In order for the evidence to be valid and admissible in court is it always necessary for law enforcement to have acquired a physical image? Does that mean that on more recent devices such as iPhones where that may not be possible that a logical acquisition is of little value in terms of court proceedings?
In order for the evidence to be valid and admissible in court is it always necessary for law enforcement to have acquired a physical image?
No, but I wonder how you came to this conclusion.
The general idea is to prove that something was done (or not done) on a given device, possibly that someone did (or did not do) something on it, hopefully on a given day/at a given time or within a given temporal range, and that the source of this info comes from data that cannot be interpreted differently and that was collected and kept in custody "properly".
Of course an integral physical image contains (almost) "everything", but this does not mean in any way that a subset of "everything" isn't "good enough".
Does that mean that on more recent devices such as iPhones where that may not be possible that a logical acquisition is of little value in terms of court proceedings?
No.
jaclaz
I can take a picture of a picture on your phone and it can become admissible.
I can take a picture of a picture on your phone and it can become admissible.
As long as you can produce a picture of your taking the picture and in the picture also the newspaper front page is visible…. wink
http//
jaclaz