As a forensic examiner, you must make sure that the evidence that you collect will stand up in court. What three things (categories) need to be verifiable in order for evidence to have a solid foundation to stand on? How are these categories measured and qualified?
After you answer this portion of the discussion question, I would like you to read an article in the NYT titled “Apple Sees Value in Its Stand to Protect Security”. I believe this is relevant because currently law enforcement forensic examiners cannot break the security on the I Phone 5 preventing them from obtaining digital evidence. This seems to be an issue in the San Bernardino Valley Investigation and definitely future investigations. What do you think of Apple’s position? I have also attached an updated article on the FBI decision to purchase a solution from a “gray hat” hacker. What do you think of the FBI’s actions?
There are three criteria that must be met for proof of an event to be
considered Verifiable Evidence: That the information in
question was Lawfully Gathered; that it is Relevant to the matter at
hand, or event in question, and Probative, or tends to prove or
disprove a particular assertion of the trial; and that the
information presented as evidence is Authentic and Reliable.
In the articles assigned for our review, Apple denied a request from the US Government to allow back door access to a locked product. In their defiance, Apple set themselves apart from any government entity, and declared themselves Neutral. At face value, their act of noncompliance appears to be an act of solidarity with the consumer, ensuring that whomever purchased their phone would be assured confidentiality. But by not complying with the FBI’s request, they cross the line into Contentious Objector, in their refusal to assist with any matters of National or Global security, as one can assume that their products are being used in every side of any conflict.
As a response, the FBI used undisclosed means to recover the data, circumventing Apple or the Defendant, and recovering the data they deemed pertinent to their case. The articles concerning this retrieval were painfully vague, with no verifiable or definitive information regarding the method of recovery. Was it Lawfully Gathered? Probably not, but we don’t know how it was attained, so it’s impossible to say. Was the information Relevant? According to this article, http://fortune.com/2016/04/20/fbi-san-bernardino-iphone/ we don’t know. It’s possible that he may have contacted someone in the 18 minutes, but no information is being released, so we have no way of telling whether or not it’s Probative. Is is Authentic and Reliable? Again it’s impossible to say. In dealing with shady sources, “Grey Hat Hackers” how is one to confirm that this data is Authentic or Reliable? Wouldn’t an unethical source be just as likely to forge results for the enormous payout? Wouldn’t the FBI be overeager to save face in the public image and say they recovered the data after being publicly refused? I believe the FBI could have handled this a little better, and I for one would appreciate a little more transparency in upcoming trials concerning the privacy of information.