Category Archives: ESI

Google Data and Geofence Warrant Process

Posted on by

[Editor’s Note: John C. Ellis, Jr. is a National Coordinating Discovery Attorney for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Defender Services Office. In this capacity, he provides litigation support and e-discovery assistance on complex criminal cases to defense teams around the country. Before entering private practice, Mr. Ellis spent 13 years as a trial attorney and supervisory attorney with Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. He also serves as a digital forensic consultant and expert.]

Introduction

This is an updated version of a post originally published in December 2020, which provides a primer on how Google collects location data, the three-step warrant process used by law enforcement to obtain these records, and an example of how the data is collected and used by the prosecution. The updated version includes references to United States v. Chatrie, a recently decided district court opinion regarding the constitutionality of geofence warrants.[i] From the opinion and the pleadings in Chatrie, we have a better understanding of the Google collection and geolocation search warrant process.

What Can Google Do?

Google began collecting location data in order to provide location-based advertisements to its’ users. Google tracks location data from the users of its products, including from consumers who use Android telephones and those who use Google’s vast array of available apps on other devices such as Apple iPhones. For Android devices, Google is constantly tracking devices whenever the permission settings on the device are set to allow for the use of Google Location Accuracy. For iOS users, location information is only collected when a user is using a Google product, such as Google Maps.[ii] Google stores this information in a repository called “Sensorvault”, which “assigns each device a unique device ID…and receives and stores all location history data in the Sensorvault to be used in ads marketing.” 3:19-cr-00130-MHL at 7. The use of Sensorvault has been very profitable for Google. Since Google started collecting data and using Sensorvault in 2009, Google’s advertisement revenue has almost increased tenfold.

See https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google.

Google is able to determine the approximate location of a mobile device based on GPS chips in the device, as well as the device’s proximity to Wi-Fi hotspots, Bluetooth beacons, and cell sites.[iii] For purposes of Wi-Fi, Google uses the characteristics of wireless access points within range of the device (including received signal strength) to determine the device’s proximity to the access point, and thus approximate location. How Google tracks this data is dependent of the type of device (Android v. Apple) and an individual user’s privacy settings.[iv] Google cannot determine the exact location of a device, and as such, location records contain an “uncertainty value” which is expressed in meters.

Maps Display Radius:

Because Google does not know a device’s precise location, it represents the possible location in a sphere, or what Google refers to as the Maps Display Radius.

In this picture, Google’s “goal is that there will be an estimated 68% chance that the user is actually within” the spherical representation.[v]

To see how Google determines the approximate location of a mobile device, viewing the Location History of a Google account is instructive. In the following example, according to Google, the blue line indicates the path of travel, the orange dots represent wireless access points, and the grey sphere next to the blue arrow is the estimated range of the location source.

Generally, the location information source has the largest impact on the Maps Display Radius. Most often, GPS provides the smallest sphere whereas Cell Sites are generally the largest. By way of example, the map display radius for GPS is often a few meters whereas Wi-Fi is routinely over 1000 meters.

Use of Google’s Tools by Law Enforcement – Three-Step Warrant Process

Although the original intent of Google’s Sensorvault technology was to sell advertising more effectively, over the past few years this data has been sought by law enforcement to determine who was present in a specific geographical area at a particular time, for example, when a crime was committed. These warrants are often called “Geofence warrants” because officers seek information about devices contained within a geographic area. In 2021, Google released information about the number of geofence warrants sought by law enforcement. According to the data, “Google received 982 geofence warrants in 2018, 8,396 in 2019 and 11,554 in 2020.”[vi]

In current practice, Google requires law enforcement to obtain a single search warrant. The three stage warrant process is based on an agreement between Google and the Department of Justice’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS). Once Google receives a geofence warrant, it takes on the extrajudicial role of determining when law enforcement officers have complied with probable cause such that additional information will be provided.

Stage One:

In response to the warrant, “Google must ‘search … all [Location History] data to identify users’ whose devices were present within the geofence during the defined timeframe” and to provide a de-identified list of such users. Chatrie at 19. The list includes: (1) anonymized user identifiers; (2) date and time the device was in the geofence; (3) approximate latitude and longitude of the device; (4) the maps display radius; and (5) the source of the location data.[vii]

Stage Two:

After reviewing the initial list, law enforcement can return to Google and request additional information about any device that is within in the first geofence. This includes “compel[ling] Google to provide additional…location coordinates beyond the time and geographic scope of the original request.” Chatrie at 21.[viii]  Troubling,
Google imposes “no geographical limits” for Stage Two review. Id.

Stage Three:

The third step involves compelling Google “to provide account-identifying information for the device numbers in the production that the government determines are relevant to the investigation. In response, Google provides account subscriber information such as the email address associated with the account and the name entered by the user on the account.”[ix]

It is important to note that in practice it appears that law enforcement routinely skips Stage Two and moves directly from Stage One to Stage Three analysis.

Past Examples

The shape of Google Geofence warrants has changed over time. For instance, In the Matter of the Search of information that is stored at premises controlled by Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043, law enforcement officers investigating a bank robbery sought information about “all Google accounts” located within a 30 meters radius around 43.110877, -88.337330 on October 13, 2018, from 8:50 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. CST.

Compare that to In the Matter of the Search of Information Regarding Accounts Associated with Certain Location and Date Information, Maintained on Computer Servers Controlled by Google, Inc.. In that instance, law enforcement was investigating a series of bombings and they sought location information for “all Google accounts” for a 12-hour period between March 1 and 2, 2018 in a “[g]eographical box” around 1112 Haverford Drive, Austin, Texas, 78753 containing the following coordinates: (1) 30.405511, -97.650988; (2) 30.407107, -97.649445; (3) 30.405590, -97.646322; and (4) 30.404329, -97.647983.

More recently, Google has requested that law enforcement submit Geofence warrants that are convex polygons in shape.

Starting from the Beginning – How the Process Works

To put this into perspective, the following example is illustrative. For these purposes, a crime occurred in the parking lot of a strip mall.

Because the crime occurred in the middle of a parking lot, we will create a geofence that includes storefronts because it will increase the chances that the suspect’s mobile device will be within range of a Wi-Fi hotspot or Bluetooth beacon. Conversely, the geofence will include the mobile devices of numerous people who are not connected to the offense.

The above geofence appears to only impact people who are present in the parking lot or surrounding business. However, the geofence would likely capture many more people, including people living or visiting in the nearby apartments and anyone who was driving on the surrounding streets during the time in question.

Stage One—The following is an example of a Stage One warrant return:

Device IDDateTimeLatitudeLongitudeSourceMaps Display Radius (m)
12345678912/20/2015:08:45(-8:00)32.752667-117.2168GPS5
98765432112/20/2015:08:55(-8:00)32.751569-117.216647Wi-Fi25
14785236912/20/2015:08:58(-8:00)32.752022-117.216369Cell1000
12345678912/20/2015:09:47(-8:00)32.752025-117.216369Cell800
98765432112/20/2015:09:55(-8:00)32.752023-117.216379Wi-Fi15
12345678912/20/2015:10:03(-8:00)32.752067-117.216368Wi-Fi25
98765432112/20/2015:10:45(-8:00)32.752020-117.216359Cell450
98765432112/20/2015:10:55(-8:00)32.752032117.216349Wi-Fi40
12345678912/20/2015:10:58(-8:00)32.752012117.216379Cell300

Here, Device ID 123456789 is Suspect One, Device ID 987654321 is Suspect Two, and Device ID 147852369 is Suspect Three.  For this example, only one location for each device is shown.

