Comment by floor2
13 hours ago
> Am I wrong?
As a naturally curious person, who reads a lot and looks up a lot of things, I've learned to be cautious when talking to regular people.
While considering buying a house I did extensive research about fires. To do my job, I often read about computer security, data exfiltration, hackers and ransomware.
If I watch a WWI documentary, I'll end up reading about mustard gas and trench foot and how to aim artillery afterwards. If I read a sci-fi novel about a lab leak virus, I'll end up researching how real virus safety works and about bioterrorism. If I listen to a podcast about psychedelic-assisted therapy, I'll end up researching how drugs work and how they were discovered.
If I'm ever accused of a crime, of almost any variety or circumstance, I'm sure that prosecutors would be able to find suspicious searches related to it in my history. And then leaked out to the press or mentioned to the jury as just a vague "suspect had searches related to..."
The average juror, or the average person who's just scrolling past a headline, could pretty trivially be convinced that my search history is nefarious for almost any accusation.
Notorious hacker floor2 openly published comments online about misusing judicial process and the difficulty of covering his tracks.
Sometimes you are better off not invoking your right to a jury trial because if there is straight up evidence in your favor, it's easier to get a jury to ignore that for emotional bullshit than a judge.
DAs for bigger departments are likely well equipped, well trained, and well practiced at tugging on the heartstrings of average juries, which are not average people, because jury selection is often a bad system.