You'd be right, I think, if the author of the software had committed a crime and access to the software would be "evidence" of some sort. But if some corporation wrote software and they themselves were not suspected of a crime, how could a subpeona be issued for LE to use the software? No Probable Cause, no suspicion of a crime, just some company that works for the defense. I'm going to ask some legal eagles about this. It's such an interesting scenario.
The hypothetical situation I'm referring to really is this. If during the execution of ones official duties you needed to use a feature of a piece of 'non-LE' licensed software in order to make progress on a specific part of an investigation, and you couldn't get that feature or functionality from any other piece of software, surely the courts could grant some form of legal authority to enable the use of that software.
I know it's a contrived scenario, but I can't imagine cases would fail or be suspended indefinitely until that functionality became available elsewhere.
If you talk to your legal friends post back, I'd be interested to know what they think.
Well I must admit, i do see the principle behind a closed forum to discuss sensitive issues in current cases.
Its the sharing of technical information or potential lack of it i have a gripe with. I see no reason for instance that LE only software should exist, but thats another story.
Well I must admit, i do see the principle behind a closed forum to discuss sensitive issues in current cases.
No way should that kind of information be kept on an publicly accessible web server, whether or not it's a members only forum.
The hypothetical situation I'm referring to really is this. If during the execution of ones official duties you needed to use a feature of a piece of 'non-LE' licensed software in order to make progress on a specific part of an investigation, and you couldn't get that feature or functionality from any other piece of software, surely the courts could grant some form of legal authority to enable the use of that software.
Well, I suppose that's possible, but what would the application look like? Would it say, for example, "The undersigned has noticed that DefenseSoft's software works better than ours does so we therefore appeal to the court to force DefenseSoft to let us use their stuff even though they don't want to"??? I hardly think that's Probable Cause D A UK court might force the issue but I think a US court (other than the 9th circuit roll ) would tell you to stuff it.
If it did work as you theorize, would it work the other way around as well? Would defense be able to get a court order to force LE only software to be made accessible?
In the UK we tend to deal with matters differently. What the court wants to know, following extraction and harvesting of data, that the processes brought into use to obtain the data did not materially affect or have effect on the translations of that data. Or put another way, nothing lost in translation.
If EnCase was used by one party and FTK used by another, so long as the results are the same the devices/programs used becomes largely irrelevant. If, of course, two differring results occur regarding the data, well then that is a different matter, with respect to reliability.
For instance, (theoretcially of course), if EnCase said only LE can use their software, then EnCase could be ordered to court where anomolies occur. As a one off EnCase may attend. Getting 100 court orders from around the country, they would be crying in their soup. It would impact hugely on their day to day activities. So most manufacturer have realised the approach of open availability is sensible.
It is my personal view, common sense is needed with devices/software. Pretending something doesn't exist to fool the masses (security by obscurety) is a rather ridiculous notion. Stopping anyone else but LE using devices/software is again rather ridiculous, as the product will only be as good as LE intelligent understanding on the matter. It is a subjective comment but the most widely favoured products on the market are those that have developed in an open market and produce far less disputes about the processes of obtaining data.
There are products that shouldn't be in the public domain, but then again those types of products really should not be used in evidence (as they are less likely to be open to legitimate and proper challenge) and LE shouldn't really be discussing them on a public forum, but using their own PNN (Police National Network). As soon as issues like this example branch out into the public arena, LE/manufacturers have lost any arguments and justification for denying others to use the product. I must say when typing this bit of the discussion I was beginning to wonder what exactly were these products in computer and mobile telephone forensics that should not be made available to all. I am not sure now that I could identify a range of products and say "no, that sector shouldn't have them".
Well, I suppose that's possible, but what would the application look like? Would it say, for example, "The undersigned has noticed that DefenseSoft's software works better than ours does so we therefore appeal to the court to force DefenseSoft to let us use their stuff even though they don't want to"??? I hardly think that's Probable Cause D A UK court might force the issue but I think a US court (other than the 9th circuit roll ) would tell you to stuff it.
Not sure on the specifics of the application, or on the mechanics of the US legal system, but I personally think this situation could occur.
If it did work as you theorize, would it work the other way around as well? Would defense be able to get a court order to force LE only software to be made accessible?
I think it would depend on the specific details of the case/situation, but I think a previous post in this thread indicated that it would.
I talked about this with a lawyer, and while this attorney isn't a copyright or intellectual property expert, I value their opinion highly.
I was pointed to a bit of an outlaw website, http//
HESSLA was specifically written by an attorney to enforce 1) open source, 2) human rights and 3) non-governmental interference. If you look at the document, pay special attention to section 14 near the bottom where it addresses the requirements for government use.
Not being an expert myself, it does look legitimate. You can restrict government use of your software. Now, if you, your company or your software was involved in a crime than obviously LE could easily get a warrant to use/examine the software, but if no crime is committed, I think it's going to be tough to justify busting the contract without risking costly penalties.
Well i am the senior CF analyst for a private firm in the UK but 99.9% of my work is for the police, from Fraud, Grooming, Professional Standards, CP, Murder etc.
So where do i stand with the forum, aulthough I do agree a registered forum proving who you are is better than this..
Mitch
Well i am the senior CF analyst for a private firm in the UK but 99.9% of my work is for the police, from Fraud, Grooming, Professional Standards, CP, Murder etc.
So where do i stand with the forum, aulthough I do agree a registered forum proving who you are is better than this..
Mitch
Hi, Mitch. Sorry, but as I've said it's for people employed in a governmental LE organisation only. No offence is meant, and I hope it won't be taken.
I don't know guys but I would like to discuss some issues I am seeing with LE examiners here in the states that I would be very reluctant to discuss on this forum.