At first blush, it would appear as if the Geofence has located three possible suspects.  But this image does not tell the full story. The blue bubbles for Suspect One and Suspect Two show a Maps Display Radius of 5 and 25 meters respectfully.

Suspect Three’s location was derived from a Cell Site, with a Maps Display Radius of 1000 meters.

Thus, although Google believes that Suspect Three’s device was near the scene of the crime, it is possible it was located anywhere within the larger sphere, and it is possible that the device was not located within either sphere.

Stage Two—For this stage, we can expand our original results, as long as we only include one of the accounts returned in Stage One. Here, we will expand our results and determine if Suspect One’s device also present in the area Northeast of the original search location.

Stage Three—is the step whereby subscriber information about the accounts Google deems responsive. Meaning, law enforcement requests Google to provide the account number and information for Device IDs provided in either Stage One or Two. The following is an example of such a return:

Conclusion As technology and privacy concerns of consumers continue to change, so will the ability for law enforcement to obtain location data of users. The use of Google geofence warrants implicates a number of Fourth Amendment issues; future posts will explore the legal implications surrounding the overbreadth of these warrants.[x] But beyond the legal challenges, those encountering Google location warrants should remain mindful of the limitations of the data as well as the absence of concrete answers from Google regarding their methodology for determining location data

[i] See United States v. Chatrie, 3:19-cr-00130-MHL, Docket Entry 220.

[ii] The exception is for a user who has turned location services to always on, has a Google product open on a device, and has allowed for background app refresh. That means that is likely that Google knows far more about the location history of android users than iPhone users. That’s important because approximately 52 percent of devices on mobile networks are iOS devices. https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/.

[iii] https://policies.google.com/technologies/location-data (“On most Android devices, Google, as the network location provider, provides a location service called Google Location Services (GLS), known in Android 9 and above as Google Location Accuracy. This service aims to provide a more accurate device location and generally improve location accuracy. Most mobile phones are equipped with GPS, which uses signals from satellites to determine a device’s location – however, with Google Location Services, additional information from nearby Wi-Fi, mobile networks, and device sensors can be collected to determine your device’s location. It does this by periodically collecting location data from your device and using it in an anonymous way to improve location accuracy.”)

[iv] https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/3467281?hl=en

[v] See United States v. Chartrie, 19cr00130-MHL (EDVA 2020), ECF 1009 [Declaration of Marlo McGriff] (“A value of 100 meters, for example, reflects Google’s estimation that the user is likely located within a 100-meter radius of the saved coordinates based on a goal to generate a location radius that accurately captures roughly 68% of users. In other words, if a user opens Google Maps and looks at the blue dot indicating Google’s estimate of his or her location, Google’s goal is that there will be an estimated 68% chance that the user is actually within the shaded circle surrounding that blue dot.”)

[vi] https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/19/google-geofence-warrants/

[vii] Id. at 4 (“After that search is completed, LIS assembles the stored LH records responsive to the request without any account-identifying information. This deidentified ‘production version’ of the data includes a device number, the latitude/longitude coordinates and timestamp of the stored LH information, the map’s display radius, and the source of the stored LH information (that is, whether the location was generated via Wi-Fi, GPS, or a cell tower)”).

[viii] Id. at 17

[ix] Id.

[x] In the Matter of the Search of: Information Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, 20mc00392-GAF (NDIL 2020) provides a great overview of the Fourth Amendment issues relating to Google Geofence warrants.  See also https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/eff-files-amicus-brief-arguing-geofence-warrants-violate-fourth-amendment

U.S. v. Morgan, et al: Know What You Don’t Have

Posted on by

[Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is an attorney, educator, and well respected e-discovery and legal technology thought leader. A frequent lecturer on the subject of legal technology, Tom has been on the faculty of numerous national CLE providers and has taught college level courses on legal technology. He has also written three books on legal technology and worked as a consultant or expert on computer forensics and electronic discovery in some of the most challenging, front page cases in the U.S. Tom is the Director of the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center in New Orleans, LA ]

If you were practicing in federal court before email, ECF filing, and in the days when Joe Montana threw to Jerry Rice then you probably remember discovery productions were typically hardcopy documents you picked up at the US Attorney’s Office. The volume was so small it easily fit into your briefcase. Those were the days when everyone complained about not getting enough discovery. The challenge was moving to compel for more discovery when you didn’t know what you didn’t have.

Joe Montana and Jerry Rice

Fast forward to the present. Tom Brady is throwing to Rob Gronkowski (again but in a different city) and discovery is typically so voluminous it cannot be provided in hardcopy form. Productions can be hundreds of gigabytes and sometimes dozens of terabytes full of investigative reports, search warrant pleadings, surveillance audio and video, cell phone data, cell tower material, years of bank records, GPS data, social media materials, and forensic images of servers, desktop computers, and mobile devices. Common are duplicate folders of discovery produced “in the abundance of caution” to protect the Government against Brady violations. Despite the volume, the same issue exists: How do you know what you don’t have?

Tom Brady and Rob Gronkowski

US v Morgan (Western District of New York, 1:18-CR-00108 EAW, decided Oct 8, 2020) is an example of diligent defense counsel challenging the government on how it produced terabytes of data.

Defendants Robert Morgan, Frank Giacobbe, Todd Morgan, and Michael Tremiti were accused by way of a 114-count Superseding Indictment of running an illegal financial scheme spanning over a decade. The government alleged they defrauded financial institutions and government sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in connection with the financing of multi-family residential apartment properties that they owned or managed. There were also allegations of related insurance fraud schemes against several of the defendants.

The government made several productions which the defense contended were deficient (including the lack of metadata on numerous documents) and, in several cases, omitted key pieces of evidence. The defense enlisted the help of e-Discovery experts, who stated the government failed to properly process and load evidence into their database for production to defense counsel.

The issue was brought before the court in defense motions to compel and dismiss. First to the magistrate judge then to the district court judge, which resulted in a critical analysis of the way the government handled the discovery.

CASE TIMELINE

The original status conference in the case was held on May 29, 2019. For the next year, a series of motions and hearings proceeded with regards to delays and failures on the part of the government to meet discovery deadlines imposed by the court.

An evidentiary hearing was finally held before district court Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford on July 14, 2020, continuing through the remainder of that week until July 17, 2020, and then resumed and concluded on July 22, 2020. There were multiple expert witnesses, and the review of that testimony is over 7 pages in the Opinion.

On September 10, 2020, oral argument on the motions to compel and dismiss was heard before Judge Wolford. The Court entered its Decision and Order on October 8, 2020.

There was no dispute that the discovery in this matter was not handled properly. In the second paragraph of the above cited Decision and Order, Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford states,

“The Court recognizes at the outset that the government has mishandled discovery in this case—that fact is self-evident and cannot be reasonably disputed. It is not clear whether the government’s missteps are due to insufficient resources dedicated to the case, a lack of experience or expertise, an apathetic approach to the prosecution of this case, or perhaps a combination of all of the above.”

