Pencils to Processors

Data Collection at Crime Scene

Part Two “The Future is Here”

The Future

The basics of crime scene investigation in the field of law enforcement have remained largely unchanged over the years. There will never be a replacement for the experience and knowledge of a savvy investigator and his/her observational and intuitive skills. What has changed in the field of investigation is the advent of different kinds of evidence collected, and the methodology for documenting and preserving it. (Schecter, 2011)   

Advanced Response Concepts Corp has developed and deployed a tablet based solution to assist investigators in electronically documenting evidence found in the field.  The solution known as Condor™ facilitates the identification, labeling, and tracking of evidence while keeping precise attendance records at the scene.  Designed with interoperability with the U.S. Department of Justice NIEM (National Information Exchange Model) compliance system in mind Condor™ is the logical extension of the simplicity and efficacy of paper‐based notes and forms. Advanced Response Concepts has developed a twenty first century alternative allowing users to apply the same intuitive skills. Condor™ is specifically designed to enhance and augment an investigator or crime scene technician’s skill set, by creating an intuitive, user‐friendly process and workflow to improve the field based collection of data required to properly document and investigate a crime scene.

CONDOR ™ supports this process through the use of tablet data collection devices, used to enter all of the information and facts typically gathered through the observation and interview process, and typically managed on paper while in the field. The user enters relevant event data into the system where it is recorded, aggregated, and able to be used to produce detailed agency‐configurable reports to completely document investigative activities, including the collection and tracking of physical evidence artifacts.  CONDOR ™ is intended to address a number of identified needs in the forensic and law enforcement communities, including several of those identified recently in the comprehensive report published by the National Academy of Sciences;  Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States, A Path Forward. (Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council, 2009)  These issues include: improving and strengthening the chain of custody, better field documentation, improved scene management and access control all of which are specifically targeted by CONDOR ™.

CONDOR ™ is a scalable and robust combination of task specific hardware and software that is designed from the user up.  This approach has allowed our development team and subject matter experts (criminal investigative practitioners) to focus on creating a tool that fits the user and requires minimal changes to their operational process or existing work flow.  This user centric focus is the key to creating a tool that “fits” the end user to the greatest extent possible, eliminating the frustrations of trying to adapt to new technologies while still maintaining a consistent, technically correct and systematic approach to processing a crime scene.

The system consists of multiple options for tablet devices used to gather, collect, record and manage information. CONDOR ™ is not bound to any specific type of hardware for user input, allowing for continued migration to newer handheld technologies as they emerge offering greater flexibility to field users.

Conclusion 

When the phrase “Use tablet computers to record crime scene information” is entered into a Google search engine the top five responses say a lot about the future of enterprise computing at crime scenes.  Result one and three focus on the article quoted in this paper referencing iPad purchases in Tennessee.  The number two result is a news article highlighting Advanced Response Concepts Condor System being deployed in Delaware.  The fourth is a website for rugged computing solutions.  What is interesting is that as you work your way down the list the links all begin to point overseas, to academic institutions, solutions in place, and ground breaking strides forward in the use of technology.  Why is US Law Enforcement failing to keep up with the times or the rest of the world in this area?

A study conducted in Great Britain by the University of Birmingham found in a side by side comparison, no discernible difference in content or quailty between reports handwritten at the crime scene and those generated using tablet computers.  They did find a significant time savings and noted users found using tablets to be easier to work with.  Tablet technology in the crime scene environment is a force multiplier.

Computers at the scene of a crime allow for instant capture of sound, video, and still images.  They allow for voice to text conversion and handwriting recognition.  Information captured can be forwarded in real time to colleagues on the street and fusion centers.  American Law enforcement has embraced technology in offensive and defensive weaponry, surveillance tools, records and laboratory management systems, everywhere it seems but where it all starts, at the scene of the crime.  Every officer on the street is seeing increasing caseloads and longer waits for court dates. In an era of ever increasing budget shortfalls and staffing cuts it would seem as though the force multiplier capability of crime scene computing is a tool whose time has come.  

