Report – Identity Theft and Computer Crime
Overview of Forensic Process and Steps Taken by Examiner
The forensic process in identity theft and computer crime involves delicate procedures to protect the integrity of digital evidence. Therefore, the examiner began by developing policies and guidelines to steer the entire process. Since the collected data is usually precious and can readily be compromised if not handled appropriately, the established guidelines addressed how to prepare systems holding the evidence, where to store the gathered evidence and the necessary documentation measures. Such preparations paved the way for the subsequent process.
The second and third steps were the collection and examination of the forensic evidence. The examiner ensured timely collection of the relevant data to conserve the dynamic details such as those obtained from battery-powered devices (Pollitt, 2016). The collection phase entailed identifying, labeling, and recording the pertinent data. It also focused on protecting the scene from any potential contamination in the long run. The examination process combined both manual and automatic methods to ascertain the comprehensiveness of the target data. Insignificant details, including file names, were further prioritized to determine where and when the information of interest was created, uploaded, or downloaded.
The examiner then analyzed and reported the gathered information to the court. The examined details were analyzed using credible and well-documented mechanisms to derive relevant insights. Some of the featured forms of analysis included file systems, network, video, application, media, and image analysis. The extracted outcomes were documented in a concise and clear report ready for legal proceedings. The findings were explained by relating them to the initial objectives to avoid misinterpretation. Stringent adherence to the explained steps helped maintain high-quality results.
Examples of Authentication Acceptable in the Investigative Process
Authentication is an effective technique for dealing with identity theft as it proves the identity of the perpetrator. It is an advanced practice that combines identification and verification features, which are comparatively important in forensic evidence. It seeks to curb identity theft and fraud by confirming that the suspected individuals have committed a crime. The method incorporates accounts behind protective networks and personal information, making it more convincing. Modern authentication measures combine intelligent and automated technology to deal with cybercriminals who gain malicious access to their target missions. The subsequent sections feature some of the recommended examples of authentications acceptable in the investigative process of identity theft.
Biometric authentication is the first option to be used against the defense examiner. This method is strategically based on who you are and entails high-level evidence (Casey, 2019). It is primarily based on the unique biological characteristics of the criminal captured during the intrusion. Biometric authentication involves a wide array of techniques, one of which is facial recognition. Facial recognition deals with the facial characteristics of the individual of interest. It longs to validate the obtained details to the actual traits of the suspect. The facial traits are typically collected through the installed cameras, and this strategy presents undeniable proof.
Fingerprint falls under biometric authentication methods and is fundamentally grounded on the fingerprint patterns of an individual. Therefore, the fingerprint trails left by the culprit can be referenced, invalidating that they indeed perpetrated the crime. This is achieved through the use of fingerprint scanners which match the assessed evidence to the actual attacker. It is currently the most popular means and has been leveraged by modern technology to assess the finger’s vascular patterns.
Eye recognition is yet another biometric measure acceptable in a court of law. This technique embeds high-level technology capable of scanning a person’s iris and retina. As a result, the relevance of this authentication approach will be more relevant if the forensic evidence has detailed eye characteristics. It searches for special patterns traced in the colored ring in the pupil. Matching the collected details to those of the suspect proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the cybercrime. However, this method is limited by inaccuracies arising from persons with contact lenses or those wearing glasses.
Certificate-based authentication is the second recommended example of acceptable authentication in the case of identity theft. It is centrally founded on the electronic documents used to alienate an individual from the rest. The referenced digital certificates contain unique digital identifiers of the cardholder necessary to verify an individual. These identifiers may include the digital signature and public key of a certification authority. This method operates under the concept of what you have. Therefore, it is incredibly relevant in legal issues due to the contained critical information.
