SMS as evidence (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

interesting article from China. roughly babelfished and edited by me:

The SMS steps into court for the very first time

A Mr Yang who lent a friend, more than 10,000 yuan (AUD$2000) has submitted very unusual evidence to support his suit to recover the monies.

Ms Han Ying sent an SMS to Mr Yang, asking him to lend funds to her. The question is, can an SMS amount to admissible evidence? This has been a difficult problem for the trial judge.

Mr Yang's submissions stated that on August 27 2004, Ms Ying tells him she needed 5,000 yuan (AUD$1000), and on account of their friendship, he electronically wires the funds to her. He lent her money on two subsequent occasions.

Mr Yang has requested Ms Ying repay the funds, but alleged that Ying has still not repaid the debt. Mr Yang's present suit requested that Ms Ying to pay the debt of 11,000 yuan (AUD$2200).

Han Ying submitted that the alleged loan of 11,000 yuan was in fact a repayment of a debt Mr Yang owes her.

The trial judge commented that this was the first time an SMS has been submitted as evidence. The court adjourned to consider its admissibility.

 

[santaslayer]

Depends on the circumstances of the case I guess. Generally, I would say that SMS' should not be admissible as anyone who had access to the phone could of falsely created those messages. Same for email.

 

[doe]

Depends on the circumstances of the case I guess. Generally, I would say that SMS' should not be admissible as anyone who had access to the phone could of falsely created those messages. Same for email.

email is very easy to fake as well

 

[Frigid]

Depends on the circumstances of the case I guess. Generally, I would say that SMS' should not be admissible as anyone who had access to the phone could of falsely created those messages. Same for email.

i thought they could... electronic transactions act dear?

 

[Xayma]

i thought they could... electronic transactions act dear?

I'm not necessairly sure if they will allow it in this case, but I think it will be allowed in the future. Otherwise harrassment via those mediums will present problems.

Also I think the spoofing of emails can be undone so as to get the correct information.

 

[doe]

Also I think the spoofing of emails can be undone so as to get the correct information.

nope.

you can trace where it originated, but you have no way of knowing who sent it. with spam relays it can be very hard to trace it. you can set the From address to anything, if youd like to see, give me your email and the address youd like to see the mail from and ill send you one. if you look at the headers you'll be able to see where it came from, but if im in an office of 50 people, you'll have a hard time proving it was me.

there are cases to back this up. one example is small ISP A got hacked by small ISP B. small ISP B was run by two brothers who lived in the same house. they knew they had been hacked from that house, but as they couldnt prove who was at the computer they avoided prosecution.

 

[Skittled]

SMS's are pretty hard to spoof. I got down into the nitty gritty of the protocol for my year 12 Software Design assignment. In fact, it's more or less impossible... unless you get some professional (and very traceable) accounts with telsta/vodafone/optus/whoever... does'nt stop you going overseas, I suppose...

Similarly, you could get down into your phone's hardware and make the phone store a message... that'd be pretty easy if you were determined.

But, people rely on signatures, and they're pretty easy to fake, too.

 

[doe]

SMS's are pretty hard to spoof (change the sender)

an ISP employee could do it. or if you had a friend who was an ISP employee ... ISP's regulary spoof source addresses

 

[Frigid]

Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) - s8

Validity of electronic transactions

(1) For the purposes of a law of the Commonwealth, a transaction is not invalid because it took place wholly or partly by means of one or more electronic communications.

noone seems to be looking up legislation

 

[doe]

Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) - s8

Validity of electronic transactions

(1) For the purposes of a law of the Commonwealth, a transaction is not invalid because it took place wholly or partly by means of one or more electronic communications.

noone seems to be looking up legislation

i dont think its the validity of the transaction, its proving who initiated the transaction. the source can be forged, and the contents of messages can be modified en-route (unless cryptography is used, but then you can always try challenge the implementation of the crypto). not a lawyer (or law student ) so i dont know if thats what you mean. i forget the case i was talking about where they couldnt prove who was the attacker, but it appeared in the E&Y/HTCC survey of computer security (2003 or 2004). the survey is more or less crap but the stories are interesting

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Of course it is not invalid (look at internet banking etc... they couldn't claim all electronic transactions are invalid). I'd be more interested to see if there's specific legislation reguarding sms.