It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Transfer of data from PC to USB stick argument not valid in court of law

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
In Holland people are convicted because they transfered material (like terroristic data) from PC to external media, undermining the argument of the defense that an external party hacked the computer and did put the terroristic material there.

The court argued that the accused consciously and willingly must have transfered the data to be backed up on USB or DVD.

But the USB stick could be in the PC while it was online, so in principle when an external party can put files on your computer, it can just as easily put it on an online USB stick.

Moreover if on DVD a complex file system is backed up, he or she is not to blame if a third party has added a diaspora of for instance "How To" bomb making documents on the PC, which are now on PC and DVD, the accused could very well not be aware of it, simply did not find or detect the files




posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: galien8

I see why. Akin to handing evidence to an unknown third party to be carried to the courtroom. The chain of evidence becomes suspect, i.e., the court can't rule out the third party didn't tamper with the evidence while it was in their 'custody'.

Unless the court is corrupt and using the ambiguity to railroad someone...



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: galien8


The court, I assume, does not act in a vacuum. It will have to decide whether or not it in the given context is sufficiently likely that the defendant himself did the deed or if (in this case) someone electronically or physically broke in and transferred the files.

Nothing wrong with that.

I assume the Netherlands have some form of equivalent to "beyond reasonable doubt", and that his/her guilt is determined to be just that; beyond reasonable doubt.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Seems to me an excellent distinction the court is making in this day and age of disinformation agencies, domestic spying, and no opportunity for us to decline SOME permissions and decline OTHERS on our apps. Hopefully the American courts are thinking along the parallel. If they're not, it leaves open massive window for being framed.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: galien8

...evidence becomes suspect, i.e., the court can't rule out the third party didn't tamper with the evidence...



Yes! Any kind of digital evidence cannot be trusted beyond reasonable doubt, courts and jurists have to think of something else to judge people



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: galien8

The court, I assume, does not act in a vacuum. It will have to decide whether or not it in the given context is sufficiently likely that the defendant himself did the deed or if (in this case) someone electronically or physically broke in and transferred the files.



Yes! Would take a day job to weigh all facts, all pro's and con's



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruthAboveALL01

Hopefully the American courts are thinking along the parallel. If they're not, it leaves open massive window for being framed.



Yes! This is the consequence of that total awareness and total control thing, the NSA has, digital evidence is not valid anymore
courts and jurists have to think of something else



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: galien8

...evidence becomes suspect, i.e., the court can't rule out the third party didn't tamper with the evidence...



Yes! Any kind of digital evidence cannot be trusted beyond reasonable doubt, courts and jurists have to think of something else to judge people


GASp like ACTUAL EVIDENCE and POLICE WORK!!



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

GASp like ACTUAL EVIDENCE and POLICE WORK!!


www.thefreedictionary.com... ?


edit on 2016-12-4 by galien8 because: typo

edit on 2016-12-4 by galien8 because: typo



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: galien8

*gasp* Is that better? lol



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Some operating systems log all the file transactions; when a USB stick was plugged in/removed, when files were created and edited. Thumbnails are created when images are viewed. Even movie players log the times movies are played as well as maintain a history.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
Some operating systems log all the file transactions; when a USB stick was plugged in/removed, when files were created and edited. Thumbnails are created when images are viewed. Even movie players log the times movies are played as well as maintain a history.


seems maybe far fetched: but these log files could be manipulated by an external (hacking) party ...its only a mouse click away... more worth is digital evidence not



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
So when police find drugs in your vehicle police are supposed to believe you when you say "Some druggie put it there, I don't know where it came from"
edit on 4-12-2016 by TheLotLizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthAboveALL01




If they're not, it leaves open massive window for being framed.


There are several former Federal Agents / Officers sitting in the Federal Penitentiary because of this very reason.

Never say never John Q.
What'cha going do when they come for you ?

Buck



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
So when police find drugs in your vehicle police are supposed to believe you when you say "Some druggie put it there, I don't know where it came from"


3 billion internet users could have put it there



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: galien8

Its like a deal with the devil: NSA gets total awareness, total control (can plant fake digital evidence anywhere) but can't do anything with it



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: galien8

Whether you like it or not it is here to stay.

A digital fingerprint and a physical fingerprint is the same thing, both can be created and modified a like, placed there via a silicon printed piece and covered in a fine oil to give the impression of a real print.

The year is 2016, turning 2017 and the entire world runs on Computers and Digital equipment, it is never going away.

With the people such as myself who have a very very extensive background in Computers, I.T, Network Security, File recovery etc etc, we can tell you through a little poking around and investigation whether something has been breached, tampered with, modified, remove, time stamped previously on another system and transferred over and etc.

With just very very basic recovery software we can see a tiny piece of a file that was deleted many moons ago and overwritten several times, it's not as easy as "hacking" into a system and placing a file there, we can see that instantly.

It is admissible in court for a good reason, just like digital photography was allowed into courts (The battle for that was long and fraught with frustrations), we have people whose job it is to find whether or not it was placed there by the user or that of another.

We no longer live in the mid 80s-90s, we live in a world where everyone has a little computer in their pocket everywhere they go, attached to a system that allows instant communication of everything, with everything and everyone attached to it.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: galien8

The date and time, as well as 'copied from' and 'copied to' locations can all be used as evidence as well as the creator of the file.

Yes, technically it's possible that someone hacked the guilty parties computer while the USB flash drive was plugged in, but if date/time match for a period that you do not have an alibi for other than "I was at my computer" and the ownership of the file belongs to the creator (namely guilty party) then yea... They are guilty.

It's not hard to prove stuff with digital forensics. Also, if you feel other evidence is needed than 'digital evidence' you are going to let a lot of twisted/sick people get away with terrible things.

There are digital foot prints and ways of proving file ownership.
The last time I heard the excuse 'hackers did it' was when a buddies dad found his porn stash in high school.
Seriously, we're not 15 any more and legal processes have steps and much more intricate methods than "it's on your usb drive so it must be yours".



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: galien8

With the people such as myself who have a very very extensive background in Computers, I.T, Network Security, File recovery etc etc, we can tell you through a little poking around and investigation whether something has been breached, tampered with, modified, remove, time stamped previously on another system and transferred over and etc.



Well it became and is a cat and mouse game, sometimes the manipulators are more clever, sometimes the forensic experts can detect whether evidence was manipulated or not (genuine)



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: galien8

Yes, technically it's possible that someone hacked the guilty parties computer while the USB flash drive was plugged in, but if date/time match for a period that you do not have an alibi for other than "I was at my computer" and the ownership of the file belongs to the creator (namely guilty party) then yea... They are guilty.



date time stamp is dependent of the setting of the (local) computer



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join