to suit your devious needs. > > If I claim I have seen something and cannot provide any more evidence > than my > memory, the judge is more likely to put the onus of proof onto me I > presume. > > If I bring forth some evidence that at least at face value does not > appear > dodgy, I would presume that the onus of proof might shift towards the > other > side, which would leave them red faced. > > In any case, I doubt it would be an issue.
Sure. I was merely pointing out that distribution of a set of unilaterally-calculated MD5 sums in the absence of the files to which they refer does not really provide greater evidence than the files themselves, that's all. Now if someone else verifies that a) your screenshots are unaltered and b) your MD5 digests are for those unaltered screenshots, then you have rather stronger evidence (which as you go on to point out you will probably never need, we all hope, so let's not worry about it). Tim C > I still think they made a simple mistake,and maybe one person in their > management seemed to think for a (wrong) moment that it is more > important to > save his own face (fat chance he can) rather than admitting the mistake > and correcting the cause. > > Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