Certificate-based authentication deals with credit cards and identification documents used to perform the crime. People usually obtain personal documents from others in a bid to commit fraud and other malicious deeds. The gathered information might be used to access medical services, file returns, or apply the credit (Casey, 2019). However, forensic evidence makes it possible to track down the perpetrators in the best way possible. In some instances, the criminals might leave behind their documents, making it easy to follow up. This method is beneficial as it requires minimal resources to validate the guiltiness of the defendant. Therefore, its application in identity theft is acknowledged and widely used.
Examples of Chain of Custody Technique of Digital Evidence
Using clean collecting media is one of the primary chains of custody methods in digital evidence. The evidence-collecting media must be assessed to ensure that it does not compromise the collected data quality. Suppose it contains malware that consequently escapes into the machine being examined, then the intended evidence is invariably placed at risk (Obbayi, 2019). Such an incident ends up affecting the original copies making it hard to gather credible details. Therefore, the collecting apparatus must constantly be scrutinized to assess their suitability in upholding information integrity. As already mentioned, forensic evidence is highly sensitive and thus can easily be degraded by minor inefficiencies. It remains upon the examiner to ensure that top-notch approaches are incorporated into the investigative process.
It is also recommendable to document any extra scope noted in the course of an examination. Apparently, it is common to come across details beyond the current investigation, yet crucial for future references. As such, the examiner must document the information and bring it forward to the case agents. This makes it possible to obtain further search authorities as deemed necessary. The extra information must be accompanied by a report detailing various aspects of the situation. Some of them include the case investigator, submission number, date of receipt, the submitter’s identity, and the examiner’s signature (Garg, 2020). Such details are necessary for confirming that the process was comprehensive.
The explained techniques are essential in fostering the admissibility of forensic evidence. They ensure that the investigative process adheres to the necessary guidelines and expectations. Nevertheless, they are a clear reflection of transparency and accountability in the chain of custody.
Legal and Illegal Identity Theft Considerations Under First and Fourth Amendments
The First Amendment is concerned with the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. This context views the Amendment from the speech perspective, especially in the digital era with internet hyperlinking. It strives to relate the clause with an identity theft investigation in the best way possible. To begin with, the First Amendment illegalizes unlawful production, transfer, use, or possession of authentication and identification features (DiSanto, 2015). This serves in the best interest of protecting innocent people from being victimized in the online space without their consent. The clause is highly regarded and applicable across the country. However, it equally faces criticism and opposition from various parties.
Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, it prohibits specific categories regulated by the government. Some of them include fighting words, incitement of illegal activities, and obscenity. This is because some people can readily impersonate and consequently engage in negative expressions. Such an approach ends up tarnishing others’ brands and making them appear as the perpetrators. Therefore, victims caught in impersonation practices with malicious intentions are harshly handled in the justice system.
However, it is worth acknowledging that the First Amendment protects religious and political speech. It is assumed that such messages are communicated through identifiable and authentic documents. It remains upon the courts to gauge and quantify whether the value of the delivered message outweighs potential negative impacts in identity theft situations. During the investigative process, the court is given a degree of autonomy to impose judgment based on the extent of identity fraud.
The First Amendment strongly illegalizes hyperlinking, especially when used to share access to confidential data. Generally, links are so powerful and can draw attention from the mainstream to a specific issue. Assuming that a journalist comes across an anonymously posted list of personal details and federal background information. He can either share the information with the larger public or ignore and maintain it private. Any attempt to expose the hyperlink to the editorial team of other parties makes him liable for criminal actions. The journalism is considered to have committed identity fraud and is not protected under free speech. This aspect indicates that identity theft can occur in various ways.
The application of the First Amendment in the Bartnicki v Vopper case justifies media houses to disseminate private information acquired unlawfully. The case involved an identity and privacy breach where a radio personality broadcasted a taped conversation between labor officials and union members. Though the radio presenter could be viewed as a lawbreaker, his actions were justified since the intended public interest outweighed the victim’s privacy and identity rights. Therefore, media is protected to overrun identity concerns for the betterment of society.