Specifically, the government somehow failed to process and/or produce ESI from several devices seized pursuant to a search warrant executed in May 2018 and in one case, a cell phone, seems to have actually been lost. The court ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice. This gave the parties time to resolve the discovery issues. On March 4, 2021, a grand jury returned a new 104 count indictment.

More important for our purposes are the discussions regarding the ESI and production issues. They are outlined below.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Court wasted no time in saying “It is evident that the government has demonstrated a disturbing inability to manage the massive discovery in this case, and despite repeated admonitions from both this Court and the Magistrate Judge, the government’s lackadaisical approach has manifested itself in repeated missed deadlines.”

And later, “To be clear, the Court does not believe the record supports a finding that any party acted in bad faith. Rather, the discovery in this case was significant, and the government failed to effectively manage that discovery. In the end, because of its own negligence, the government did not meet the discovery deadline set by the Magistrate Judge.”

COMPLEXITY OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF ESI

Judge Wolford made several references to the “massive discovery.” In an attempt to manage that data, the Magistrate Judge had initially directed the parties to draw up a document entitled “Data Delivery Standards” (hereinafter referred to as “the DPP”) which would control how documents were exchanged. It failed to do so for several reasons.

First was the large amount of data. Testimony by a defense expert witness at the evidentiary hearing of July 14, 2020, stated that “… the government’s Initial Production consisted of 1,450,837 documents, reflecting 882,841 emails and 567,996 other documents. Of those documents, 860,522 were missing DATE metadata, with over 430,000 documents reflecting no change in the DATE metadata field formatting after the DPP was agreed-upon. Once overlays were provided by the government, the DATE metadata field was corrected for almost one-third of the documents (primarily emails), but 590,448 documents still were missing DATE metadata, including 294,818 emails. Of those 294,818 emails, 169,287 had a misformatted DATE value and 125,531 had no DATE value. The Initial Production also contained missing values for the metadata fields of FILE EXTENSION, MD5 HASH, PATH, CUSTODIAN, MIME TYPE, and FILE SIZE— and the government overlays did not change the status of the information in any of those fields.”

Additionally, the USAO-WDNY’s processing tool was Nuix while another entity—the Litigation Technology Support Center in Columbia, South Carolina – processed some of the hard drives using a different processing tool called Venio. Additionally, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) processed the Laptop Production using a “much more robust” version of Nuix than the system possessed by the USAO-WDNY.

These differing versions led to different productions which had different values for the metadata fields. Standardization on one tool could have prevented much of this. But the Court also noted that “… the quality review conducted by the government was insufficient to catch these errors.”

Inconsistent directions were an ongoing issue. For example, the Court found that “… the government prosecutors expressly instructed Mr. Bowman not to produce CUSTODIAN information for the Laptop Production, even though the government had provided similar information previously.”

Other government errors included:

  1. It applied different processing software inconsistently to the PST or OST files, thereby missing some metadata and producing varying results.
  2. It misformatted the DATE metadata caused by failing to catch the errors while conducting a quality review.
  3. It failed to produce native files in “the format in which they are ordinarily used and maintained during the normal course of business[.]” It produced near native or derivative native files from the OST or PST files without corresponding metadata.
  4. In many instances, load files necessary to install the document productions in the defense review software platform were missing.
  5. There were ongoing errors with respect to CUSTODIAN metadata, which were the result of human error on the part of the government.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU?

With regards to what specific steps can be used to take control of cases with large amounts of ESI, the Court mentioned several.

  1. Use an exchange protocol. In civil cases, this document would arise from FRCP Rule 26(f), which mandates a “Meet & Confer” conference of the parties so that they might plan for discovery through the presentation of a specific plan to the Court. 

    In Morgan, this was the document entitled the DPP. In criminal cases going forward, the new Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.1 will address some of these concerns. Drawn up specifically as a response to deal with the manner and timing of the production of voluminous Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in complex cases, Subsection (a) requires the prosecution and defense counsel to confer “[n]o later than 14 days after the arraignment…to try to agree on a timetable and procedures for pretrial disclosure under Rule 16.1.” Subsection (b) authorizes the parties, separately or together, to “ask the court to determine or modify the time, place, manner or other aspects of disclosure to facilitate preparation for trial.”

  2. Standardize the use of technology. As Judge Wolford said, “In sum, the Court believes that it would have been much more prudent if the government, after reaching agreement with the defense about the DPP, had utilized a competent vendor to process the ESI (and all the previously produced ESI) in the same manner with the same settings and utilizing the same tools.”

  3. Get a data manager. A common saying in IT circles is that “someone needs to own the data.” In this case, where the Government used multiple parties who employed different tools to work with the data, nobody owned the data. This lack of a central manager “… led to electronic productions being produced in an inconsistent manner and, in some instances, in violation of the DPP.”

  4. Get an expert. After hearing multiple experts testify for several days on what had transpired with the ESI, the Court noted, “… electronic discovery is a complicated and very technical subject. As a result, facts can be easily spun in a light most favorable to one party’s position or the other. That occurred here on behalf of all parties.”

    Nonetheless, the experts were able to bring clarification to the issues of “missing” metadata and divergent processing results that had beleaguered the parties and the Court. This field, especially with large amounts of ESI, is a classic example of the old maxim, “do not try this at home.” Get an expert.

  5. Use a review tool. ESI in these large amounts are simply not able to be reviewed manually. Both parties here recognized that fact and, as the Court noted several times, most of the errors in the case were not due to software but what we nerds call the “loose nut on the keyboard” syndrome.

    Get review software. Get trained on it. Use it. One admonition I always make which could have avoided many delays in this matter is do not try to load everything at once into your review platform. Start with a small amount of sample data to be sure you are getting what you need. Which leads to our last takeaway.

  6. Talk with the government. Judge Wolford specifically noted that the “… the Court also concludes that Defendants and the government were not always communicating effectively regarding electronic discovery.” For example, none of the parties could recall “… any discussions during those negotiations about the processing tools that would be utilized or the type of native file that would be analyzed for purposes of creating a load file.”

CONCLUSION

The Morgan case illustrates there are ways to learn about what you don’t have so you can bring it to the government’s attention and if need be, to the Court. It is also example of a Court being knowledgeable about ESI productions. The Court noted often and in different ways that “… electronic discovery is challenging even under the best of circumstances. In other words, the facts and circumstances cannot be appropriately evaluated without considering the volume of discovery and the enormous efforts needed to manage an electronic production of this nature.”

Find an expert who understands your needs and has effective communication skills to convey to you, the government, and Court complex technical issues. For many years, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck (SDNY, Retired) advocated “Bring-Your-Geek-To-Court Day,” in which parties bring an outside consultant or an in-house IT person to address disputes. If you were to remember only one thing form this case, it should be: Go get a geek.

Tom O’Connor
Director
Gulf Coast Legal Tech Center
toconnor@gulfltc.org
www.gulfltc.org 
Blog: https://technogumbo.wordpress.com/
Twitter: @gulfltc

E-Discovery: Mobile Forensic Reports

Posted on by

By Sean Broderick and John C. Ellis, Jr.

