Technology's Hidden Costs: The Story of Digital Evidence

My mailbox is not exempt from unsolicited messages (often prefaced by 300 signatures from people all over the world) with an attached picture of a hideously deformed/starved/beaten child. While the images never fail to get a reaction, after some time I've learned to take the most outrageous pictures with the proverbial grain of salt. Whether it's with reference to Victoria Beckham's scandalously skinny calves, or Oscar dela Hoya's infamous fetish for cross dressing, the average Internet user learned to leave room for doubt as to the authenticity of such images. I'm guilty of looking at some of these notorious pictures in an attempt to decide whether they're real or not. I've always thought these images were meant to entertain, shock, or (possibly) ruin a celebrity's career, but I was unpleasantly surprised at the legal consequences the advent of digital photography has caused in some parts of the world.

Apparently, prosecutors in the United States are tasked to determine the authenticity of any pornographic image depicting a child--that is, whether the image corresponds to a real child or is merely computer generated. The U.S. does not consider purely computer-generated images pornographic (no small victory for intellectual property rights)--which is a considerable defense in favor of those accused of peddling child pornography. Others may argue that, in this day and age, it is only appropriate for the State's burden of proof to approximate the current technological advances, but the truth is that prosecutors no longer enjoy the presumption of authenticity photographic evidence used to enjoy. Indeed, this development not only effectively fails to shift the burden of evidence from the prosecution to the defense, but also raises serious doubt as to whether pornographic images--normally largely constitutive of the crime--may even be considered, by themselves, sufficient evidence to move for a search warrant.

If anything, the developments in the US seem to indicate a need for prior certification from experts as to the authenticity of the images before any case may be filed--a preliminary hurdle akin to probable cause, if you will, except that a contrary finding will effectively bar the institution of a criminal action against the respondent. Even on the assumption that the images have been certified to be authentic, however, prosecutors still have to convince the jurors of the expertise of the certifying authority. In any case, it is a messy, complicated issue of appreciating digital evidence--and a wistful reminder of how, in some cases, it used to be easier to catch a crook.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/ap_on_hi_te/digital_evidence;_ylt=AmVFZqi72ebhhrP3.77InLpj24cA