In the immortal words of Sgt Joe Friday:  “This is the city. Every 24 hours a little bit of everything happens. Two million people make a lot of history in one day. They write it all down and file it away. Some of it's important, some of it isn't. Business, industry, government - you buy a three-cent stamp or an oil well - they keep records of it. Progress, money, success... and failure. A complete history of every day; some of it's public, some personal. It's all written down. In my job we catalog trouble. I'm a cop.

 

Works Cited

Byrd, M. (2010-2012). Written Documentation at a Crime Scene. Retrieved May 7, 2012, from Crime Scene Investigator Network: http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/document.html

Carrier, B., & Spafford, E. H. (2003). Getting Physical with the Digital Investigation Process. Purdue University, Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security – CERIAS. Utica: International Journal of Digital Evidence.

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States, A Path Forward. National Academy of Sciences, National Institute of Justice. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

Daigneau, E. (2011, March). Tablets: Government's Newest Tool. (E-Republic) Retrieved May 7, 2012, from Governing the States and Localities: http://www.governing.com/topics/technology/Tablets-Governments-Newest-Tool.html

Katims, L. (2011, January 12). IPads Helping Tenn. Police Fight Crimes on the Go . Retrieved May 7, 2012, from Government Technology Magizine: http://www.govtech.com/featured/IPads-Helping-Tenn-Police-Fight-Crimes-on-the-Go.html

Lee, H. C., Palmbach, T., & Miller, M. T. (2001). Henry Lee's Crime Scene Handbook. San Diego, California: Elsevier Academic Press.

Mechling, J. (2011, March 9). Will the iPad, and competing tablet computers, help us manage information overload or add to the distractions? (e-Republic) Retrieved May 7, 2012, from Governing the States and Localities: http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-insights/iPad-risky-game-changer.html

Schecter, P. (2011). Crime Scene Management, Evidence Tracking System Overview and Summary. Fairfax VA: Advanced Response Concepts Corporation.

Sung, T. (1248, 1981). The Washing Away of Wrongs: Forensic Medicine in Thirteenth-Century China (Science, Medicine, and Technology in East Asia) (1981 ed.). (B. McKnight, Ed., & B. McKnight, Trans.) Center for Chinease Studies.

Taylor, S. (2012). The History of Crime Scene Investigation. Retrieved May 7, 2012, from E-How: http://www.ehow.com/about_5371617_history-crime-scene-investigation.html

Possession is nine tenths of the law? Part 2

Part Two “It’s Mine I Can Prove It.” 

Why PKI should be used to address the digital rights management question 

The second half of this essay looks at how various media providers use DRM and the limitations of the current solutions.  PKI is presented as an alternative.  I hope you enjoy the paper and encourage you to comment.

Digital Rights Management

Accepting the fact that you are really not buying anything tangible, a digital content provider like Apple® is not necessarily out to get you.  The “Terms and Conditions [for] ITunes store, Mac App Store, App Store and iBookstore” allow for content sharing on up to ten devices five of which may be a I Tunes authorized computers.  It allows burning to CD your full playlist up to seven times.  For a fee you can get additional cloud services that make accessing your purchased content even easier.  On the flip side Apple® reserves the right to change the usage rules at any time.  The Apple® business model is not about making money with the content it is about making money on the hardware.  This is not the typical hardware /software paradigm.  With the majority of companies that deal in both hardware and software the real profit is in the software and ultimately the accompanying service and support plans.  Apples approach is not unique but is atypical in the software community though it seems to be part of a consensus in the digital content management community.  "The iPod makes money. The iTunes Music Store doesn't," said Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller.   "It's maybe a feature your platform should offer, but it's not like you're going to make some (big) markup," Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said at the company's July [2003] analysts' meeting in response to questions about a proposed online music store.(Fried, 2003)

You have a certain amount of freedom in using and managing the content you purchase/lease from Apple ® although you are limited to using Apple® hardware, or apple software on non Apple® hardware like PC’s and Laptops.  The Apple® formats are proprietary as is the security mechanism they use to ensure compliance with their policies. This is the difference between the underperforming subscription models like Napster, Rhapsody, and Pressplay, and the Apple a la carte model which has been copied by most of the major players in the industry today.  Security is enforced using Digital Rights Management (DRM) Digital rights management.

