Voom Interprets Supreme Court Ruling to Apply to Computer Forensics

According to Voom Technologies, Inc., Recent Supreme Court ruling places computer forensics under the scope of Court’s requirement for live testimony by forensic analysts. Although this controversial 5 to 4 decision was well-debated and resolved on constitutional grounds, the ramifications may include increased burdens placed on already over-taxed cybercrime labs that, according to the FBI, have seen a 2000 percent rise in cases opened since 1996…If computer forensic analysts think they’re bogged down in the lab, overburdened by the exorbitant 2000 percent rise in the number of cybercrime cases opened since 1996 as reported by the FBI, wait until they get to the courtroom. They may not see the lab again, according to Voom.

In a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down last month in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Court held that “certificates” of forensic findings were admitted in error. In a controversial 5 to 4 vote that reversed the judgment of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the Supreme Court held that admission of notarized forensic analysts’ reports violated the defendant’s 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses against him under the Confrontation Clause. In the absence of live testimony by forensic analysts, such evidence was precluded.

Although the forensic evidence in question was drug-related, the Court’s ruling was not limited to any particular discipline of forensics. In fact, referencing potential errors introduced through forensic analysts, Justice Scalia, who delivered the Court’s prevailing opinion in this case, notes “The same is true of many of the other types of forensic evidence commonly used in criminal prosecutions.” Given this and absent limitations, all forensic disciplines, including computer forensics, appear to be placed under the scope of this decision.

In the opposing opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, dissenting Justices contend that the ruling “threatens to disrupt forensic investigations across the country.” For instance, “The FBI laboratory at Quantico, Virginia, supports federal, state, and local investigations across the country. Its 500 employees conduct over one million scientific [drug tests each year.” This means that “before any of those million tests reaches a jury, at least one of the laboratory’s analysts . . . must read aloud notes made months ago,” with no reason to believe that a forensic analyst’s live testimony will deviate from the report.

Dissenting Justices also point out that the ruling did not define the term “analyst.” Further, the term “analyst” is not found in the Confrontation Clause, and there is no precedent on which to base the definition. Therefore, identification of anyone who qualifies as the analyst in any given case is left to the individual States. Thus, it appears this ruling will, indeed, require the forensic examiner performing the analytics to testify regarding the nature of the evidence as well as the forensic procedures involved, thereby significantly affecting analysts nationwide.


Get The Latest DFIR News

Join the Forensic Focus newsletter for the best DFIR articles in your inbox every month.


Unsubscribe any time. We respect your privacy - read our privacy policy.

More on the ruling and related opinions:

Justice Scalia contends that “certificates” of evidence by forensic analysts that substantiate facts used by the prosecution against a defendant qualify as “testimony” against that defendant and thereby fall under the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause. In dissenting opinion, it is argued that scientific evidence submitted to courts via analysts’ certificates is offered by “unconventional” witnesses, in the sense that these witnesses have no personal knowledge of the defendant’s guilt and merely present scientifically neutral facts. Accordingly, “Laboratory analysts are not ‘witnesses against’ the defendant,” and, for this reason and others, certificates do not qualify as testimony.

Justice Scalia refutes this dissenting opinion, “The ‘certificates’ are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing ‘precisely what a witness does on direct examination.'” Justice Scalia explains that submissions of such testimony are not exempt from the Confrontation Clause solely based on their supposed scientific neutrality; scientific errors and fraudulent statements are made by analysts in some cases. The fact that this testimony is sworn to and signed in front of a notary only affirms the origin of the document and says nothing about the substance of the evidence. Therefore, testimony thus given requires, under the 6th Amendment, that the defendant be provided an opportunity to confront the witnesses.

Justice Scalia further explains that there are, in essence, two classes of witnesses covered under the 6th Amendment; witnesses for the defendant and witnesses against the defendant. Witnesses for the defendant are covered under the Compulsory Process Clause that “guarantees a defendant the right to call witnesses ‘in his favor.'” Witnesses against the defendant are covered under the Confrontation Clause that “guarantees a defendant the right to be confronted with the witnesses ‘against him.'” In the ruling it was asserted that merely being able to subpoena an analyst did not negate the defendant’s right to confront that witness. Without the right of confrontation, a subpoenaed forensic analyst’s “certificate” or affidavit could still be entered into evidence, even if that analyst failed to appear before the court. Dissenting Justices claim the Court’s ruling is “windfall for defendants.” According to their opinion, “Guilty defendants will go free, on the most technical grounds, as a direct result of today’s decision.”

