Do Technology Lawsuits Lead To The Chewbacca Defense?

from the this-does-not-make-sense dept

The “trojan horse” defense is becoming popular in computer crime cases. We’ve recently mentioned how it’s been used to get people off who were accused of attacking servers, child porn and tax fraud. A reporter who was at the case last week that dealt with a hack attack on servers in the Port of Houston said that the jury was clearly bored out of their skulls during all the technical testimony, and it was unlikely they really understood what was going on. Last week, when the decision came out, we asked whether or not it still made sense to have non-technical people on such a jury. This reporter is suggesting that because juries don’t understand technical jargon, we’re getting closer and closer to situations where lawyers are going to employ the Chewbacca Defense, as created for South Park. Already, Slashdot has suggested that SCO is using a Chewbacca Defense in their case. Basically, you just have a convincing lawyer make up a bunch of technical stuff, make connections that don’t have anything to do with one another, point out that it does not make sense, and therefore, the case should get thrown out. The legal strategy of the twenty-first century: trojan horses and Chewbacca.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Do Technology Lawsuits Lead To The Chewbacca Defense?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Alex says:

Re: No Subject Given

Straw man is using an outrageous exaggeration of a particular argument (i.e. one or two people suddenly represent an entire industry or population), and then attacking the exaggerated version.

The Chewbacca defense draws a parallel where no parallel exists, or goes of on a tangent to apply similar logic to a completely unrelated topic, and then argue that that logic applies to the the subject in question.

Anonymous Coward says:

Plausable denability vs. Reasonable Doubt vs The T

I don’t know what the current quality and state of LE forensic investigators, but I can tell you from experience in the past there’s a major reason why they guys work LE instead of making easier $$s elsewhere… and it’s primarily because they couldn’t find their way out of a wet paper bag let alone investigate a computer crime.

The whole amicus curi and LE “computer forensic expert” is sooo much about resume filler/oh by the way I just did this/what better way to serve the pulic by provide with with my limited knowledge of a subject I’m good a talking about. It’s frightening to think of what actually hangs in the ballence.

But then I remember the supply side theory of Law Enforcement and it all becomes crystal clear why the courts are inhabited and run and judged by such clueless folk.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...