'Trust me, I'm an IT expert'

A two-week trial that saw detailed examination of chatroom logs and transcripts and expert witness testimony on denial of service attacks, Trojan horses and Zombies finally ended today with the acquittal of 19-year old Aaron Caffrey from Dorset on charges of bringing down the computer systems of a major US port in a revenge attack on a South African chatroom user.

We are not questioning the jury's verdict in Caffrey's trial but the complex technical nature of some of the evidence and arguments highlights a growing issue for both prosecutors and defendants in high-tech crime cases.

Computer forensics experts have expressed to us in the past concerns that even the most rock-solid of prosecution cases where all technical forensics procedures have been carried out to the letter of the law rest on the ability of the jury to understand the evidence.

That's a jury where the range of knowledge probably goes from never having touched a computer to those who type a few letters and surf the net at work. If there's any doubt the jury must, quite rightly, acquit. Then there's the cost of pursuing the investigation and the trial. In this case it was over two years after the crime that the case was brought to court following a lengthy, and probably costly, police investigation.

Of course this isn't a problem confined to high-tech crime cases and has long been an issue in complex trials involving corporate accounting fraud and tax evasion. And there are also measures already in place to try and validate the authority of those who testify. To be classed as 'experts' witnesses need to be registered and accredited in computer security and forensics with over 10 years experience in the field. But that doesn't make their evidence any less baffling, so it's more a case of "Trust me, I'm an IT expert...".

In truth there's no simple answer to this one but there has to be a better way of ensuring public money and police time isn't wasted pursuing technical cases where there is little chance of getting a guilty verdict.