{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036753445635528334, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.475247524752476, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Digital "evidence" and reasonable doubt

Unlike conventional analog data, such as a witness's subjective recollection, digital data seems, to the average person, to be endowed with intrinsic and unassailable truth. (Perhaps this is because it takes only one of two unambiguous values.) The truth, in fact, is quite the opposite. Using the right equipment, experts can generally detect tampering with conventional analog data and evidence. Digital data, on the other hand, can be manipulated at will, and depending on the manipulator's sophistication, the alteration can be undetectable, regardless of digital forensics experts' competence and equipment.