Advertisement

Analysis of the Digital Evidence Presented in the Yahoo! Case

  • Michael Kwan
  • Kam-Pui Chow
  • Pierre Lai
  • Frank Law
  • Hayson Tse
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 306)

Abstract

The “Yahoo! Case” led to considerable debate about whether or not an IP address is personal data as defined by the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486) of the Laws of Hong Kong. This paper discusses the digital evidence presented in the Yahoo! Case and evaluates the impact of the IP address on the verdict in the case. A Bayesian network is used to quantify the evidentiary strengths of hypotheses in the case and to reason about the evidence. The results demonstrate that the evidence about the IP address was significant to obtaining a conviction in the case.

Keywords

Yahoo! Case digital evidence Bayesian network reasoning 

References

  1. 1.
    Administrative Appeals Board, Shi Tao v. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Administrative Appeal No. 16 of 2007, Hong Kong (www.pcpd.org.hk/english/publications/files/Appeal _Yahoo.pdf), 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Aitken and F. Taroni, Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Bascuas, Property and probable cause: The Fourth Amendment’s principled protection of privacy, Rutgers Law Review, vol. 60(3), pp. 575–645, 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Changsha Intermediate People’s Court of Hunan Province, Criminal Verdict, First Trial Case No. 29, Changsha Intermediate Criminal Division One Court, Changsha, China (www.globalvoicesonline .org/wp-content/ShiTao_verdict.pdf), 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Changsha Intermediate People’s Court of Hunan Province, Reasons for Verdict, First Trial Case No. 29, Changsha Intermediate Criminal Division One Court, Changsha, China (www.pcpd.org.hk /english/publications/files/Yahoo_annex.pdf), 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Cook, I. Evett, G. Jackson, P. Jones and J. Lambert, A model for case assessment and interpretation, Science and Justice, vol. 38, pp. 151–156, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Dawid, Statistics and the Law, Research Report No. 224, Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Jensen, An Introduction to Bayesian Networks, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Kwan, K. Chow, F. Law and P. Lai, Reasoning about evidence using Bayesian networks, in Advances in Digital Forensics IV, I. Ray and S. Shenoi (Eds.), Springer, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 275–289, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Loui, J. Norman, J. Altepeter, D. Pinkard, D. Craven, J. Linsday and M. Foltz, Progress on Room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 207–214, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Microsoft Research, MSBNx: Bayesian Network Editor and Tool Kit, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington (research.micro soft.com/adapt/MSBNx).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Mortera, A. Dawid and S. Lauritzen, Probabilistic expert systems for DNA mixture profiling, Theoretical Population Biology, vol. 63(3), pp. 191–206, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Report Published under Section 48(2) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486), Report No. R07-3619, Hong Kong (www.pcpd.org .hk/english/publications/files/Yahoo_e.pdf), 2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Prakken, C. Reed and D. Walton, Argumentation schemes and generalizations in reasoning about evidence, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 32–41, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Walton, Argumentation and theory of evidence, in New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence – Volume II, C. Breur, M. Kommer, J. Nijboer and J. Reijntjes (Eds.), Intersentia, Antwerp, Belgium, pp. 711–732, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Kwan
  • Kam-Pui Chow
  • Pierre Lai
  • Frank Law
  • Hayson Tse

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations