To most people, a computer could not be described as Dangerous. We use them on a daily basis to type letters, perhaps browse the Internet, play games or store holiday photos. However, for some, data contained on a computer or mobile phone can provide enough evidence to form the basis of legal proceedings against them.
As a computer forensic specialist I am currently involved in criminal and civil cases involving an array of different subjects, including corporate data theft and espionage, murder, drugs, fraud, theft, employee misbehaviour, child access applications and even probate. These are not just legal cases either; for example, I regularly receive instructions relating to marriage disputes that involve computers and digital media.
Increased media attention over the past ten years in cases such as those within Operation Ore (relating to 7,000 individuals who allegedly subscribed to websites displaying sexual images of children) and more recently, terrorism and 'happy slapping' incidents, have provoked a greater public interest in proceedings where digital evidence has formed a crucial part of the case.
Not only is there now a greater general awareness of the capabilities of digital evidence and its potential within legal cases, additionally, reports of websites containing indecent images of children are also continually rising each year (The Internet Watch Foundation reports that the number of websites confirmed as containing unlawful material has increased by 62% over the last three years). It would, therefore, appear that the use of this type of evidence is set to continue to rise.
Increasing resources are now being spent on examining data of this type as part of legal cases where previously it was thought unnecessary. In the past it was commonplace for a Police investigator to restrict an investigation to simply identifying 'evidence'. Upon inspection of this investigation by an independent party, as part of a more in-depth review, it was frequent for the evidence as a whole to have been misinterpreted and the case against the Defendant was not as it first appeared.
Over recent years, the majority of criminal cases for which we received instructions have attracted greater attention from the Police. We now frequently encounter cases involving supportive evidence (such as user and/or Internet history) as well as the basic evidence that is relied upon as part of the Prosecution case. However, it seems inevitable that an increase in the number of cases limits what can be achieved within a Police Force's Hi-Tech Crime Unit. Even today we identify the presence of new and previously unconsidered relevant material within approximately 80% of the cases in which we are involved.
As a computer forensic specialist I am currently involved in criminal and civil cases involving an array of different subjects, including corporate data theft and espionage, murder, drugs, fraud, theft, employee misbehaviour, child access applications and even probate. These are not just legal cases either; for example, I regularly receive instructions relating to marriage disputes that involve computers and digital media.
Increased media attention over the past ten years in cases such as those within Operation Ore (relating to 7,000 individuals who allegedly subscribed to websites displaying sexual images of children) and more recently, terrorism and 'happy slapping' incidents, have provoked a greater public interest in proceedings where digital evidence has formed a crucial part of the case.
Not only is there now a greater general awareness of the capabilities of digital evidence and its potential within legal cases, additionally, reports of websites containing indecent images of children are also continually rising each year (The Internet Watch Foundation reports that the number of websites confirmed as containing unlawful material has increased by 62% over the last three years). It would, therefore, appear that the use of this type of evidence is set to continue to rise.
Increasing resources are now being spent on examining data of this type as part of legal cases where previously it was thought unnecessary. In the past it was commonplace for a Police investigator to restrict an investigation to simply identifying 'evidence'. Upon inspection of this investigation by an independent party, as part of a more in-depth review, it was frequent for the evidence as a whole to have been misinterpreted and the case against the Defendant was not as it first appeared.
Over recent years, the majority of criminal cases for which we received instructions have attracted greater attention from the Police. We now frequently encounter cases involving supportive evidence (such as user and/or Internet history) as well as the basic evidence that is relied upon as part of the Prosecution case. However, it seems inevitable that an increase in the number of cases limits what can be achieved within a Police Force's Hi-Tech Crime Unit. Even today we identify the presence of new and previously unconsidered relevant material within approximately 80% of the cases in which we are involved.
