CJUS 540 Test 2 Study Guide

docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

540

Subject

Computer Science

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by steezlebot

CJUS 540 Test 2 Liberty University Clancy, Tomas K. (2019). Cyber Crime and Digital Evidence (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Carolina Academic Press. ISBN: 9781531009618. Chapters 8-12 of the reading assignment Set 1 1. If someone said to you, “The law on the searching digital devices at the US international border is crystal clear!” What questions might you ask them and with what case law would they be supported? 2. Regarding third party consent, does the Court shift the burden onto the police to determine the existence of the password/encryption by either 1) asking about it or 2) configuring the software to look for it? 3. Does the scope of the search incident to arrest extend beyond the location where the accused is arrested? Why? Or why not? 4. Describe the basic elements of a search warrant 5. When is a warrant for digital evidence executed? Is it when the computer or other digital device is seized or is it when the forensic examination back at a laboratory finds the evidence? 6. Describe what “outside the box” or data in transit means and how it is regulated. 7. Following a warrantless seizure, can the police take as much time as they desire to obtain a warrant? 8. If someone were to ask you about the difference between a Pen Register and a Trap and Trace device and their respective uses, what would you tell them?

Question 1 When is a warrant for digital evidence executed? Is it when the computer or other digital device is seized or is it when the forensic examination back at a laboratory finds the evidence? There are two computer searches: (1) seize the equipment and (2) obtain the data contained in the computer equipment. The equipment that can be seized is the computer hardware and software. If the data is seized, that can include hard drives or other storage devices such as a floppy disk. In the context of warrants issued to seize computer software and hardware, the courts have often found generic descriptions of the items to be seized to be sufficient (Clancy, 2019). A warrant for digital evidence is executed when there is probable cause. A warrant can be executed when searching and seizing a computer on a scene. If the computer needs further examination, another warrant may need to be requested if there is additional incriminating evidence not covered under the first warrant. There are two principal approaches to searches involving electronic data stored on computers, if a computer is a form of a container and the data in electronic storage mere forms of documents or whether such searches for data require a "special approach" (Clancy, 2019). References Clancy, T. K. (2019). Cyber Crime and Digital Evidence: Materials and Cases (3rd ed.) Durham: Carolina Academic Press. When is a warrant for digital evidence executed? Is it when the computer or other digital device is seized or is it when the forensic examination back at a laboratory finds the evidence? Selected Answer: There are two varieties of computer searches: one is to seize the equipment, that is, the computer hardware and software; the other is to obtain the data contained in the computer equipment, including on hard drives and various storage devices, such as floppy disk. A warrant for digital evidence is executed when there is probable cause. A warrant can be executed when searching and seizing a computer on the scene, and when if the computer is take back for forensic examination another warrant may need to be requested if more incriminating evidence is found that was not in the original warrant. Question 2 Regarding third party consent, does the Court shift the burden onto the police to determine the existence of the password/encryption by either 1) asking about it or 2) configuring the software to look for it? The presence of password of password protection files is important to asses in a third party's authority to consent. By creating password protected files, the creator intends to exclude other users from files. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said for that person to agree for other users to search files. The lack of passwords to protect files from other users gives other users access to searching the computer. Courts consider the issue and attempted to analogize computers to other items that are commonly found in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. An individuals privacy in a computer has been compared to a "locked footlocker inside the bedroom". Courts addressing the issue of third party consent in the context of computers, have examined officers' knowledge about password protection as an indication if a

computer is "locked" in a way a footlocker or breifcase would be (Clancy, 2019). Additionally, the courts consider the location of the computer within the house and other indicia of household members' access to the computer in assessing third party authority (Clancy, 2019). Third party authority to consent to search has been upheld when the computer is located in a common area and other users have access to use the computer. There has been issues if the computer is in a common area and a third party user has disclaimed access or control over the computer or accessing files. Given the case law indicating the importance of computer password protection, the common knowledge about the prevelance of password usage, and the design of EnCase or similar password bypass mechanisms, the Fourth Amendment and the reasonable inquiry rule, mandate that in consent based, warrantless computer searches, law enforcement personnel inquire or otherwise check for the presence of password protection and, if a password is present, inquire about the consenter's knowledge of that password and joint access to the computer (Clancy, 2019). References Clancy, T. K. (2019). Cyber Crime and Digital Evidence: Materials and Cases (3rd ed.) Durham: Carolina Academic Press. Regarding third party consent, does the Court shift the burden onto the police to determine the existence of the password/encryption by either 1) asking about it or 2) configuring the software to look for it? Selected Answer: Case law indicates the importance of computer password protection, the common knowledge about the prevalence of password usage, and at design of EnCase or similar password bypass mechanisms, the 4th Amendment and the reasonable inquiry rule, mandates that in consent based, warrant less computer searches, law enforcement personnel inquire or otherwise check for the presence of password protection and, if a password is present inquire about the consenter's knowledge of that password and joint access to the computer Question 3 Following a warrantless seizure, can the police take as much time as they desire to obtain a warrant? Many jurisdictions require that a search warrant be executed within a certain time period. The federal rule requires, except for tracking devices, the warrant must be executed within 14 days from the date the magistrate signed the warrant. Execution of the warrant after that specified time period is expired, the courts could find violation of the governing statutory or procedural ruled and find the warrant useless. If the warrant is invalid, the search would be considered warrantless and the standard applicable to a warrantless search and seizure would be applied (Clancy, 2019). Once it has been established, a seizure has occurred, it must be justified and reasonable. Consistent with the treatment of seizure of persons, the court has distinguished between temporary detentions, justified by articulable

