Police Increasingly Looking To Smartphones For Evidence

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."

Comments

Location proves nothing

[nurb432]

it shows your phone was at the scene, it doesn't prove YOU were.

Re:Location proves nothing

[etymxris]

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.

Re:Location proves nothing

[Opportunist]

No, but I'd gladly attach it to my dog when I plan to commit a crime.

Re:Location proves nothing

[VortexCortex]

Neither does DNA. DNA proves that your DNA was at the scene, not you, but try convincing an ignorant judge and jury of this...
Think about this next time you toss a disposable coffee cup into the trash, or scratch your head in public... Is there someone in that room with you that matches your basic physical description?

Might I not be collecting your DNA, and/or your wireless signatures (via my laptop -- Hint: GSM & CDMA are cracked) so that I can place you at the scene of my next crime?

Sure: "What are the chances -- Tinfoil hat!"
That's EXACTLY how I want you to think, and how much of the public does think -- Surely no-one would exploit this fact...

Let's just hope all criminals are just dumb, and won't think to commit a crime when they know you won't have an alibi, and that when the cops "like you" as a prime suspect due to DNA and digital evidence that they take several other suspects to court as well-- Wait, what's that you say? They only try ONE person via trial? Oh, that's right, because if they prosecuted several at once, and the courts found TWO suspects guilty of the same crime... It would totally undermine the public's faith in the justice system!

Bwa-Ha-HAHAHA... Hahahaha... Oh, oh--damn, Haha-ha--- ha, heh, heh, HAHAHA!

Re:Location proves nothing

[Entropius]

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.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[Yetihehe]

Or just leave it at home. Record saying that your phone was turned off before crime and turned on after, is worse than a record saying that your phone was all evening near your tv....

Re:Constitution in trouble

[dave420]

Don't commit crimes and you'll be OK.

This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[mysidia]

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:This seems a lot like self-incrimination

[leonardluen]

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

[fermion]

In the drug hysteria that hit the conservative and thoroughly corrupt administrations of Nixon(war on drugs 1971) and Reagan(1986 act to put minorities in jail for minor offenses and help cause the deficit to ballon) created a climate in which accused, not convicted, person would lose right to property and defense. Like the war on terror, an series of events were overblown to remove individual liberty.

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.

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[ColdWetDog]

I have an iPhone, you insensitive clod! I can't just "remove the battery"!.

iPhone users aren't criminals. You'll want to get an Android phone to slum around with your wicked friends.

Steve

Sent from your iPhone

Re:Turn off the fucking phone.

[anagama]

In addition to leaving it at home, write an app that will make a text or two to your most frequently texted contacts and also perform a few innocuous internet searches. Automated outgoing phone calls might be more difficult because of the need for natural conversation. This way, not only is the phone on, you are actively using it, or so it seems. Problem is keeping the app hidden well enough that it won't be found on the phone.

They are computers, not phones

[Zero__Kelvin]

The problem stems from the perception that it is a phone, when in fact it is a hand-held computer that happens to be able to place and receive phone calls. This is fundamentally no different than them seizing a laptop and rifling through it. It should obviously require a warrant unless the device was used in the commission of the crime and they can already prove that.

Re:Constitution in trouble

[unencode200x]

The "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is dangerous in a democracy.

There is a great piece about it here: http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/05/14/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-everything-to-fear/

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." — James Madison