[Editor’s Note: Sean Broderick is the National Litigation Support Administrator.  He provides guidance and recommendations to federal courts, federal defender organization staff, and court appointed attorneys on electronic discovery and complex cases, particularly in the areas of evidence organization, document management and trial presentation. Sean is also the co-chair of the Joint Working Group on Electronic Technology in the Criminal Justice System (JETWG), a joint Department of Justice and Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts national working group which examines the use of electronic technology in the federal criminal justice system and suggested practices for the efficient and cost-effective management of post-indictment electronic discovery. 

John C. Ellis, Jr. is a National Coordinating Discovery Attorney for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Defender Services Office. In this capacity, he provides litigation support and e-discovery assistance on complex criminal cases to defense teams around the country. Before entering private practice, Mr. Ellis spent 13 years as a trial attorney and supervisory attorney with Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. He also serves as a digital forensic consultant and expert.]

Most federal criminal cases involve discovery that originally came from a cell phone. CJA panel attorneys and Federal Defenders have now become accustomed to receiving “reports” generated from Cellebrite.[1] In this blog post, we will talk about the valuable information that may be contained in those Cellebrite generated reports and what form of production you can get the reports in. Spoiler alert: we suggest you request that you receive those reports in Cellebrite Reader format and not just default to the PDF format that you know and love.

We are going to cover:

  1. the basic concepts behind the forensic process that law enforcement uses when using Cellebrite UFED to extract information from a phone,
  2. what is a Cellebrite generated mobile forensic report (which Cellebrite calls extraction reports), and
  3. the pros and cons for the potential formats you can receive Cellebrite generated reports in.

Though there are a number of forensic tools that law enforcement may use to extract data from a phone, the most common is Cellebrite. We are going to discuss Cellebrite, but know there are others (e.g. Oxygen, Paraben, etc.). Many of the processes and principles that apply to Cellebrite will apply to other tools.

Basic concepts behind the forensic process

How does a digital forensic examiner get the data from the mobile phone? Extracting data from mobile devices (a.k.a. acquisition) is complex and requires a great amount of skill when done correctly. For purposes of this blog post, we are only going to focus on one concept, which is the type of extraction that was performed. In order to retrieve data from a mobile phone, an examiner attaches the mobile phone to a computer which has the Cellebrite UFED software, follows a series of protocols, and saves a portion of the data on an external storage device. In most cases, examiners will not retrieve all data that was on the mobile phone at the time of the extraction—this is based in part on the phone’s memory architecture. Moreover, the type of extraction that is performed on the device can limit the amount of data that is retrieved.

The following are the most common types of extractions for Android devices: (1) Logical (or Advanced Logical); (2) File System; and (3) Physical. As for Apple, the most common types are Logical (Partial) and Advanced Logical. Generally, physical extractions retrieve the most data. After the iPhone 4, physical extractions are currently no longer available with Cellebrite with an iPhone device.

After a digital forensic examiner does an extraction of a phone (for this example, we will assume that the extraction was done through the Cellebrite UFED4PC), it generates an extraction files/folders, along with a .UFD (text) file that tells Cellebrite Physical Analyzer basic information about the extraction (such as which UFED was used, start and finish time, and hash information). The extraction files can be produced in a number of formats (.zip and .bin are common examples) depending on the type of extraction done. The takeaway here is that the type of extraction impacts the type and volume of data that was retrieved during the extraction process.

What is a Cellebrite generated report?

After extracting the data, the examiner uses Cellebrite Physical Analyzer to review the data retrieved from the mobile phone. The examiner also has the option of generating a report, which allows users without specialized forensic software to view the data retrieved from the mobile phone. As discussed below, the “extraction report” may be produced in multiple formats. Of note, the examiner can apply filters to decide what data types to export (e.g. emails, images, instant messages, searched items, etc.), and can further filter the data by date range. These reports are limited to the data extracted from the original device; the parameters of the forensic program dictated by the forensic examiner. The takeaway here is that a report does not necessarily include all data that was retrieved during the extraction.

Option for the Cellebrite generated report (extraction report)

Cellebrite generated reports, like the extractions described above, contain information from the mobile phone. This may include text messages, emails, call logs, web browsing history, location data, etc. They can be produced in a number of formats, though the most common are .PDF, .HTML, and .UFDR. There are pros and cons for each format of report.

PDF

Report in PDF format

There are several pros to receiving a Cellebrite generated report in PDF. CJA panel attorneys and Federal Defender defense teams are used to working PDFs. It is easy to add Bates stamps to them. They work on Macs. And they can be annotated and highlighted.

But there are also several important cons that make PDF a less desirable file type for Cellebrite generated reports. For instance, because phones have the capacity to contain large volumes of data, the reports generated from extractions can be quite large. A Cellebrite generated PDF report can easily reach 10,000 pages, which can cause a computer to slow down or even crash. Moreover, users cannot sort or filter data, hide data fields, or search within search results. In short, although PDFs are a convenient file type, it is not the most useful or efficient format for reviewing these types of reports.

HTML

Report in HTML format

There are several pros to receiving a Cellebrite generated report in the HTML format. The files load fast and can be viewed in any browser (such as Chrome, Firefox or Safari). In this format, each data type, such as SMS Messages, are hyperlinked and open in a new browser. (Please note that the hyperlinks only work if the file and the data are provided with the HTML file which can easily get overlooked when people move data.) Moreover, it is easy to search within HTML files and they operate on Macs.

But like PDFs, HTML files have several notable cons. First, you cannot sort or filter the data. Nor can you hide data fields. And you cannot easily generate reports for other subsets of information. Although HTML files are easy to use, they have significant limitations when it comes to reviewing reports.

UFDR

Report in UFDR format

The best format for receiving Cellebrite generated reports is the Cellebrite Reader format. The Cellebrite Reader format allows a user to create reports containing all data, or a portion thereof, in multiple formats including PDF, HTML and UFDR. So, if you receive if in UFDR format you can easily convert it to PDF or HTML later on (which is not possible if you receive it in HTML or PDF). Additionally, in this file format, users can sort and filter data, can search within results, can move or reorder data within columns, and can create tags—which is a convenient way to organize large volumes of discovery. And a user can open multiple UFDR files at the time and search across them. This allows a user to, amongst other things, search for keywords across multiple devices simultaneously.

The one downside to UFDR files is that they will not work on a Mac. You also need to have the free Cellebrite Reader program to open and use the UFDR file. Overall, this is the format you should request when speaking to the government about what form you would like reports generated from Cellebrite produced in.

Final note about formats: When deciding about your preferred format to review a Cellebrite generated report, remember that it is easy for an examiner to select all three formats at the same time. Often, an examiner will provide all three to make it easier for people to review the data in the way they want.

Conclusion

Mobile forensic reports are a ubiquitous part of discovery. When reviewing them, it is important to remember that the information in the report is limited by the limitations of retrieving data from mobile devices, the type of extraction performed on the device, and the data the examiner decided to include in the report. And the form of production of the report can affect how you review the data. Attorneys should consider contacting an expert or consultant if they have questions about the contents of a report.