 “DRM is a class of access control technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals with the intent to limit the use of digital content and devices after sale. DRM is any technology that inhibits uses of digital content that are not desired or intended by the content provider. DRM also includes specific instances of digital works or devices. Companies such as Amazon, AT&T, AOL, Apple Inc., BBC, Microsoft, Electronic Arts and Sony use digital rights management.” (Wikipedia, 2012)  

DRM has its detractors who often predict gloom and doom scenarios.  These scenarios often focus on a complete loss of your digital media should the DRM standard change in the future or the original service provider go out of business.  Although it does not seem likely that the world will be without the I Store™, Kindle™ store, or any of the other megalithic providers anytime soon the point is valid. Additional charges are that DRM stifles innovation and competition but perhaps the most disconcerting charge it that DRM goes beyond the constraints required by current copyright law which could be a slippery slope indeed.   

Apple has its own proprietary version of DRM known as FairPlay which is in turn only supported by Apple ® products.  This is no surprise if the afore mentioned quote by Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller is representative of Apples long term business model.  Apple, like other digital content providers, does have a loyal following but the question needs to be asked; are we heading for a single source world in which you must pick your provider and be satisfied with the available offerings.   What happens when your favorite author’s publisher or recording artist’s studio will not sign a contract with your provider?  Do you buy a new device every time you seek to increase the variety of your library?  To be fair to Apple® although they continue to use DRM in other media they removed FairPlay and any sort of DRM from the music tracks bought in the iTunes music library in 2009. (Apple Inc, 2012)   Apple does continue to digitally watermark its music tracks offering an excellent segue into DRM alternatives.

The pivotal issue of the digital media conundrum is the establishment of ownership and the ability to trace that ownership.  There are those who do not believe that any sort of identifier that would allow for tracing of ownership is in any way necessary or justified.  Perhaps there are merits to specific arguments in that regard however a system without ownership principles will simply result in the eventual extinction of the art form.  Individuals cannot be allowed unfettered access to works without compensation to the originator or allowed the ability to, without limitation, reproduce and distribute said material.  It is obvious that DRM is not the solution of the future.  Apple uses digital watermarking, the process by which code is buried in an underlying carrier signal allowing for the verification of the signals ownership or authenticity.  This technology has been used to track down the source of pirated movies.  Unlike the Metadata like that placed in websites to improve visibility to search engines, Digital watermarking does not change the size of the file.  One would think that this is an effective solution until the realization that digital watermarking is proprietary, and not standards driven, comes to light. A digital watermark also cannot be easily altered or added to without sacrificing some of the quality of the original file.  With this limitation it becomes problematic at best to transfer ownership of the media.

 DRM Alternatives

Other methods for establishing ownership of digital media are in use.  For example, Palm Digital Media, now known as E-reader, links the credit card information of the purchaser to the e-book copy in order to discourage distribution of the books. (Noring, 2004)  The big disadvantage is the risk to Personally Identifiable Information (PII).  The thought of using credit card information to indicate ownership of a piece of digital media is scary at best.   So what is the solution?  One proposition is that establishing ownership of digital media, securing a multibillion dollar industry and preventing hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud in the US alone, is a great argument for furthering individual digital identities in the US; enter PKI and Digital Certificates. 

Public key infrastructure (PKI) enables users of a basically unsecure public network such as the Internet to securely and privately exchange data and money through the use of a public and a private cryptographic key pair that is obtained and shared through a trusted authority. The public key infrastructure provides for a digital certificate that can identify an individual or an organization and directory services that can store and, when necessary, revoke the certificates. 

In cryptography, a public key “certificate” (or identity certificate) is an electronic document which incorporates a digital signature to bind together a public key with an identity - information such as the name of a person or an organization, their address, and so forth. The certificate can be used to provide very strong verification that a public key belongs to an individual.

In a typical public key infrastructure (PKI) scheme, the signature will be of a certificate authority. In a web of trust scheme, the signature is of either the user (a self-signed certificate) or other users (”endorsements”). In either case, the signatures on a certificate are attestations by the certificate signer that the identity information and the public key belong together. (Operational Research Consultants Inc., 2011)

 

This would appear to be an excellent solution for both the producers and consumers of digital media. For example if I were to buy an e-book and sign both the purchase and the resulting digital file with a public key certificate it would be the digital equivalent of signing each and every page of a hardcover novel with my name.  It does raise some rather childish euphemistic comparisons but effectively marks that digital media as mine.  More importantly unlike a five year old scribbling this book belongs to “Tommy” across the pages a digital signature can be edited, exchanged, or added to without harming the underlying file. This allows for the establishment of a chain of ownership and subsequently for the smooth and traceable exchange of ownership, even one that is temporary.  

