That isn't a slight by any means, it's just that a lawyer will have a better idea of the shape of the law in your area than yourself or people on some web forums.
Good. )
Now that it's clear that any advice given "generally" and "on a board" is pretty much pointless when it comes to delicate matters such as the rights of an individual and the lawful gathering of evidence against him/her, can we play a bit? ?
There has been a theft from a store of SONY 42" plasma TV's.
Suspects have been seen leaving the scene by a witness on board of a "big, dark pickup, whose last registration plate numbers are 347, at least one of the two was white, 6" tall, blond hair".
Police finds a guy, 40 years old, white, long blond hairs, with a black Ford F40 pickup with last numbers of it's registration plate 347.
Given that a judge is willing to issue a search warrant for the suspect's home, it will most probably be worded in such a way as to limit the search for the stolen goods, something like
The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal stolen goods, namely one or more TV sets Sony brand, and their accessories…
Now, let's see a few scenarios, when police enters the house
- on the kitchen table, "in plain view" there is a child porn picture
- on the kitchen table, "in plain view" there is last edition of a perfectly legal adult magazine, say "Penthouse"
- on the kitchen table , "in plain view" there is last edition of "International Account Magazine"
http//
[/listo]
No Sony TV's are found.
Case #1 is simple.
The evidence is in plain view and it's evidently proof of a crime.
Case #2 99,999% of the (male) police officers will have a peek inside "Penthouse" and when the do they find in it a child porn photo.
What would happen?
Case #3 a very small number of police officers will look at the International Account Magazine, and when they do they find in it a printed Excel spreadsheet with a list of names and numbers and a printout of this image
http//
What would happen? wink
jaclaz
Ah, ok. I get the problem now.
Thanks for explaining.
what is meant by suspicious executables, Visuses, trojans, compromised computer?
All types of adult and cp case often have a source, have you been able to identify the source of the images?
It may be possible a type of fraud is occurring if the suspect is operating a domain or server making them available and stealing financial information when people pay for access.
you should speak to the OIC or who ever tasked you as it may be necessary to be re tasked but they should be made aware of any developments as they occur,
A
Just to thow in my 2 cents into the ring, as I saw others mention on page 1,
I'm from the US, and here if that situation arrises where investigating a CP case and you are law enforcement(if its CP in a lot of states you have to be if I'm not mistaken…but no expert on that matter) and you see that say they are performing illegal file sharing, since that was not under the origional investigation proceding without a new search warrent or alpha david could hinder your ability to prosecute the file sharing later. The procedure if I remember correctly is to contact the judge/prosecuter and obtain a second SW for the new crime to tack it on aswell.
Granted I haven't experienced this myself, just I remember the lesson in class, hope it helps
Ryan S Manley
Wise Forensics LLC
alpha david
AFFIDAVIT perhaps? Additionally, an affidavit is a sworn statement, and whilst is may be used to obtain a search warrant, it doesn't authorise anyone to do anything in and of itself.
I'm from the US, and here if that situation arrises where investigating a CP case and you are law enforcement(if its CP in a lot of states you have to be if I'm not mistaken…
While the states may set restrictions on who can practice digital forensics, I know of no requirement that someone investigating CP be LE. In fact, I was involved in a case where the FBI recommended a non-LE investigator to assist an institution which was doing an internal investigation after an employee was discovered viewing CP on a corporate computer and I aware of a couple of high profile cases where the defense retained their own digital forensic expert to conduct an independent investigation.
There are, however, some considerations. As "distribution" or "communication" of CP is considered ia felony under the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A the type of investigation and procedures that you follow may be limited. I have heard of cases where LE has not been willing to provide the defense with a forensic image of a computer suspected of containing CP, while they have permitted the defense investigator to examine such an image while in the possession of LE.
As noted, before, however, there does not appear to be uniform agreement on this area.
Just for the record wink
http//
More
http//eggcorns.lascribe.net/
jaclaz
alpha david
AFFIDAVIT perhaps? Additionally, an affidavit is a sworn statement, and whilst is may be used to obtain a search warrant, it doesn't authorise anyone to do anything in and of itself.
Lol, I need to brush up a bit on my terms. Its been a while, I thought posession of CP was left only on Law Enforcement. I may be mistaken however, wasn't sure if private sector was permitted to investigate CP cases, though it would make sense that they provide a examination for the defense for the individual in question.
The big issue with US law is the Adam Walsh Act, where a provision slipped in at the last minute made it illegal (arguably, I'm not a lawyer) for non-LE/gov to have possession of CP, even for forensic purposes. I know in my practice, I inform my clients that anything with CP will be handed over to LEO immediately if located. I've lost work after making that disclosure, but I really don't care if that's the reason why.
The big issue with US law is the Adam Walsh Act, where a provision slipped in at the last minute made it illegal (arguably, I'm not a lawyer) for non-LE/gov to have possession of CP, even for forensic purposes.
Strictly speaking, that is partially correct. The act (controversial) specifies that the defense is limited to inspecting the evidence in the presence/possession of LE (specifically in a government owned building which is curious since the government rents space for LE, as well). That assumes that the evidence was first obtained by LE via subpoena and the defense is now challenging that.
This is a highly controversial provision and one which, in my humble opinion, is misguided. Competent and honest investigators are not solely limited to LE and any defense should be afforded all Constitutional protections.
The law does not make it illegal for non-LE to have possession of CP. There are other laws which dictate what citizens, including non-LE investigators, must do, when confronted with CP.
Still, I would not proceed with ANY discovery of suspected CP without consulting a lawyer.