Police Increasingly Looking To Smartphones For Evidence 225
Barence writes "Your smartphone could place you at the scene of a crime, destroy an alibi or maybe even provide one – which is why one of the first things police now do at the scene of a crime is take away a suspect's cellphone. This look into smartphone forensics reveals how even wiping incriminating data from iPhones isn't enough to get criminals off the hook. 'If you're looking at your email messages and you rotate the phone, there's a snapshot of that message,' said Phil Ridley, a mobile phone analyst with CCL-Forensics. And what people leave on their phones is horrific. 'We were contacted by police who couldn't get a video to work on a handset – it turned out to be a bloke beheading someone in his garage,' claimed another forensics expert."
Location proves nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
it shows your phone was at the scene, it doesn't prove YOU were.
Re:Turn off the fucking phone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Constitution in trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Location proves nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like having an unsecured wifi network doesn't prove that YOU sent that threat to the president. Except juries don't find that very convincing. And even where it is true that someone is committing crimes through your wifi network, such as in a recent case, you still get to have all your computers seized and combed through. If you actually had been doing something illegal, even if it wasn't what the search warrant was for, you'd still be prosecuted. Because the police had reasonable cause to search your possessions.
This seems a lot like self-incrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
Your smartphone is your data.
So it is extremely odious that police take away a person's cell phone, if the person is not being arrested or at least charged with a crime.
This is a far more significant breach than mere 4th amendment stuff. Police are looking for information you have recorded, instead of evidence of a crime.
The routine taking away of life-critical devices from 'suspects' is a menace to society. This does more harm to innocent people than criminals.
For people who rely on their smart phones for all communications, this would be similar to police impounding the right arm or left foot of suspects, to attempt to 'analyze' if they held a weapon, and demanding DNA from random people at a scene who are 'suspects' (whether there is actual cause to suspect them or not beyond mere presence/appearance).
This should be solved legally and technologically dealt with. Cell-phones should regularly purge latent/hidden data when charging AND resist attempts to gather data from them.
If someone is a suspect, the police should have to get a special warrant to access cell phone data, and it should be served not by confiscating the physical device, but by the court granting the police 10 minutes to hold the suspect's phone, during which all "data capture" must be completed.
If the physical phone is confiscated under a warrant for confiscation of the phone, then only physical aspects of the phone should be subject to analysis, not private data the user had stored, unless previously discovered
Re:Location proves nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but I'd gladly attach it to my dog when I plan to commit a crime.
Re:Turn off the fucking phone. (Score:1, Insightful)
no they are rape victims
Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination (Score:4, Insightful)
10 minutes is by far not enough for several reasons. note: i have had computers and electronics seized by the DHS and kept for nearly 2 years (i was never charged and eventually everything was returned). my point is i have been on the receiving end of this, and even though having your stuff seized, especially if you have done nothing wrong, is really annoying, i will say that i understand why they keep it as long as they do.
the problem is entirely 100% the lawyers. if the police were only to take 10 minutes to copy the data and then return the device the defense lawyers would throw a fit and would argue how can it be proved that data came from a phone that is no longer in their possession. this is why they need to keep the physical devices until the case is either closed/dropped or all appeals are exhausted, even if on initial inspection they don't find anything useful on it. who knows on latter inspection maybe more information will be found that was missed the first time that can help either the defense or prosecution.
Re:This seems a lot like self-incrimination (Score:4, Insightful)
The expansion of the states rights to take from citizens without due process really escalated when Nixon caved into the hysterical parents who decided not to raise their own children and Reagan realized he had a cool way to transferring tax money to his buddies. The idea that one could take property that was not evidence was novel at the time, but now accepted.
How does this relate? An office can search your car with no more probable cause than you are speeding. Now, in fact, the SCOTUS says that if you do not have access to the car a warrant must be gotten, but really why should a warrent every be provided because someone is speeding? It is the drug hysteria. Just like the terrorism hysteria.
Even with this the phone is never going to be a private apparatus. Police can search notebooks. The phone is often just an interface and the data sits on facebook which will roll over to the mildest pressure, or text which can be tapped. It astounds me that people are still being caught by their lovers because they are texting their other lovers. Do people check into foursquare at establishments they plan to rob? Do they text how they are going out a date with someone they plan to attack? Some of this is corrupt government, but some of it is simply incompetence. A certain amount of criminal activity I can tolerate, but incompentant criminals I never can. It is like bringing drugs to school or leaving notes about your plan to blow up a building in your house. Some people just want to get caught.
They are computers, not phones (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a smartphone but I leave mine at home MOST of the time. I think carefully about EVERY time I take it with me. it has usernames, passwords, history and stuff that LEO has zero right to see (imo). so, to be defensive against the thugs in blue, I leave mine home 99% of the time.
I don't carry a replacement but I might start carrying a dumbphone that is kept dumb (not even addr book). use it for emergencies and that's about it.
my smartphone uses wifi at home and I have no data plan. its mostly a toy for home use, I admit, but its being KEPT that way because of our broken legal system and our 'wayward' cops and lawyers and judges.
THE very definition of 'chilling effect'. I leave a several hundred dollar very-useful tool at home. thanks america. 'preciate it.
Re:Location proves nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem here isn't that the police used electronic forensics in a criminal investigation; the problem is that the "crime" in question shouldn't have been illegal in the first place.
I, and probably you, have no problems with the police using such techniques to investigate real crimes, like robbery, theft, arson, etc. There's nothing wrong with this investigation technique -- the problem is that we are persecuting people for being in a public space after dark, which is absolutely ridiculous.