Phone Forensics: Diving Into Digital Evidence

This is the seventh installment in a series of profiles featuring DEA special agents, diversion investigators, chemists, and more. Learn about the tough but fulfilling, fascinating, and vital work these DEA personnel do, as well as the many different ways to get involved in fighting drug misuse. For our seventh profile, we will be interviewing Senior Examiner Laura from the Digital Evidence Lab.

What motivated you to join the DEA?

When I was in college, I knew I wanted to end up in law enforcement forensics. I was not interested in the other options at the time such as incident response, network forensics, or private/contract work. There are a lot of different opportunities for digital forensics in law enforcement, but the types of cases vary between organizations. I had previously worked other case types that were emotionally draining and I was looking forward to a change of ‘scenery’ while still working on criminal cases. The diversity of case types and the ability to travel globally were major selling points for me. I also really enjoy working with case agents in the field, either when I’m on-site with them or analyzing evidence that they couldn’t get into.

What does an average day on the job look like for you?

There’s a lot of variety in an average day. Generally, at our lab we support law enforcement investigations by acquiring (copying and preserving), processing, and analyzing digital evidence such as computers, phones, and servers. Any given day could be a combination of these. We occasionally get called to testify in court as expert witnesses.

I have specialized training in mobile device processing and analysis, so those are the types of exhibits I typically handle now. In addition to case work, my group and I have been working to develop and present training to the field (non-digital forensics folks) regarding digital evidence and mobile devices. The schedule at the lab is flexible but we have core hours during the day when we can be reached. Most recently I’ve been focusing more on training than exhibit handling, but when I have mobile devices, I check them to see if any are finished processing so I can review the data. I make sure to communicate with the submitting case agent to find out what kind of information they’re specifically interested in. Report writing and detailed notes are part of our everyday life at the lab.

What has been your proudest moment at the DEA thus far?

My proud moments come anytime I help someone. I reach out to colleagues to get their input if I’m stuck on something, so it’s nice to be able to return the favor. It’s difficult to describe, but I am also proud when I am able to get into a particularly difficult device- whether it’s locked, encrypted, broken and needs repair, or generally troublesome. I try not to give up easily on difficult devices and it is always nice when perseverance pays off.

How can young people who are interested in becoming a forensic examiner at DEA best prepare themselves for the positions?

DEA has three different forensic disciplines: digital, chemistry, friction ridge/fingerprints; first you’ll have to decide what kind of forensics you’re interested in. If you choose digital forensics, you should be familiar with the fundamental principles for digital forensics. A passion and willingness to learn are really important in our field because technology changes so fast, you have to be willing to keep up. We have a lot of processes and procedures that require a keen attention to detail. Being a team player is helpful because we rarely work alone, and constantly talk to colleagues about what we’re working on. Other than those skills, a degree or certifications would help set you apart from other applicants but aren’t a requirement to start working at the lab. We have a robust training program here; we’re willing to teach you as long as you’re willing to learn.

The synthetic opioid fentanyl – often mixed into other drugs – is now responsible for tens of thousands of American deaths per year. How has the fentanyl epidemic changed your job?

There have been drastic changes in the amount of evidence we’re seeing related to fentanyl. When someone overdoses, we often get their phone for any number of reasons: to get information about the source of the drug (the potential dealer, recent contacts, unknown numbers, locations, etc.) or to figure out who it belonged to if there were multiple victims. Fentanyl has made drug use so much more dangerous than it was to begin with and we see the unfortunate consequences all too often here at the lab.

Transforming Law Enforcement: Ten Technologies Shaping the 21st Century

In the 21st century, law enforcement agencies are increasingly turning to technology to enhance their capabilities, improve public safety, and adapt to the evolving landscape of crime. From advanced surveillance systems to data analytics tools, here are ten technologies that are revolutionizing law enforcement in the modern era.

1. Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs): Body-worn cameras have become standard equipment for many police officers, providing a valuable tool for accountability, transparency, and evidence collection. These cameras capture interactions between law enforcement officers and the public, helping to resolve disputes, document evidence, and improve officer training and performance.

2. Predictive Policing: Predictive policing uses data analysis and machine learning algorithms to identify patterns and predict where and when crimes are likely to occur. By analyzing historical crime data, socio-economic factors, and other relevant information, law enforcement agencies can allocate resources more effectively and proactively prevent crime.

3. License Plate Recognition (LPR) Systems: License plate recognition systems use optical character recognition technology to automatically read license plate numbers. These systems are deployed on patrol cars, fixed cameras, and toll booths, allowing law enforcement agencies to quickly identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects, and track the movements of vehicles involved in criminal activity.

4. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning: Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms are being used to analyze vast amounts of data collected by law enforcement agencies, such as crime reports, surveillance footage, and social media activity. These technologies can identify patterns, detect anomalies, and provide valuable insights to support criminal investigations and intelligence gathering efforts.

