Some new misinformation on hard disk wiping

I know it is not feasible, but would be nice just to post the not-so-innocent. Or, at least a link to court records…

Oh, the good old days, when public flogging took care of rascals… mrgreen

Here are a couple anecdotal accounts that I got from some of my visits to an RCFL where I do a lot of cases as a defense expert

1. Murder case where the defense expert forgot to modify his forensic software to account for the difference in time zones between his local computer and the location of the defendant's computer. Because of this, all of his time stamps were off by 3 hours. He put in his report that the times reported by the LE examiner were wrong.

Even after the LE examiner patiently explained to him that his time zone setting was wrong, (West coast expert workingon a EST case), the defense expert continued to insist that HIS times were right.

He testified to that in court and got a little embarrassed.

2. Defense expert in a child porn case who never reviewed the evidence, but was able to produce a 140 page "report" about the case.

3. Defense expert in a child porn case who could not stand to view the images, so his entire approach was a timeline analysis.

Of course, I have the same kind of stories about some LE examiners too. But those are probably not very popular to relate.

3. Defense expert in a child porn case who could not stand to view the images, so his entire approach was a timeline analysis.

I don't find this an unreasonable approach to take.

In the UK, at least, it is relatively rare to expect Defence Experts to grade the images. Generally they are employed when the question is "Did Mr X download the images?" - in which case a timeline analysis is a good approach to take.

In fact I'm not sure I've heard of a case where they are employed purely because of a disagreement in what constitutes an indecent image / child pornography.

Maybe things are different in the states. )

(Some of those other stories, though - amazing!)

I would never do a case where i did not view the images that are being charged. I did one case, where not a single image was actually contraband.

In the US there is a reliance on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) database for known victims. However, I have found that a hit from this database does not mean that the image is actually child porn, but may only be the image of a known victim that does not meet the threshold for contraband.

In the US the prosecutor decides what images to charge in most cases. in others it is the LE examiner who makes that decision. Every department, agency has its own rules.

There is also case law in he US that precludes certain types of images from being chargable, i.e. thumbnail images.

Additionally, each state has its own laws (statues) regarding what is and what is not considered contraband. In some states, the age of consent may dictate if something is contraband where the age of consent is lower than 18.

In all the cases I have done, I have not so far seen a doctor called to identify the ages of the persons in the picture. While I know it does happen, it is rare.

Depending on the state statute, not being able to determine the age of the persons in a photo is an affirmative defence, in other states it is not.

Welcome to the US where we have 50+ sets of laws governing every type of offense.

There is also case law in he US that precludes certain types of images from being chargable, i.e. thumbnail images.

Is there a "standard" size/resolution/number of colours to define "thumbnail"?

Additionally, each state has its own laws (statues) regarding what is and what is not considered contraband. In some states, the age of consent may dictate if something is contraband where the age of consent is lower than 18.

In all the cases I have done, I have not so far seen a doctor called to identify the ages of the persons in the picture. While I know it does happen, it is rare.

JFYI a related thread
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=6448/

I started a new thread for "horror stories", but IMHO they should be more detailed than your posted examples
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=9702/
and, as I see it, no matter if the mistake is done by the defendant or by the prosecution or their relative expert witnesses, the idea is to learn from other people mistakes.

jaclaz

The case normally cited when it comes to thumbnails, etc is ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION.

Is there a "standard" size/resolution/number of colours to define "thumbnail"?

The case normally cited when it comes to thumbnails, etc is ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION.

Can you provide an actual reference?
I cannot find anything specifically about "thumbnail" here
http//www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

But wouldn't that be anyway BEFORE the current Law "PROTECT Act of 2003" was approved?

jaclaz

Is there a "standard" size/resolution/number of colours to define "thumbnail"?

The case normally cited when it comes to thumbnails, etc is ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION.

Can you provide an actual reference?
I cannot find anything specifically about "thumbnail" here
http//www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

But wouldn't that be anyway BEFORE the current Law "PROTECT Act of 2003" was approved?

jaclaz

That ruling's point on this subject is that one must be able to distinguish computer generated from photographic images.

http//www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/diginv11.pdf

The PROTECT Act actually has no effect on this point, as the ability to distinguish between the two is still in effect. When I left LE last year, our policy to bypass thumbnails in search for CP evidence was still upstanding.

That ruling's point on this subject is that one must be able to distinguish computer generated from photographic images.

http//www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/diginv11.pdf

The PROTECT Act actually has no effect on this point, as the ability to distinguish between the two is still in effect. When I left LE last year, our policy to bypass thumbnails in search for CP evidence was still upstanding.

I continue not understanding. (

I had gathered that there is no real difference according to the protect act between real photos and realistic images and not even with cartoons
http//io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court

But this wasn't my question.

As far as I can tell a "thumbnail" is a copy (in a reduced scale) of an original image.
A thumbnail of a photo remains a (smaller) photo.
A thumbnail of a CGI (Computer Generated Image) remains a (smaller) CGI.

My question is still

Is there a "standard" size/resolution/number of colours to define "thumbnail"?

I mean, when a (biggish in size and number of colours) thumbnail becomes an actual low sized image?
And when the effect of small size combined with reduced number of colours makes it not anymore such?

jaclaz