When all the spinning 3d shit appears on the movie screen, the audience does not automatically think "hacking". But they do think that once the movie tells them it is hacking. (Of course audience members have come to expect certain depictions to be described as hacking) If you spew technobabble at a layman and tell them that you are rehashing a microwave oven, they'll believe you, even though that makes no sense. When a prosecutor spews technobabble about graphology, the layman is going to think it is evidence, not because when they hear the technobabble they think "hard evidence" but because when the prosecutor spews it and calls it evidence, they think "evidence".
When a prosecutor spews what seems to be nonsense about MAC addresses, and calls it leet illegal hacks, do you really think that the layman is going to sit there and second guess that assessment? Really?
The general public cares about illegal hacking. The general public has no idea what illegal hacking looks like. When the general public is shown something alien to them, and then told it is illegal hacking, you would be insane to think they would not react in fear of it.
If they understood the subject matter, they would act rationally even if they did not understand the particulars; for example, if they understand the basic premises of medicine. Now, if you had a surgeon describe the familiar (say an appendectomy) in unfamilar detailed medical jargon, your standard layman is going to be a hell of a lot more stressed out over the procedure. Why? Because the unfamilar frightens.
Being persuaded by technical jargon is not the same thing as simply attacking someone for having technical skills, as was the original implication.
And for better or worse, juries are tasked all the time with coming to conclusions in problem domains that might be beyond their understanding. This is not unique to the technical realm nor is it a new phenomenon. A jury in a complex insurance or securities dispute is going to need things explained to them just as much as in a computer hacking case. Indeed, I'd argue it's much easier to explain to someone what MAC address spoofing is than to explain to them what the LIBOR manipulation entailed.
When all the spinning 3d shit appears on the movie screen, the audience does not automatically think "hacking". But they do think that once the movie tells them it is hacking. (Of course audience members have come to expect certain depictions to be described as hacking) If you spew technobabble at a layman and tell them that you are rehashing a microwave oven, they'll believe you, even though that makes no sense. When a prosecutor spews technobabble about graphology, the layman is going to think it is evidence, not because when they hear the technobabble they think "hard evidence" but because when the prosecutor spews it and calls it evidence, they think "evidence".
When a prosecutor spews what seems to be nonsense about MAC addresses, and calls it leet illegal hacks, do you really think that the layman is going to sit there and second guess that assessment? Really?
The general public cares about illegal hacking. The general public has no idea what illegal hacking looks like. When the general public is shown something alien to them, and then told it is illegal hacking, you would be insane to think they would not react in fear of it.
If they understood the subject matter, they would act rationally even if they did not understand the particulars; for example, if they understand the basic premises of medicine. Now, if you had a surgeon describe the familiar (say an appendectomy) in unfamilar detailed medical jargon, your standard layman is going to be a hell of a lot more stressed out over the procedure. Why? Because the unfamilar frightens.