5. Crime Mapping and GIS: Geographic information systems (GIS) and crime mapping software enable law enforcement agencies to visualize crime data on maps, identify crime hotspots, and analyze spatial trends. This information helps agencies deploy resources strategically, develop targeted crime prevention strategies, and engage with communities to address specific concerns.

6. Drone Technology: Drones have emerged as a versatile tool for law enforcement, providing aerial surveillance, search and rescue capabilities, and tactical support in various situations. Equipped with high-resolution cameras and sensors, drones can gather real-time intelligence, monitor large crowds, and assist in the documentation of crime scenes from above.

7. Biometric Identification: Biometric identification technologies, such as facial recognition, fingerprint scanning, and iris recognition, enable law enforcement agencies to quickly and accurately identify individuals. These technologies are used to match suspects to criminal databases, verify identities during arrests, and enhance security at border crossings and high-profile events.

8. Social Media Monitoring: Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using social media monitoring tools to gather intelligence, monitor public sentiment, and detect potential threats. By analyzing posts, comments, and other user-generated content, agencies can identify individuals involved in criminal activity, track the spread of misinformation, and respond to emerging threats in real-time.

9. Cybercrime Investigation Tools: With the rise of cybercrime, law enforcement agencies require specialized tools and expertise to investigate digital crimes such as hacking, fraud, and online exploitation. These tools include forensic software, network analysis tools, and digital evidence management systems, enabling investigators to trace digital footprints, recover deleted data, and prosecute cybercriminals.

10. Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR): Virtual reality and augmented reality technologies are being used to recreate crime scenes, provide immersive training experiences for law enforcement personnel, and enhance courtroom presentations. By visualizing complex scenarios in three-dimensional space, these technologies improve investigative techniques, enhance witness testimony, and facilitate the administration of justice.

Conclusion: As technology continues to evolve, law enforcement agencies must adapt and embrace new tools and techniques to effectively combat crime and protect public safety. By harnessing the power of advanced technologies such as body-worn cameras, predictive policing algorithms, and artificial intelligence, law enforcement agencies can stay ahead of the curve and ensure a safer and more secure future for communities around the world.

Enhancing Criminal Investigations: The Role of License Plate Readers

License plate readers (LPRs) have emerged as a valuable tool in law enforcement, offering capabilities that augment traditional investigative methods. By capturing and processing license plate data, these systems provide law enforcement agencies with valuable information that can aid in criminal investigations. This essay explores how license plate readers contribute to criminal investigations, examining their benefits, challenges, and ethical considerations.

Understanding License Plate Readers: 

License plate readers are high-speed cameras equipped with optical character recognition (OCR) technology capable of capturing license plate numbers from vehicles passing by. These readers are often mounted on patrol cars, bridges, toll booths, and fixed locations throughout urban areas. As vehicles pass through the field of view, the LPR captures images of license plates and converts them into digital data that can be stored and analyzed.

Benefits of License Plate Readers in Criminal Investigations:

1. Crime Scene Investigations: LPR data can provide valuable leads in criminal investigations by identifying vehicles present at or near crime scenes. Investigators can use this information to establish timelines, identify suspects, and track movements before and after the commission of a crime.

2. Vehicle Tracking: License plate readers can track the movements of vehicles involved in criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, human smuggling, and stolen vehicle operations. By monitoring license plate data, law enforcement agencies can identify patterns of suspicious behavior and disrupt criminal operations.

3. Amber Alerts and Missing Persons Cases: In cases of abducted children or missing persons, license plate readers can be instrumental in locating suspect vehicles and facilitating rapid responses by law enforcement. By scanning license plates against databases of vehicles of interest, LPRs can help locate vehicles associated with missing persons and potentially save lives.

4. Traffic Violation Enforcement: License plate readers are also used for traffic enforcement purposes, allowing law enforcement agencies to identify vehicles with expired registrations, suspended licenses, or outstanding warrants. By automatically flagging vehicles with violations, LPRs contribute to road safety and law enforcement efforts.

Challenges and Limitations:

1. Privacy Concerns: The widespread use of license plate readers has raised concerns about privacy and civil liberties. Critics argue that LPRs collect vast amounts of data on law-abiding citizens, raising questions about surveillance and government intrusion into individuals' lives.

2. Data Retention and Sharing: There are concerns about how long LPR data is retained and who has access to it. Law enforcement agencies may store license plate data for extended periods, leading to potential misuse or unauthorized access. Clear policies on data retention and sharing are essential to address these concerns.

3. Accuracy and Reliability: License plate readers may encounter challenges in accurately capturing license plate numbers, particularly in adverse weather conditions or low-light environments. False positives and misreads can occur, leading to erroneous identifications and potential consequences for innocent individuals.

