But the entire pseudo-science of 'the Law' has a slot for these Experts; the law hasn't encountered such a thing as IT is about:

A Universal Machine - which by definition, is an open-ended concept, imposible of being mastered totally. If that is ~ correct: what advice to the court re IT Experts would the "ones smart enough to know they don't know it all" give - in interest of er 'justice'? Remember in adversarial battle rules, it's about winning not 'truth'. (But experts can give.. opinions.)

I suspect this is a growth industry and means that someone accused of an IT-related offense - shall have to pay even more, acquire a bevy of 'Experts' in hopes that his best one beats out her best one: not in knowing 'more' - just in translating to the jury.. the most persuasively. So much for the un-rich accused BOFH, with court-appointed attorney.

Imagine explaining to a jury about the DRDOS, Win (OS/2) 3.11 scams, or limning exactly how it was that Billy n'Bally cheated Ed Curry out of his labor: chain of evidence and all? The significance of the slightly-fucked M$ Kerberos rendition?

Like the sadly, only fictional fairwitness, we appear in need of an Expert-Expert.. who assigns "categories of expertise". We aren't likely to do this well, are we? But until 'we' do: much of Billy n'Bally's atrocities are simply unconvictable, as well as unpardonable. Which brings us right to judge K-K and the crap shoot.


Ashton