Of note, Troy Schnack, Computer System Administrator for Federal Public Defender Office in Kansas City, Missouri, will be doing a webinar on mobile devices and will go into detail regarding Cellebrite Reader on Tuesday, September 22, 2020. Please register for the program on fd.org – we highly recommend it.

[1] Cellebrite UFED is a mobile forensic software program that allows trained users to extract and analyze phone call history, contact information, audio, photos, and videos and texts from mobile phones or forensic images of mobile devices produced as part of discovery. It has wide coverage for accessing digital devices from Android to Apple, with more than 31,000 device profiles of the most common phones. Cellebrite UFED can come as software only or can include a physical unit with accessories such as tip and cable set to connect to various mobile devices.

 

Ephemeral Messaging Apps

Posted on by

[Editor’s Note: John C. Ellis, Jr. is a National Coordinating Discovery Attorney for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Defender Services Office. In this capacity, he provides litigation support and e-discovery assistance on complex criminal cases to defense teams around the country. Before entering private practice, Mr. Ellis spent 13 years as a trial attorney and supervisory attorney with Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. He also serves as a digital forensic consultant and expert.]

Ephemeral Messaging Apps are a popular form of communication. With privacy a concern for everyone, using a self-destructing message that works like disappearing ink for text and photos has a certain allure. All messages are purposely short-lived, with the message deleting on the receiver’s device, the sender’s device, and on the system’s servers seconds or minutes after the message is read. Although these apps were initially only used by teenagers, they are now a ubiquitous part of corporate culture.

According to the 6th Annual Federal Judges Survey, put together by Exterro, Georgetown Law CLE, and EDRM, 20 Federal Judges were asked “[w]hat new data type should legal teams be most worried about in the 5 years?”[1]  The overwhelming response was “Ephemeral Apps (Snapchat, Instagram, etc.).” Id.  In fact, 68% of those surveyed believed ephemeral messaging apps where the most worrisome new data type, whereas only 16% responded that biometric data (including facial recognition and fingerprinting) were the greatest risk. Only 5% were concerned with Text Messages and Mobile, and 0% were concerned with the traditional social media such as Facebook and Twitter.  Id.

Even now, Courts are attempting to sort out the evidentiary issues cause by ephemeral messaging apps, see e.g., Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. 17cv0939-WHA (NDCA).  This article discusses popular ephemeral messaging apps and discusses guidelines for addressing potential evidentiary issues.

Short technical background:

There are several background definitions relevant to this discussion:

  1. Text Messages – otherwise known as SMS (“Short Message Service”) messages, text messages allow mobile device users to send and receive messages of up to 160 characters. These messages are sent using the mobile phone carriers’ network. Twenty-three billion text messages are sent worldwide each day.  Generally, mobile carriers do not retain the contents of SMS messages, so the records will only show the phone number that sent or received the messages and the time it was sent or received.
  2. Messaging Apps – allow users to send messages not tethered to a mobile device (e., a phone number). With some apps, a user may send messages from multiple devices. These apps include iMessage, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger. Messaging Apps are generally free. Unlike text messages, these apps rarely have monthly billing records or records showing when messages were sent or received.
  3. Ephemeral Messaging Apps – are a subset of Messaging Apps that allow users to cause messages (words or media) to disappear on the recipient’s device after a short duration. The duration of the message’s existence is set by the sender. Messages can last for seconds or days, unless the receiver of the message takes a “screenshot” of the message before its disappearance.
  4. End-to-End Encryption – also known as E2EE, this is a type of encryption where only the communicating parties can decipher the messages, which prevents eavesdroppers from reading them in transit.

Common Disappearing Messaging Apps:

Messaging apps, like all apps, are changing.  The following is a list and description of several popular ephemeral messaging apps.


Snapchat – both a messaging platform and a social network. The app allows users to send messages and media (including words and emojis appearing on the media) that disappear after a set period of time. Photos and videos created on Snapchat are called “snaps.” Approximately 1 million snaps are sent per day.

Signal – an encrypted communications app that uses the Internet to send one-to-one and group messages which can include files, voice notes, images and videos, which can be set to disappear after a set period of time. According to Wired, Signal is the one messaging app everyone should be using.

Wickr Me – a messaging app that allows users to exchange end-to-end encrypted and content-expiring messages, including photos, videos, and file attachments.

Telegram – cloud-based instant messaging app with end-to-end encryption that allows users to send messages, photos, videos, audio messages and files. It has a feature where messages and attachments can disappear after a set period of time.

CoverMe – a private messaging app that allows users to exchange messages, files, photographs, and phone calls from a fake (or “burner”) phone number. It also allows for private internet browsing, and llows users to hide messages and files.

Confide – a messaging app that allows users to send end-to-end encrypted messages.  The user can also send self-destructing messages purportedly screenshot-proof.

Evidentiary Issues:

Messaging app data, like other forms of evidence, must, amongst other criteria, be relevant (Fed.R.Evid. 401); authenticated (Fed.R.Evid. 901 et seq); and comply with the best evidence rule (Fed.R.Evid 1001 et seq).

As for the Best Evidence Rule, based on the nature of disappearing messaging apps, the original writing of the message is not preserved for litigation. See Fed.R.Evid. 1004(a) (finding that the original is not required if “all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad faith.”) Sometimes, the contents of the message may be established by the testimony of a witness. In other cases, the contents of the message may be based on a screen shot of the message.

Authenticating messages from apps, regardless of their ephemeral nature, is often difficult—text messages can be easily faked. When it comes ephemeral messages, we often must rely upon a screenshot or testimony regarding the alleged contents of the message.  In such circumstances, the following factors—repurposed from Best Practices for Authenticating Digital Evidence—are useful[2]:

  • testimony from a witness who identifies the account as that of the alleged author, on the basis that the witness on other occasions communicated with the account holder;
  • testimony from a participant in the conversation based on firsthand knowledge that the screen shot fairly and accurately captures the conversation;
  • evidence that the purported author used the same messaging app and associated screen name on other occasions;
  • evidence that the purported author acted in accordance with the message (e.g., when a meeting with that person was arranged in a message, he or she attended);
  • evidence that the purported author identified himself or herself as the individual sending the message;
  • use in the conversation of the customary nickname, avatar, or emoticon associated with the purported author;
  • disclosure in the message of particularized information either unique to the purported author or known only to a small group of individuals including the purported author;
  • evidence that the purported author had in his or her possession information given to the person using messaging app;
  • evidence that the messaging app was downloaded on the purported author’s digital device; and evidence that the purported author elsewhere discussed the same subject.

Conclusion:

Ephemeral messaging app data will continue to impact investigators, attorneys, and the Court. Defense teams should be prepared for the challenges ephemeral messages cause from investigations to evidentiary issues.

[1]Available at https://www.exterro.com/2020-judges-survey-ediscovery.

[2] Hon. Grimm, Capra, and Joseph, Best Practices for Authenticating Digital Evidence (West Academic Publishing 2016), pp. 11-12.

 

E-Discovery: Computer Forensic Images and Computer Forensic Reports

Posted on by

[Editor’s Note: John C. Ellis, Jr. is a National Coordinating Discovery Attorney for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Defender Services Office. In this capacity, he provides litigation support and e-discovery assistance on complex criminal cases to defense teams around the country. Before entering private practice, Mr. Ellis spent 13 years as a trial attorney and supervisory attorney with Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. He also serves as a digital forensic consultant and expert.]