4. Resource Allocation: Implementing and maintaining license plate reader systems require significant financial resources and personnel training. Law enforcement agencies must carefully consider the cost-effectiveness of LPR deployment and prioritize resources based on the specific needs of their communities.

Ethical Considerations:

1. Transparency and Accountability: Law enforcement agencies must be transparent about their use of license plate readers and establish clear guidelines for data collection, storage, and sharing. Accountability mechanisms should be in place to ensure compliance with privacy laws and regulations.

2. Balancing Security and Privacy: There is an ongoing debate about striking the right balance between public safety and individual privacy rights. Policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and civil liberties advocates must work together to develop policies that safeguard both security and privacy interests.

3. Data Security: Protecting license plate data from unauthorized access, hacking, or misuse is paramount. Law enforcement agencies must implement robust cybersecurity measures to safeguard sensitive information and mitigate the risk of data breaches.

 License plate readers play a significant role in modern law enforcement, providing valuable insights that can aid in criminal investigations and enhance public safety. While LPRs offer numerous benefits, they also raise important ethical and privacy considerations that must be addressed. By striking a balance between security, privacy, and accountability, law enforcement agencies can harness the potential of license plate readers while respecting the rights and liberties of individuals in society.

Challenges Artificial Intelligence May Pose to Law Enforcement in the Future

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has made significant strides in various sectors, including law enforcement. It promises to revolutionize policing by offering tools for predictive crime analysis, facial recognition, and even autonomous decision-making. While AI presents opportunities for improving efficiency and public safety, it also brings forth several challenges that law enforcement agencies must address. This essay explores the potential challenges that AI may pose to law enforcement in the future.

1. Bias and Discrimination

One of the primary concerns surrounding AI in law enforcement is the perpetuation of bias and discrimination. AI systems often learn from historical data, which may contain biases inherent in human decision-making. When these biases are present in the training data, AI systems can make discriminatory decisions. For example, facial recognition technology has faced criticism for being less accurate when identifying individuals with darker skin tones, which can lead to misidentifications and unjust arrests. Law enforcement agencies must ensure that AI systems are thoroughly audited, tested, and continually monitored to mitigate these biases.

2. Privacy Concerns

AI applications in law enforcement often involve the collection and analysis of massive amounts of data. This can raise significant privacy concerns, as citizens' personal information and activities may be subjected to surveillance and data mining. Without clear regulations and safeguards, there is a risk of unwarranted intrusion into individuals' privacy, potentially infringing on their civil liberties. Striking a balance between public safety and privacy is a complex challenge that law enforcement agencies will face.

3. Accountability and Transparency

AI algorithms, especially in deep learning and neural networks, can be complex and difficult to interpret. This opacity poses challenges regarding accountability and transparency. When AI systems make decisions, it may be unclear how they arrived at those conclusions, making it challenging to assign responsibility in cases of error or misuse. Law enforcement agencies must establish protocols for auditing and explaining AI decision-making processes to ensure transparency and accountability.

4. Job Displacement

The automation of certain law enforcement tasks through AI could lead to job displacement within the field. Routine tasks like data analysis and documentation may become automated, potentially reducing the demand for human personnel in these roles. While AI can enhance efficiency, it may also create challenges related to workforce adaptation and the need for upskilling or reskilling officers to work alongside AI systems.

5. Reliability and Cybersecurity

AI systems heavily rely on data and algorithms to function effectively. Ensuring the reliability and security of these systems is crucial. Hackers could target AI systems to manipulate outcomes or gain unauthorized access to sensitive law enforcement data. Law enforcement agencies must invest in robust cybersecurity measures to safeguard AI applications against malicious attacks.

6. Ethical Dilemmas

AI's role in law enforcement introduces ethical dilemmas related to the use of force, surveillance, and decision-making. For instance, autonomous AI systems may be tasked with making split-second decisions, such as whether to deploy non-lethal force or escalate a situation. These ethical decisions typically involve human judgment and empathy, making it challenging for AI to navigate complex moral choices. Law enforcement agencies must establish clear ethical guidelines for AI use, with input from ethicists and the community.

Conclusion

Artificial Intelligence holds immense potential for law enforcement, offering tools to enhance public safety and streamline operations. However, it also brings forth several challenges, including bias, privacy concerns, accountability, job displacement, reliability, and ethical dilemmas. To navigate these challenges successfully, law enforcement agencies must prioritize transparency, ethical considerations, and community input when implementing AI technologies. Striking a balance between the benefits of AI and the protection of civil liberties is essential for shaping a responsible and effective future for law enforcement in the age of artificial intelligence.

Russian Agent Pleads Guilty to Leading Scheme to Illegally Export Controlled Technology to Russian Military

Alexander Fishenko, 49, of Houston, and a dual citizen of the United States and Russia, pleaded guilty today to acting as an agent of the Russian government within the United States without prior notification to the Attorney General, conspiring to export and illegally exporting controlled microelectronics to Russia, conspiring to launder money and obstruction of justice.