Additionally, dissenting Justices claim that the Court’s decision will place an onerous burden on taxpayers and on the prosecution, as well as the entire court system, including forensic analysts, who “already spen[d considerable time testifying.” According to this opposition, for instance, “Cleveland’s district attorney prosecuted 14,000 drug crimes [alone in 2007.” Statistics indicate that “each of the city’s 6 drug analysts (two of whom work only part time) must then testify in 117 drug cases next year.” Justice Scalia refuted this argument indicating that “Many States have already adopted the constitutional rule we announce today, while many others permit the defendant to assert (or forfeit by silence) his Confrontation Clause right after receiving notice of the prosecution’s intent to use a forensic analyst’s report.” Justice Scalia made it clear that, while the impact of any Supreme Court ruling should be considered, that consideration should not outweigh the Court’s pure interpretation of the Constitution, nor should constitutional rights be compromised “because they make the prosecution’s task burdensome.”

“This clearly was a well-debated decision that was resolved on constitutional grounds,” said Voom CEO David Biessener. ” Although it seems as if this Supreme Court ruling will be yet another millstone around the necks of already over-taxed cybercrime examiners, only time will reveal the magnitude of its weight. Now, it is up to the States, in conjunction with cybercrimes labs, to effectively handle this potential new burden on computer forensic analysts.”

Source:
Voom Technologies, Inc.
www.voomtech.com

Leave a Comment

Latest Videos

Throughout the past few years, the way employees communicate with each other has changed forever.

69% of employees note that the number of business applications they use at work has increased during the pandemic.

Desk phones, LAN lines and even VOIP have become technologies of the past workplace environment as employees turn to cloud applications on their computers and phones to collaborate with each other in today’s workplace environment.

Whether it’s conversations in Teams, file uploads in Slack chats, or confidential documents stored in Office 365, the amount of data stored and where it is stored, is growing quicker than IT and systems administrators can keep up with.

Corporate investigators and eDiscovery professionals need to seamlessly collect relevant data from cloud sources and accelerate the time to investigative and discovery review.

With the latest in Cellebrite’s remote collection suite of capabilities, investigators and legal professionals can benefit from secure collection with targeted capabilities for the most used workplace applications.

Join Monica Harris, Product Business Manager, as she showcases how investigators can:

- Manage multiple cloud collections through a web interface
- Cull data prior to collection to save time and money by gaining these valuable insights of the data available
- Collect data from the fastest growing cloud collaboration applications like Office365, Google Workspace, Slack and Box
- Login to a single source for workplace app collection without logging into every app and pulling data from multiple sources for every employee
- Utilize a single unified collection workflow for computer, mobile and workplace cloud applications without the need to purchase multiple tools for different types of collections – a solution unique to Cellebrite’s enterprise solution capabilities

Throughout the past few years, the way employees communicate with each other has changed forever.

69% of employees note that the number of business applications they use at work has increased during the pandemic.

Desk phones, LAN lines and even VOIP have become technologies of the past workplace environment as employees turn to cloud applications on their computers and phones to collaborate with each other in today’s workplace environment.

Whether it’s conversations in Teams, file uploads in Slack chats, or confidential documents stored in Office 365, the amount of data stored and where it is stored, is growing quicker than IT and systems administrators can keep up with.

Corporate investigators and eDiscovery professionals need to seamlessly collect relevant data from cloud sources and accelerate the time to investigative and discovery review.

With the latest in Cellebrite’s remote collection suite of capabilities, investigators and legal professionals can benefit from secure collection with targeted capabilities for the most used workplace applications.