CJA panel attorneys frequently ask me for strategies for how to manage and review computer forensic images they receive in discovery. It is a great question. Forensic images are often difficult for CJA panel attorneys to access, and they can contain an immense amount of information (often much more than the rest of the discovery production). Without opening them, they already know that a lot of the information in the forensic image is irrelevant. But they also know that often crucial information is in the forensic image that is important for them to know so they can prepare their client’s defense.

Short technical background:

There are two ways data from a computer is provided in discovery:

  1. Duplicates, which refers to “an accurate and complete reproduction of all data objects independent of the physical media”; or
  2. Forensic Images, which refers to “a bit stream copy of the available data” (see SWGDE Digital & Multimedia Evidence Glossary, June 2016).

Usually the government provides forensic images.  The forensic image is created using specialized software such as opentext EnCase or AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK). These forensic images cannot be opened without specialized software. Although there are free viewer programs, such as AccessData’s FTK Imager, which enable users to review the contents of forensic images, the process can be time-consuming and difficult.

Computer Forensic Reports

Isn’t there a better way? Yes, there is. Computer Forensic Reports (there are caveats). But first, why are they important and relevant to you?

Besides the forensic image that the government provides you, they may also provide you something called a Forensic Report (or forensic program generated report). Two common examples for computers will be an EnCase Report or an FTK Report. These reports, generated through the forensic software program, can allow you to see and review the information extracted from the image in a more user-friendly way. This can frequently mean you won’t need to use a forensic image viewer or a computer expert to assist you.

FTK HTML Report

FTK HTML Report

Now these computer forensic reports are not the same as a law enforcement report written by an agent discussing what information was on a computer and describing the evidence they think may be relevant to the criminal investigation. These forensic reports are generated through the forensic tool that was used to examine the data found on the device.

So, the first thing you should do when the government provides a forensic image to you is to ask the government if they have a forensic report as well and request a copy.

Forensic reports are useful because they can make it much easier for a legal professional to review data extracted from the device without having to use a forensic tool. Since most forensic examiners work with law enforcement, they typically create these reports for case agents and prosecutors. The information in the report can include information about documents, images, emails, and web browsing history. These reports often show both the content of a file as well as the metadata (such as the date the document was created). These reports are limited to the data extracted from the original device, the parameters of the forensic program, and the choices made by the forensic examiner.

The forensic reports can be provided in a several formats, including PDF, Excel and HTML. Many forensic tools also include a reader or viewer program that is proprietary to the forensic too, such as Magnet’s AXIOM Portable Case, opentext’s EnCase and AccessData’s FTK also have reader or viewer programs. These forensic reports allow legal professionals to search, review, sort and filter information in ways that can be superior to reviewing the reports in PDF, HTML or Excel formats.

Axiom Portable Case

Axiom Portable Case

These reports are valuable and frequently provide most of the information that a legal team will need to understand the contents of a forensic image. It should be noted that forensic reports may not contain all data that was on the original digital device.  Therefore, counsel should consider engaging a forensic expert or consultant when he or she does not understand the forensic report or image.

[NOTE: Law enforcement will frequently generate a forensic report after completing an extraction from a mobile device. A common forensic report seen in federal criminal cases is a Cellebrite Reader Report. See the Mobile Forensic Reports post for more details.]

Box.com FAQ’s

Posted on by

boxbanner

To assist federal defender offices and CJA panel attorneys who need to share and transfer e-discovery in their cases, the National Litigation Support Team (NLST) has obtained (“cloud”) space from Box.com for the short-term storage and transfer of data.

Details

Box.com is a simple cloud-based collaboration program that allows users to store, access, share, and transfer electronic files and documents.  The service encrypts all data and has additional security features.  Users can store an unlimited number of files, for their own use or to share with others, without having to use remote access to office computers. Defense teams can use different devices (such as computers, tablets, or smartphones) to access case data anywhere they can connect to the internet.  This allows CJA panel attorneys to share discovery and work product easily and efficiently in a secure environment.

Box.com is being used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as their cloud service to distribute e-discovery to the defense. DOJ evaluated it against other similar products and concluded it best met their security standards.

Box.com is committed to ensuring that your data will remain as secure as possible, and providing strong customer support. They have worked closely with the NLST in designing a cloud service that effectively addresses CJA counsels’ growing problem of moving and sharing large volumes of data. The NLST will work directly with each defense team to set up their cloud case folders, and to provide ongoing support of their use of Box.com.

The NLST will manage:

  1. creating case folders to hold electronic information on a case in the cloud,
  2. inviting team members (“collaborators”) to help them get access to the cloud data, and,
  3. granting rights of different team members to get into specific folders.

Because cloud contracts like this store case information on servers owned by Box.com, attorneys remain ultimately responsible for the use of this service. Before using it, CJA members should review their local bar opinions regarding the use of cloud computing and storage.

Once approved, the NLST will send you a form asking for the case details including who will serve as the “point of contact” for each defense team, and who on the team should be given access to the what files that have been stored on the cloud. Note that additional team members can be added later. The NLST will set up a short session to show all those who will use this cloud service how to navigate the system, and how to upload and download data. The NLST will be the team’s first point of contact if there are any questions about using Box.com, technical questions, or any concerns regarding using this
cloud-based case information repository.

Please note that Box.com does not offer advanced e-discovery features found in online document review programs such as Relativity, Summation, or Catalyst. It does not have a database and other advanced tools for organizing, reviewing, and analyzing e-discovery. Rather, its purpose is for short-term storage and transfer of information in the “cloud.”

When the case has concluded, (or sooner if counsel no longer needs this service), the CJA lawyer must delete all case materials from Box.com. The NLST will help ensure the case files are deleted, and the case is properly closed. Counsel should always maintain a copy of all files on their office computer system (besides the information stored in the cloud), as only duplicate files should be stored on Box.com.

Below are some answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) in regards to this service:

What is the difference between Box.com and Dropbox?

Box.com and Dropbox are both cloud based repositories. The Department of Justice is using Box.com, renamed USAfx, to distribute discovery to defense counsel in many districts. Since the DOJ has approved of the security protocols of Box.com, we felt that it would be helpful to make Box.com available to federal defender offices and CJA panel attorneys on a national level. For that reason, the National Litigation Support Team (NLST) has a national contract with Box.com and not with DropBox. The NLST assists in creating and managing case folders on Box.com for the sharing of work product and discovery but we do not support the use of DropBox in any way.

Since USAfx is just Box.com rebranded, can I use my USAfx user ID to log in to a case folder that I have asked the NLST to create on Box.com?

Unfortunately, no. Your user ID and password for USAfx is unique to USAfx and will only work on USAfx. You will need to set up a regular Box.com account and use that user ID and password to access any case folder created by the NLST.

How do I request a new case folder to be set up?

If you think your case would benefit from having a case folder set up on Box.com, please contact the NLST (Sammy Lopez or Alex Roberts). Once it has been decided that Box.com is the way to go, fill out a request form at: http://survey.fd.org/TakeSurvey.aspx?SurveyID=boxrequest. You will be notified once your case folder is ready to be used.