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

suspicion, and longer detentions, for which probable cause and a warrant may be needed. Officers may not take as much time as the desire to obtain a warrant. A seizure lawful at its inception can nevertheless violate the Fourth Amendment because its manner of execution unreasonable infringes possessory interest protected by the Fourth Amendment prohibition of "unreasonable searches" (Clancy, 2019). Even a seizure based on probable cause is unconstitutional if the police act with unreasonable delay in securing a warrant. References Clancy, T. K. (2019). Cyber Crime and Digital Evidence: Materials and Cases (3rd ed.) Durham: Carolina Academic Press. Following a warrantless seizure, can the police take as much time as they desire to obtain a warrant? Selected Answer: Once it is establish that a seizure has occurred, it must be justified as reasonable. Consistent with the treatment of seizure of persons, the court has distinguished between temporary detentions, justified by articulable suspicion, and longer detentions, for which probable cause and a warrant may be need. Officers may not take as much time as the desire to obtain a warrant. A sezure lawful at its inception can nevertheless violate the Fourth Amendment because its manner of execution unreasonable infringes possessory interest protected by the Fourth Amendment prohibition of "unreasonable searches". Even a seizure based on probable cause is unconstitutional if the police act with unreasonable delay in securing a warrant. a Question 4 Describe the basic elements of a search warrant. For a search warrant to be valid, it has to meet requirements: (1) the warrant has to be filled by a law enforcement officer in good faith, (2) the search warrant must be given by a detached and neutral magistrate, (3) the warrant has to be based on reliable information and should have probable cause to search, and (4) the search warrant must be specific on the items to be searched and seized. The Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant describe with particularity "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Clancy, 2019). The particularity requirement prevents a "general, exploratory rummaging in a persons belongings" and the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another (Clancy, 2019). It also "assures the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search" (Clancy, 2019). A warrant satisfies the particularity requirement if it enables the executing officer to identify with reasonable certainty those items that have been authorized to seize. References Clancy, T. K. (2019). Cyber Crime and Digital Evidence: Materials and Cases (3rd ed.) Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Describe what “outside the box” or data in transit means and how it is regulated. Selected Answer: Outside the box refers to the proper methods to obtain data in transit and at its intended destination. Outside the box can refer to transmitting data somewhere else, and relates to the individual user's ability to object to governmental acquisitions of the data. The perspective from which this informal framework is measured is the individual user. From the perspective of the individual user, the 4th amendment regulates the acquisition of data stored on that individual's computer and other digital devices- data inside the box. But the ability to claim a protect instrest in objects to the acquisition of data in networks, in transit, or recovered from third party is broadly generalizes the regulation of acquisition of data on the Internet and in networks have been primarily regulated by the fourth amendment has been construed. This results in statutory analysis often superseding Fourth Amendment analysis. There are several considerations that influence 4th amendment analysis of network and Internet investigations. Fundament one is whether a person has protected interest as reasonable expectation of privacy in data sought. Several variables include: What type of data is being sought: What steps the person has taken to protect his/ her privacy: and whether the data is obtained from a third party 1. If someone said to you, “The law on the searching digital devices at the US international border is crystal clear!” What questions might you ask them and with what case law would they be supported? P 277 1. Describe what “outside the box” or data in transit means and how it is regulated. Rewrite into own words Issues involving the property of obtaining data on a computer or stored on any other digital device are referred to as Inside the Box issues. As to the proper methods to obtain data in transit and at its intended destination, such issues are referred to as Outside the Box considerations. The perspective from which this informal framework is measured as the individual user. She has her own device and may store data on that device inside her box. She may also click send and transmit data somewhere else outside her box. The distinction between inside the box and outside the box is solely designed to emphasize that much different legal regimens have been construed to predominate in each of those situations as it relates to the individual users ability to object to governmental acquisition of the day area. P 293 How is it regulated

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

CJUS 540 Test 2 Study Guide

Related Documents