Detractors point out that the establishment of a PKI infrastructure is overly burdensome in cost and complexity.  But this argument does not stand up to the counter which is economy of scale.  The federal government has been using PKI for years for logical access security but efforts to increase the use of this proven technology outside the federal government have been hampered by lack of broad scale adoption.  Consider that Apple has more than two hundred million devices sold worldwide and Amazon can claim more than six hundred million users.  It is not too much of an exaggeration to state that using those numbers as a starting point would drive the cost of PKI digital identities into the cost range of the Venti Café Mocha from Starbucks I purchased on the way to work this morning.  It was by the way, demonstrably not ostensibly mine. Possession is nine tenths of the law, just ask my daughter.

Works Cited

Apple Inc. (2012, January 6). Chanegs Coming to iTunes Store. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from Apple Press Information: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-the-iTunes-Store.html

Apple Inc. (2012). LICENSED APPLICATION END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT . Retrieved June 18, 2012, from www.apple.com: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/appstore/dev/stdeula/

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/appstore/dev/stdeula/

Fried, I. (2003, Oct 16). Will Itunes make Apple Shine. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from CNET: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1041-5092559.html?tag=nl

Hyde, B. (2001). THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE AND DIGITAL. Retrieved june 20, 2012, from Duke Law Scholorship Repository: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=dltr

Kunkel, J. R. (2002). Recent Developments in Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap and Browsewrap Licenses in the United States. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law , 9 (3).

Noring, J. (2004). The Perils of DRM Overkill For Large Publishers. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from Teleread.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20080403175200/  http://www.teleread.org/publishersdrm.htm

Operational Research Consultants Inc. (2011). Certificates and Credentials. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from ORC.Com: http://www.orc.com/certificates/

Wikipedia. (2012, June 15). Digital rights management. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-0

Possession is nine tenths of the law? Part 1

Posting the Mobile Device Remote Identity Proofing paper in parts seemed to work pretty well.   The paper as a whole received many more views than its two predecessors.  “Possession” is not as long as “Mobile” but lends itself to being divided in half.  The first half will focus on the problem, how to best handle Digital Rights Management (DRM), along with the associated legal principles.  Part Two will focus on the current methods of securing Digital Rights Management and PKI as an alternative.  I hope you enjoy the paper and encourage you to comment.

The Digital Rights Management Conundrum 

 

Background on digital media ownership

Every so often I run across a word that I have not heard before or had the occasion to use.  The latest entry in that category is Ostensible.  Ostensible is an adjective defined by Merriam Webster as:

1.       1: intended for display : open to view

2.       2: being such in appearance: plausible rather than demonstrably true or real.

I came across this word while conducting the research for this post.  It was used in the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog while paraphrasing a 2010 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francesco.  The focus of the plaintiffs and the defendant’s dispute was money, no surprise.  The argument was based on the difference in royalties paid to recording artists.  A song that is licensed typically garners a hefty fifty percent share in revenue for the artist, conversely a song that is sold brings in far lower royalty.  The catalyst for the complaint, Apple I-tunes.  Time for a reality check; did you really believe the tens of millions of dollars spent on music, movies, books, and other publications in the I-Tune store actually resulted in ownership?  You may be thinking to yourself that darn fine print well in fact the opening statement to the iTunes licensing agreement tells it all.  

“The Products transacted through the Service are licensed, not sold, to You for use only under the terms of this license, unless a Product is accompanied by a separate license agreement, in which case the terms of that separate license agreement will govern, subject to Your prior acceptance of that separate license agreement. The licensor (“Application Provider”) reserves all rights not expressly granted to You. The Product that is subject to this license is referred to in this license as the “Licensed Application.” (Apple Inc., 2012)

The fact that the songs were licensed not sold precipitated the suit against Universal Music Group by producers affiliated with rapper Eminem.  Although the decision was not favorable for Universal Music Group it is also, at least according to them, not precedent setting as it is specific to one particular contract with a single artist.   They are obviously appealing the verdict.