What is a collaborator?

Every person invited to work within a folder on Box.com is known as a collaborator. Each collaborator needs to have their own Box.com account and needs to be invited to the folder by the NLST.  If you receive an invitation to collaborate on a folder and you don’t have a Box.com account yet, you will first need to set one up.

Can I invite other users to collaborate on a case folder myself?

Only the NLST can invite collaborators to a folder to ensure that only those who should have access to a folder are granted access.

We have an expert on our case. Can we give them access to just a specific folder under our case folder on Box.com

Box.com works well for sharing a subset of information with an expert. Each sub-folder can have a different set of collaborators so you can set up a folder that only you and your expert can access.

Can access to a folder be limited to “read only” for certain users?

Each person invited to collaborate on a folder can be set up with their own unique permission level. The permission levels options for Box collaborators are:
Box.com Permission Levels

How do I setup a Box.com account?

To set up a free, personal Box.com account, which is all you need to access any case folder created by the NLST, simply go to https://app.box.com/signup/n/personal and follow the instructions.

Can I access my Box.com folder on my phone or tablet?

Box.com is mobile device friendly. You can download the Box app to your phone or tablet and access your folders and documents using the same log in credentials you do on Box.com when sitting at your computer.

Why am I being asked verify my account with a text code?

We want to make sure that the data being shared is done so in a secure way. Asking for a text code in addition to your user name and password is one way of ensuring that the person who is logging in is in fact the person authorized to see the data. This two factor authentication process is just one of the many security measures that makes Box.com a safer way to transfer data between legal teams, clients and experts.

How do I upload items?

There are two ways to upload items into your case folder. You can either (1) drag and drop a file or folder from your computer into the folder or (2) click on the “Upload” button at the top of the page and browse to the filer or folder you want to upload.

How do I download items?

There are two ways to download items into your case folder. You can either (1) right click on the file or folder and choose the download option or (2) click on the ellipses […] next to the file or folder and choose download.  Folders are downloaded as .zip files so you have to extract the files to your computer once the download is complete.

Can I get notified when another collaborator adds or deletes documents from a folder?

You can set your user preferences to receive email notifications when another collaborator downloads, uploads, makes comments, previews or deletes items from your case folder. Click on the down arrow next to your name and select account settings. Then click on Notifications along the menu bar. From there, you can select when you receive email notifications based on the actions of other collaborators.

How do I setup a sub-folder within a case folder?

If you have a folder on your computer that you want to make a sub-folder in your Box.com case folder, drag and drop the folder from your computer into your case folder. If you want to create a new sub-folder, click on the “New” button and a sub-folder will appear.

What happens when something is deleted?

Items that are deleted are moved to your Box.com Trash folder.  Deleted items will stay in the Trash folder for 90 days, during which time you can go into your Trash folder and restore those items to your case folder. After 90 days, they will be permanently deleted.

Is there a maximum amount of data that I can use Box.com to share?  What if I have 75 gigs or 1 terabyte?

There is no limit to the number of files or folders that can be shared on Box.com. For most users, there is a 250MB per file upload limit.  If you need to upload files larger than 250MB, contact the NLST for assistance.

How do I edit a Microsoft Office document that has been shared on Box.com and track each version on Box.com?

Collaborators can use Box Edit to make changes to Microsoft Office documents.  The changes will be saved directly back to Box.com along with access to prior versions of the document (see: https://app.box.com/services/box_edit for details and requirements).

Why is “NLST Admin” the Owner of the folder I requested to be created?

The NLST has a national contract with Box.com and is responsible for the creation and management of case folders in order to ensure sure that the appropriate security settings and collaborator permissions are used.  We are responsible for the security of our hosted space on Box.com and we want to make sure that nobody is accidentally allowed access to any case data.

Can I use Box.com to store old case files?

While your personal Box.com space can be used for any purpose, the case folders set up on Box.com by the NSLT is not designed for the storage of old files long term.  Case folders are meant for the short term sharing and transfer of files and to allow for teams to collaboratively edit documents while tracking each version.

So you think you don’t need tech?

Posted on by

Editor’s Note: Penny Marshall is currently in private practice, focusing on Law and Technology.  Previously she was the Federal Defender for the Federal Public Defender Office for the District of Delaware.  Her practice has also included the federal and local level in the District of Columbia and a year and a half stint in the state of Georgia.  She has served as President of the Association of Federal Defenders and Chair of the Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee.  In addition, she is an adjunct faculty member at Widener Law School and has served as guest faculty at both Harvard Law School and Benjamin Cardoza School of Law. 

Imagine that the government has provided you with 50 DVD’s, a stack of paper amounting to more than a 100,000 documents, an ample number of CD’s and a list several hundred witnesses.  If you instinctively start to prepare by hiring enough paralegals to print out all of documents on the DVD’s, put them all in manila folders, and then hope that you or your smart energetic personnel will remember, in the middle of cross-examination, exactly where a particular impeaching statement is located, then this blog is certainly for you.

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

Even in the less complex cases, there is increasing reliance by prosecutors on digital discovery rather than forwarding a stack of reports and pictures.  And certainly the video and audio of our clients providing visual and audio support for the government case will be represented in a digital fashion.

In the new technological age more and more the government is able to “over paper” a case by putting any and all documents on electronic media and challenge YOU to find what is truly relevant.  More and more the government is following the way of our civil counterparts, who have long used technology as a way to organize and present their case.  We, as defense lawyers are prime to catch up.

At different stages of litigation there are several advantages to the use of technology:

  • Generally, the first advantage is that technology allows all of your information to be stored and organized in a compact easy to find location.  Almost gone are the days of moving numerous boxes from one location to the other to be copied and filed.
  • The next advantage is that the digital approach allows for your documents to be searched, either by looking in the digital file or by a program that blitzes through numerous documents to find one name or one crucial word.  Tiny print, upside down lettering and even handwriting can be deciphered.
  • A third advantage is that technology is a less costly way of presenting evidence.  For example: compare for example a FBI model versus using a computer program to reconstruct a crime scene.  Also think of the flexibility!
  • Fourth, technology organization requires you to focus on your case in advance. Rather than place the paper in an accordion file and bringing it out close to trial, electronics says you must consider the parts of the case in advance.

The fact that we are in a visual age cannot be understated.  TV, Text, Laptops, PCs, Phones, Tablets all require us to stare at electronic screens.  Each of these compete for our attention by making more and more exciting bells and whistles.  Check out the lines in front of an Apple store once a new “iDevice” is revealed.

Lining up for new technology

Even though jury duty is a diversion from the normal life for our citizenry, many jurors are regular consumers who expect theatrics in the courtroom. I must admit that, at first, I went kicking and screaming that I was not fully comfortable with tech in the courtroom, but having tried complex cases where it was an absolute necessity and experienced the impact of it in even the more modest case, I am an absolute convert. Think about it, even if you are one of the great lawyers of the day, jurors may tire of your voice in a long case with significant documents, especially if you are asking the Court’s indulgence to find your trial evidence!!