Join Monica Harris, Product Business Manager, as she showcases how investigators can:

- Manage multiple cloud collections through a web interface
- Cull data prior to collection to save time and money by gaining these valuable insights of the data available
- Collect data from the fastest growing cloud collaboration applications like Office365, Google Workspace, Slack and Box
- Login to a single source for workplace app collection without logging into every app and pulling data from multiple sources for every employee
- Utilize a single unified collection workflow for computer, mobile and workplace cloud applications without the need to purchase multiple tools for different types of collections – a solution unique to Cellebrite’s enterprise solution capabilities

YouTube Video UCQajlJPesqmyWJDN52AZI4Q_g6nTjfEMnsA

Tips And Tricks Data Collection For Cloud Workplace Applications

Forensic Focus 6 hours ago

In this episode of the Forensic Focus podcast, Si and Desi explore the cutting-edge technology of deepfake videos and image manipulation. In addition to discussing the latest technological developments and efforts being made to detect manipulated media, they also examine the associated legal and ethical implications.

Show notes:

Boris Johnson image - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/10/spot-the-difference-boris-johnson-appears-scrubbed-from-photo-posted-by-grant-shapps

Deep Fake Neighbour Wars - https://m.imdb.com/title/tt21371376/

Stalin image - https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-retouching

Nvidia eye contact AI - https://www.polygon.com/23571376/nvidia-broadcast-eye-contact-ai and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl87WTDrReo

Birthday problem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Same frightening woman in AI images - https://petapixel.com/2022/09/09/the-same-frightening-woman-keeps-appearing-in-ai-generated-images/

Inherent mysogeny of AI portraits - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/09/lensa-ai-portraits-misogyny

Midjourney - https://www.midjourney.org/

Deepfake porn legality - https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/25/23477548/uk-deepfake-porn-illegal-offence-online-safety-bill-proposal and https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/12/1018222/deepfake-revenge-porn-coming-ban/

AIATSIS - https://aiatsis.gov.au/cultural-sensitivity

Fake tiger porn story - https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/tiger-porn-britain-law/

Group photo with no blinking - https://www.countrylife.co.uk/comment-opinion/curious-questions-group-photo-179102

Emma Watson deefake audio - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ai-4chan-emma-watson-mein-kampf-elevenlabs-9wghsmt9c

Domestika - https://www.domestika.org/en/courses/981-introduction-to-interviewing-the-art-of-conversation

Investigative Interviewing - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199681899?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share

Forensic Focus events calendar - https://www.forensicfocus.com/events/

Si Twitter - https://twitter.com/si_biles

In this episode of the Forensic Focus podcast, Si and Desi explore the cutting-edge technology of deepfake videos and image manipulation. In addition to discussing the latest technological developments and efforts being made to detect manipulated media, they also examine the associated legal and ethical implications.

Show notes:

Boris Johnson image - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/10/spot-the-difference-boris-johnson-appears-scrubbed-from-photo-posted-by-grant-shapps

Deep Fake Neighbour Wars - https://m.imdb.com/title/tt21371376/

Stalin image - https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-retouching

Nvidia eye contact AI - https://www.polygon.com/23571376/nvidia-broadcast-eye-contact-ai and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl87WTDrReo

Birthday problem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Same frightening woman in AI images - https://petapixel.com/2022/09/09/the-same-frightening-woman-keeps-appearing-in-ai-generated-images/

Inherent mysogeny of AI portraits - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/09/lensa-ai-portraits-misogyny

Midjourney - https://www.midjourney.org/

Deepfake porn legality - https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/25/23477548/uk-deepfake-porn-illegal-offence-online-safety-bill-proposal and https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/12/1018222/deepfake-revenge-porn-coming-ban/

AIATSIS - https://aiatsis.gov.au/cultural-sensitivity

Fake tiger porn story - https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/tiger-porn-britain-law/

Group photo with no blinking - https://www.countrylife.co.uk/comment-opinion/curious-questions-group-photo-179102

Emma Watson deefake audio - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ai-4chan-emma-watson-mein-kampf-elevenlabs-9wghsmt9c

Domestika - https://www.domestika.org/en/courses/981-introduction-to-interviewing-the-art-of-conversation

Investigative Interviewing - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199681899?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share

Forensic Focus events calendar - https://www.forensicfocus.com/events/

Si Twitter - https://twitter.com/si_biles

YouTube Video UCQajlJPesqmyWJDN52AZI4Q_i41eg24YGZg

Deepfake Videos And Altered Images - A Challenge For Digital Forensics?

Forensic Focus 13th February 2023 10:30 am

This error message is only visible to WordPress admins

Important: No API Key Entered.

Many features are not available without adding an API Key. Please go to the YouTube Feed settings page to add an API key after following these instructions.

Latest Articles

Share to...