Digital Forensics Investigation of Child Pornography - Research Paper Example

Digital Forensics Digital Forensics Digital forensics has an indispensable contribution to the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime. There are cybercrime laws that govern the prosecution of the crime. Different elements justify the adequacy of digital forensics investigation. An outline of a case involving digital forensics investigation of child pornography The United States v Lynn of 2008 is a legal case that had a significant digital forensics component. The case followed the search and arrest of Ryan Christopher Lynn who lived in California for the charges of receipt and possession of child pornography videos. Federal agents seized Lynn’s Toshiba Laptop computer and conducted digital forensics investigation on it. This investigation discovered one hundred and eighty four video files and fifty-three still images of child pornography in Lynn’s computer hard drive (Watson & Jones, 2013). The investigation also found that the videos and images had been obtained from the internet using Limewire, a program that allows peer-to-peer file sharing. On the first count, the defendant was convicted of receiving child pornography, a crime that violates § 2252(a)(2). He was also convicted of possessing child pornography material violating § 2252(a)(4)(B). Lynn was sentenced to 210 months imprisonment for the count of receiving child pornography material and 120 months imprisonment for the count of possessing the material. The court ordered a term of life supervision after Lynn’s release from prison (Casey & Altheide, 2010). Cybercrime laws applicable to United States v Lynn Lynn’s case implored the application of 18 U.S.C §§ 2251 through 2260. These sections warrant criminal and civil forfeiture of devices used to depict child pornography, the profits obtained from these crime and properties used in committing them. Record keeping of materials used to depict sexually explicit conduct was provided for in section 2257. Lynn was also liable for failure to report child abuse that is entrenched in a misdemeanor crime in section 2258. The 18 U.S.C §2525 that addresses the circumstances involving the use of interstate facilities to disseminate information about a minor was applicable to Lynn’s case. Another law that applied to this case is Title 19 section 1305 that criminalizes the importation of obscene materials. This law permits courts to order the seizure and forfeiture of such materials (Altheide & Carvey, 2011). Since Lynn retrieved the materials from the internet which is interstate, he was convicted of violation of the 18 U.S.C § 2252. This section criminalizes interstate distribution of materials depicting a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 applied in this case because it grants that the said child can be either real or virtually created. Lynn was prosecuted under the federal law that is implicated anytime child pornography crimes involve interstate or international commerce. This is because there was proof that the pornography material that Lynn had on his laptop may have been produced in Georgia, and it had therefore travelled through states to get to California. Additionally, federal law on prohibition of interstate and international commerce of child pornography applied to Lynn’s case because there was evidence that a copy of the material from Lynn’s laptop had been spotted in London, England (Sammons, 2011). The role of digital forensics in Lynn’s case Digital forensics helped ascertain that the material that was on Lynn’s laptop was child pornography. Digital forensics officers obtained Lynn’s hard drive after confiscation by the federal agents who executed the search warrant issued against Lynn. The hard disk was then cleaned and copied using software such as ProDiscover or Encase. This is called forensic imaging and it secures the original copy that is found in the hard drive from corruption because some files corrupt when copied. Digital forensics was also instrumental in recovering information that may have been deleted from Lynn’s computer. This investigation helped retrieve all hidden data regarding the sexually explicit material in the computer. Encrypted material were accessed by the use of specialized digital forensics software. The parts of the computer that are normally inaccessible were accessed using computer forensics programs and the information that was relevant to the case under investigation retrieved (Lillard, 2010). It was the role of digital forensics to investigate and document Lynn’s internet activity. The cookies and Uniform Resource Locator (URLs) of the sites that Lynn had visited were recorded. The dates and times when these sites were visited were among the artifacts collected. Investigators utilized graphic viewing utilities to display thumbnails of audiovisual and graphic files on Lynn’s hard disk drive to help isolate child pornography material. They also located contraband material related to the child pornography in the directory structure. Limewire peer-to-peer file sharing application helped digital forensics establish that distribution of child pornography had occurred on Lynn’s computer. Digital forensics analyzed the collected information and prepared a report that informed the prosecution of the case. While this report was valuable to the court proceeding, digital forensics investigators availed themselves for expert witness in court (Watson & Jones, 2013). Assessing the adequacy of the digital forensic investigation One of the things that justify the adequacy of the digital forensic investigation that was deployed to Lynn’s case was its compliance with legislative procedures. This investigation passes the test for compliance with legislative procedures because the federal officers who seized Lynn’s computer and arrested him had a warrant. It would, however, been inadequate to either search items not stipulated in the warrant, or use techniques not validated by law. The digital investigation of Lynn’s case could be assessed for the way it informed the appropriate venue of the case. Internet activity involving child pornography can be tried in the courts of the place of its origin or the courts of the place of its receipt. The digital forensics investigation that was used in Lynn’s case was adequate because it determined that the case should be heard in California, the place where the crime was committed (Casey & Altheide, 2010). The adequacy of the investigation was questioned when the appellate court reversed the district court’s sentence on Lynn’s double count. The appellate court granted Lynn’s contention that the district court had violated the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition for double jeopardy. This showed that the investigation’s proof that Lynn received the child pornography material on January 10, 2008 and possessed it on May 23, 2008 was insufficient for a double count (Altheide & Carvey, 2011). In conclusion, digital forensics had a key role in United States v Lynn of 2008. The 18 U.S.C. § 2252 is an example of a cybercrime law that was applicable in the case. Digital forensics helped with the roles of collecting, examining, analyzing and reporting evidence from Lynn’s computer relating to the case. Compliance with legislative procedures and informing the choice of the venue of the hearing are some of things that attest to the adequacy of the digital forensics investigation used in Lynn’s case. References Altheide, C. & Carvey, H. (2011). Digital Forensics with Open Source Tools. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science. Casey, E. & Altheide, C. (2010). Handbook of digital forensics and investigation. Burlington, MA: Academic Press. Lillard, T. (2010). Digital forensics for network, internet, and cloud computing: a forensic evidence guide for moving targets and data. Burlington, MA: Syngress. Sammons, J. (2011). The basics of digital forensics: the primer for getting started in digital forensics. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science. Watson, D. & Jones, A. (2013). Digital Forensics Processing and Procedures: Meeting the Requirements of ISO 17020, ISO 17025, ISO 27001 and Best Practice Requirements. Waltham, MA: Elsevier Science. Read More