Important 11th Circuit decision regarding compelling of unencrypted data

Posted on by

Editor’s Note: Justin Murphy is a counsel at Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement Group and E-Discovery and Information Management Group. Justin’s practice focuses on SEC enforcement, white collar criminal matters, e-discovery matters relating to internal and government investigations, and related civil litigation. He has represented clients in both federal and state criminal proceedings, including state trial panel work in Maryland. Justin has a wealth of expertise in electronic discovery issues in government investigations and criminal litigation, having both written and presented on the subject. In this blog entry, Justin discusses United States v. Doe, a big win for AFPD Chet Kaufman of the Florida Northern Federal Public Defender Office.

Appeals Court Finds Encrypted Data Beyond Reach of Government Investigators

by: Justin P. Murphy, Counsel, Crowell & Moring LLP

In an important decision that could have significant implications for government enforcement, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a suspect could not be required to decrypt his computer hard drives because it would implicate his Fifth Amendment privilege and amount to the suspect’s testifying against himself.

In United States v. Doe, the government seized hard drives that it believed contained child pornography.  Some of the hard drives were encrypted, and the suspect refused to decrypt the devices, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.  The Eleventh Circuit held that compelling the suspect to decrypt and produce the drives’ contents “would be tantamount to testimony by Doe of his knowledge of the existence and location of potentially incriminating files; of his possession, control, and access to the encrypted portions of the drives; and of his capability to decrypt the files.”  Moreover, the government could not force a suspect to decrypt and produce the information where it could not identify with “reasonable particularity” the existence of certain files, noting that an “act of production can be testimonial when that act conveys some explicit or implicit statement of fact that certain materials exist, are in the subpoenaed individual’s possession or control, or are authentic.”  The court also rejected the government’s attempt to immunize production of the drives’ contents because the government acknowledged that “it would use the contents of the unencrypted drives against” the suspect. 

This decision appears to limit government investigators’ ability to compel an individual to reveal the contents of devices encrypted with passwords or codes in a criminal investigation based only on government speculation as to what data may be contained in certain files.  Although a corporation or partnership does not enjoy Fifth Amendment protection, individuals and sole proprietorships do, and this decision could have a significant impact on small businesses and individuals who work in highly regulated industries including health care, government contracting, energy, chemicals, and others that may face government scrutiny. 

For a copy of the decision, please click here.

Recommendations for ESI Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases

Posted on by

The Administrative Office/Department of Justice Joint Working Group on Electronic Technology (JETWG) has announced the development of a recommended ESI protocol for use in federal criminal cases. Entitled “Recommendations for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Discovery Production in Federal Criminal Cases“, it is the product of a collaborative effort between representatives from the Defender Services program and DOJ and it has DOJ leadership’s full support.

The primary purpose of the ESI protocol is to facilitate more predictable, cost-effective, and efficient management of electronic discovery and a reduction in the number of disputes relating to ESI. What this means for federal defenders and the CJA panel is that there is now a mechanism, through a meet and confer process, to address problems a receiving party might have with an ESI production early in a case, and to discuss the form of the discovery that they receive. The participants on both sides of JETWG are intimately familiar with the day-to-day challenges attorneys face in criminal cases, and the protocol reflects a pragmatic approach to the problems both prosecutors and defense attorneys face when dealing with electronic discovery.

The protocols were negotiated and drafted over an 18-month period by JETWG which has representatives from the Federal Defender Offices, CJA Panel, Office of Defender Services, and DOJ, with liaisons from the United States Judiciary. Andrew Goldsmith, the DOJ National Criminal Discovery Coordinator, and I (Sean Broderick) serve as co-chairs. Donna Elm, Federal Public Defender for the Middle District of Florida, Doug Mitchell, CJA Panel Attorney District Representative for the District of Nevada, Bob Burke, Chief of the Training Branch for Office of Defender Services, and Judy Mroczka, Chief of the Legal and Policy Branch for Office of Defender Services round out the membership on the Defender Services side of the joint working group.

The ESI protocol was directly impacted by input provided by FDO and CJA panel attorneys, FDO technology staff, paralegals, investigators in the field. In addition, we received comments and input on draft versions of the Recommendations from different working groups compromised of Federal Defenders and CJA panel representatives (just as DOJ did on their side).

The Recommendations consist of four parts:

  1. an Introduction containing underlying principles, with hyperlinks to related recommendations and strategies; 
  2. the Recommendations themselves; 
  3. Strategies and Commentary that address technical and logistical issues in more detail and provide specific advice on discovery exchange challenges; and 
  4. an ESI Discovery Production Checklist.

In general, the agreement is designed to encourage early discussion of electronic discovery issues through “meet and confers,” the exchange of data in industry standard or reasonably useable formats, notice to the court of potential discovery issues, and resolution of disputes without court involvement where possible.

We are excited about this announcement. Although almost all information is now created and stored electronically, the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are largely silent on this issue. At the same time there is a void because criminal cases, just like civil cases, are impacted by our shift from a paper to a digital-based society. We believe that this is an important step towards addressing the ESI challenges that people can face in a federal criminal case, if not now, certainly in the future.

We expect to continue the collaborative process with DOJ, and look forward to an ongoing dialogue with people in the field who are dealing with electronic discovery.

PDF link: Recommendations for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Discovery Production in Federal Criminal Cases

Posted in ESI

DeMystifying De-NIST

Posted on by

With ever rising volumes of discovery data, increasingly legal teams are looking for solutions that can assist them manage the amount of data they need to review.  In circumstances where significant amounts of ESI (Electronically Stored Information) and forensic images of hard drives are involved, one common method is to “De-NIST” discovery data sets.  “De-NIST”ing can be a significant time and money saver and an important part of the discovery review process.

So what the heck does “De-NIST” mean?  

NIST is the acronym for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (website www.nsrl.nist.gov).  One of NIST’s projects is the National Software Reference Library.  This project is designed to identify and collect software from various sources and create a Reference Data Set (RDS).  The RDS is a collection of digital signatures of known, traceable software applications. 

A digital signature is like a digital fingerprint (it is also commonly referred to as a hash value).  In theory, every file has a unique hash value.  If two files have the same hash value they are considered duplicates.  

Most software applications are comprised of multiple files.  For example: when Adobe Acrobat Reader is installed there are hundreds of standard files copied to a computer’s hard drive.   All of these standard install files are the same (i.e., they have identical hash values) no matter what computer they reside on.  A typical computer contains hundreds of software applications.  The files associated with running these applications are not user generated and hold little evidentiary value for litigation purposes.  The NIST list is a database that contains over 28 Million of these file signatures.

“De-NIST”ing is the process of identifying these files so that a decision can be made if they should be set aside or removed from a discovery database.  The NIST list is compared to the file signatures of the data sets within the discovery.  Any file that has a signature that matches one in the NIST list can be “De-NIST”ed (identified or removed) from the collection. 

While many legal review teams expect the De-NIST process to get rid of every application or system file within a data collection it is important to note that the NIST list does not contain every single system file.  Though it may not remove all of the system files, it can significantly reduce the dataset, especially when working with with copies of hard drive images. 

When presented with an overwhelming river of information, trying to find relevant information can feel like you’re panning for gold.  De-NIST’ing can help to identify or get rid of the much of the water, stones and muck and leave you with a much more manageable pan.   

Posted in ESI