Google search in court

In the story below, I am troubled by two things:

- the assumption that a diversity of items being available proves that each of them are rarer to come by (here a yellow hat). How a Google search can help assessing this baffles me. Statistics of sale would be more relevant. Education of judges in how to use Google and how Google gathers its information?

- why indeed a judge can 'google' but not juries?

Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases (TechDirt, 23 March 2010)

Reliability of data

An interesting analysis of facts about the posting on YouTUbe of a video where a young man was attacked by a group of young women. The bloggers apparently questioned the reliability of the video and some thought it was a fake. It was confirmed later on it was real, but I like the idea (and in that sense I concur with the article's author) that people questioned what they saw and did not take it at face value.
In terms of criminal procedure it is absolutely essential.

"Info sur le web : Le syndrome inversé de la fille du RER D" (JDN, 26 May 2009)

On a similar note, the explanations about information safekeeping/safeguarding, which is linked with its reliability. "Cycle de vie des données informatiques, du berceau à la tombe !" (JDN 7 mai 2009)

Proof of writing in digital format - France

The implications for cybercrime are obvious, but the case by the French Supreme Court is interesting. It deals with a private law issue, where proof was needed that an e-mail has been sent by the social security services. The Court highlights a series of conditions necessary for evidence to be accepted. Obviously, a printed copy of the e-mail is not sufficient, but incredibly, that was what was used by the services!

"La valeur probante de l’écrit numérique" (JDN, 18 February 2009) - Cour de Cassation le 4 décembre 2008 (pourvoi n°07-17622)