No, it wasn't looking for partial matches, it was looking for an exact match of "34 DTM" and it missed the "10" in the middle of the victims plate because it was in non-standard small lettering (as required by law for those types of plates in their state). To be clear, the 10 was in the middle of the victims plate number, which was "34 10 DTM", not the end of it.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-trac...

No, it wasn't looking for partial matches, it was looking for an exact match of "34 DTM" and it missed the "10" in the middle of the victims plate because it was in non-standard small lettering (as required by law for those types of plates in their state).

Also don't think you can simply get the opposing expert witness to give this kind of testimony on cross examination. During cross examination you can only ask them about things they testified to during direct (and a few other things such as their qualifications). So if they never testified anything about your IP during direct then you can't ask them about whether or not your IP matched during cross.

If you don't have the money to pay for an expert witness then you better just hope that the jury already knows about IP addresses and actually realizes that IP addresses matching was never brought up during the trial (they won't btw, the general public knows nothing about these things).

Think about it this way, all this techno mumbo-jumbo about account IDs and IP addresses may as well be black magic as far as the jury and court is concerned. So only a verified expert witness can testify about them. If we allowed otherwise then every trial would be nothing but testimony about how various magical or religious principles mean that you can't possibly be guilty (or vice versa).

I like it because I can use discord on even a pretty untrusted computer without providing it any credentials or access to my passkey, and then later when I'm done I can revoke the session.

This news segment goes into more detail about how he downloaded the documents (by incrementing the document id in the url) https://x.com/Brett_CBC/status/984751373525901313

> (a) Whoever— (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (C) information from any protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

So if it can't be proven that you intended to access a computer without authorization, or exceed your authorized access, then you can't be found guilty of the crime.

Consider the possible consequences of the law not requiring intent, if simply accidentally exceeding your authorized access could be a criminal act.