The Fourth Amendment discourages government officials from practicing unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the clause supports identity theft investigations, mainly where the efforts are driven by probable cause. This implies that the government is permitted to seize mobile devices from suspicious users and consequently sue them for legal proceedings. This circumstance strictly applies where the involved officials are ready to convince the court about the basis of probable cause that leads to a search. Identity theft investigations with a high risk of destroying forensic evidence by the suspect are permitted to be conducted with haste. However, the search and seizure should be backed up by a warrant as dictated by the law.
Inevitable discovery in electronic identity searches is a controversial topic strongly supported by the Fourth Amendment. These are searches and seizures that usually occur through unconstitutional methods (Rowland, n.d). For instance, an identity theft criminal whose effects are dangerous and capable of harming the public deserves quick responsive measures. In such a situation, it might be relatively impossible to retrieve evidence and get hold of the perpetrator while following the legal orders. As a result, the law enforcers are allowed to bypass the constitution while pursuing the criminal. The obtained evidence is permissible in a court of law. The concept of inevitable discovery has been applied in multiple instances and will continuously be used as needed.
Finally, the Fourth Amendment protects the interests of identity thieves by safeguarding their innocent information. This idea is succinctly summarized as a third-party forensic search that requires the presence of computer forensic search specialists and protocols. Therefore, law enforcement officers pursuing an identity theft crime must present affidavits with details on how they intend to go about the search. Sophisticated searches must be justified and backed up with a clear outline of the methods to be included. Failure to incorporate such explanations reduces the admissibility of the collected evidence. This approach plays a major role in protecting the privacy of unintended information. Both the First and Fourth Amendments are equitable and justified based on how they handle the identity theft crisis.
References
Casey, E. (2019). The chequered past and risky future of digital forensics. Australian Journal of forensic sciences, 51(6), 649-664.
DiSanto, P. F. (2015). Blurred lines of identity crimes: Intersection of the First Amendment and federal identity fraud. Colum. L. Rev., 115, 941. Retrieved on 2nd Dec 2021 from: https://columbialawreview.org/content/blurred-lines-of-identity-crimes-intersection-of-the-first-amendment-and-federal-identity-fraud-2/
Garg, R. (2020). “Chain of Custody – Digital Forensics.” GeeksforGeeks. Retrieved on 2nd Dec from: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/chain-of-custody-digital-forensics/
Obbayi, L. (2019). “Computer Forensics: Chain of Custody.” Infosec. Retrieved on 2nd Dec 2021 from: https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/topic/computer-forensics-chain-custody/
Pollitt, M. (2016). The key to forensic success: examination planning is a key determinant of efficient and effective digital forensics. In Digital Forensics (pp. 27-43). Syngress. Retrieved on 2nd Dec from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/forensic-process
Rowland, M, L. (n.d). “Cybercrime and the Fourth Amendment.”. Book Reviews. Retrieved on 2nd Dec 2021 from: https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cybercrime-and-the-Fourth-Amendment.pdf
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Report – Identity Theft and Computer Crime
In preparation for a court appearance, the federal law enforcement agency wants to ensure proper forensic processes and techniques are used in a computer crime case involving identity theft.
When challenging the admissibility of the digital evidence, the defense examiner will evaluate the authentication and chain of custody techniques used. The federal law enforcement agency would like your company, AB Investigative Services (ABIS), to identify in a report the possible authentication and chain of custody techniques acceptable in the investigative process, including issues relating to First and Fourth Amendment privacy issues with respect to computer-related technologies.
Using the library, Internet, or any other credible materials, provide the following in your report to the federal law enforcement agency:
• Begin the report with a one-page overview of the forensics process and the steps taken by an examiner related to identity theft and computer crime.
• Provide 2–3 pages identifying the following:
o 2 recommended examples of authentication acceptable in the investigative process of identity theft
o 2 recommended examples of chain of custody techniques of digital evidence
• Provide 2–3 pages explaining the following:
o What is considered legal or illegal under the guidelines of the First and Fourth Amendments in relation to the identity theft investigation
• Cite your sources using APA style.