In order to begin to grasp the issues it is necessary to have a general understanding of the three legal principles that have become ubiquitous in the digital media debate.

Copyright

Merriam Webster defines copyright as the exclusive legal rights to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work).  A copyright is granted to the creator of an original expression of work; for example an author or composer.  There is more than one type of copyright, those that are registered and those that are implied. Without getting into too much detail suffice it to say that an implied copyright is granted on initial publication of the work and a registered copyright is granted by the US copyright office after the work is deposited along with application and fee.  The deposited work [sample] becomes the property of the U.S. Library of Congress.

First Sale Doctrine

First sale doctrine as applied to Copyrights allows the purchaser to sell or give away a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This does not infringe the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act grants the owner of a Copyright six exclusive rights: reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution, public performance, public display, and digital transmission performance.  However, a Copyright owner’s right of distribution is limited by the First Sale Doctrine, as codified in Section 109 of the Act. Section 109(a) (Hyde, 2001)  First sale doctrine is an exception to the copy right.  This exception allows you to give a book to a friend or even sell it.  First Sale Doctrine enables libraries to lend books and video stores, before they started going the way of the dinosaur, to rent video’s.  First sale doctrine is not without conditions. In order to receive the afore mentioned privileges ownership must be established.  Keep in mind that ownership is not defined by mere possession which is why you cannot legally copy a rented video or DVD. 

Contract

Back in the pre-computer dark ages access to music, literature, video etc was controlled by copyright law.  During the personal computer enlightenment we were introduced to contract law as we accepted license agreements during software installation or even through the act of breaking the security seal.  The internet introduced the information revolution and really stood things on end with the Click Through License also known as a Click Wrap Agreement

Clickwrap agreements came into use when software vendors began distributing software by means other than disks, such as when the software is pre-installed on a computer for the user, or when the software is downloaded over the Internet. Upon downloading, installation or first use of the application, a window containing the terms of the license opens for the user to read. The user is asked to click either "I agree" or "I do not agree". If the user does not agree, the process is terminated. The clickwrap agreements often remove many factual questions whether the user had adequate notice of the license terms and manifested assent to them. With respect to software downloads, the clickwrap terms often are displayed at the very start of the contract formation process, although often the terms are contained in a scrollable window that requires the user to scroll down to read all of the terms. This positioning often eliminates U.C.C. Section 2-207 issues regarding agreement to additional or different terms. (Kunkel, 2002)

Statistics and Sigma Six expert Jeff Sauro confirmed a true lack of end user concern with end user license agreements (EULA).   Mr. Sauro examined a couple of thousand log records over e few different consumer software products.  He found;

 “The median time users spent on the license page was only 6 seconds! Generating a confidence interval around this sample tells us that we can be 95% sure at least 70% of users spend less than 12 seconds on the license page.

Assuming it takes a minimum of two minutes to read the License Agreement (which itself is fast) we can be 95% confident no more than 8% of users read the License Agreement in full.”

It could be argued that the sheer volume of these agreements in our everyday lives provided a disincentive in getting the end user to read them.  As digital content providers race to catch up with advances in technology the agreements compound often resulting in multiple EULA’s and Terms of use agreements for individual products.  Consider that the order of a Kindle Fire™ requires that you consent to ten different agreements with a combined forty eight pages of text (11point font, standard margins).  Disincentive or not click wrap agreements are likely here to stay and current case law is overwhelmingly in their favor.

Getting back to ostensible, you are in fact the ostensible “buyer” when it comes to electronic media.  The major providers are very aware of the propensity of people to actually read the license agreement before clicking the check box indicating “I agree”.   The media providers think of you as a buyer of a service whereas you may think of yourself as the buyer of a product.  You have no right to resell what you have purchased, in fact is difficult to lend or share what you have purchased outside of your family group in your own home and then only when using software designed to regulate that behavior.  Even if the majority of people were to read the license agreements chances are most would complete the purchase regardless of what the license agreement outlines.  This is in keeping with today’s instant gratification society.