The plea was announced by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin and Acting U.S. Attorney Kelly T. Currie of the Eastern District of New York.

“Alexander Fishenko illegally acted as an agent of the Russian government in the United States and evaded export laws by sending microelectronics and other technology with military applications to Russia,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin.  “By purposefully circumventing U.S. law, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Arms Export Control Act, the defendant jeopardized our national security.  I would like to thank the many members of law enforcement whose tireless efforts led to this guilty plea.”

“Fishenko lined his pockets at the expense of our national security,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Currie.  “This prosecution highlights the importance of vigorously enforcing United States export control laws.”

As alleged in the indictment and reflected in court filings, between approximately October 2008 and October 2012, Fishenko led a conspiracy to obtain advanced, technologically cutting-edge microelectronics from manufacturers and suppliers located within the United States and to export those high-tech goods to Russia, while carefully evading the government licensing system set up to control such exports.  The microelectronics shipped to Russia included analog-to-digital converters, static random access memory chips, microcontrollers and microprocessors.  These commodities have applications in and are frequently used in a wide range of military systems, including radar and surveillance systems, missile guidance systems and detonation triggers.  Russia does not produce many of these sophisticated goods domestically.

According to the indictment and other court filings, in 1998, Fishenko founded Arc Electronics Inc. (Arc), which was also indicted, in Houston.  Between 2002 and the present, Arc has shipped approximately $50 million worth of microelectronics and other technologies to Russia.  Fishenko also served as an executive of co-defendant Apex System L.L.C. (Apex) a Moscow-based procurement firm.  Apex, working through subsidiaries, served as a certified supplier of military equipment for the Russian government.  Fishenko exported many of these high-tech goods, frequently through intermediary procurement firms, to Russian end users, including Russian military and intelligence agencies.  To induce manufacturers and suppliers to sell them these high-tech goods and to evade applicable export controls, Fishenko and his co-conspirators often provided false end user information in connection with the purchase of the goods, concealed the fact that they were exporters and falsely classified the goods they exported on export records submitted to the Department of Commerce.  For example, Arc falsely claimed to be a traffic light manufacturer on its website.  In fact, Arc manufactured no goods and operated exclusively as an exporter.

Despite this ploy, the investigation revealed that the defendants were supplying Russian government agencies with sophisticated microelectronics.  For example, the investigation uncovered a letter sent by a specialized electronics laboratory of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia’s primary domestic intelligence agency, to an Apex affiliate regarding certain microchips that Arc obtained for the FSB.  The letter stated that the microchips were faulty and demanded that the defendants supply replacement parts.

The guilty plea took place before U.S. District Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. of the Eastern District of New York.  At sentencing, Fishenko faces up to 20 years in prison for each violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Arms Export Control Act, up to 20 years in prison for money laundering conspiracy and obstruction of justice and up to 10 years in prison for acting as a Russian agent.  The defendant will also face potential criminal forfeiture and fines.

Ten other individuals and two corporations were originally charged in October 2012.  Four members of the conspiracy have pleaded guilty and three are scheduled to commence trial on Sept. 21, 2015.

The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Department of Commerce.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Silver, Una Dean, Richard Tucker and Claire Kedeshian of the Eastern District of New York, as well as Trial Attorney David Recker of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.

Justice Department Announces Enhanced Policy for Use of Cell-Site Simulators

Increased Privacy Protections and Higher Legal Standards to Be Required

The Justice Department today announced a new policy for its use of cell-site simulators that will enhance transparency and accountability, improve training and supervision, establish a higher and more consistent legal standard and increase privacy protections in relation to law enforcement’s use of this critical technology.

The policy, which goes into effect immediately and applies department-wide, will provide department components with standard guidance for the use of cell-site simulators in the department’s domestic criminal investigations and will establish new management controls for the use of the technology.

“With the issuance of this policy, the Department of Justice reaffirms its commitment to hold itself to the highest standards as it performs its critical work to protect public safety,” said Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates.  “Cell-site simulator technology has been instrumental in aiding law enforcement in a broad array of investigations, including kidnappings, fugitive investigations and complicated narcotics cases.  This new policy ensures our protocols for this technology are consistent, well-managed and respectful of individuals’ privacy and civil liberties.”

Cell-site simulators are just one tool among many traditional law enforcement techniques and are deployed only in the fraction of cases in which the capability is best suited to achieve specific public safety objectives.

To enhance privacy protections, the new policy establishes a set of required practices with respect to the treatment of information collected through the use of cell-site simulators.  This includes data handling requirements and an agency-level implementation of an auditing program to ensure that data is deleted consistent with this policy.  For example, when the equipment is used to locate a known cellular device, all data must be deleted as soon as that device is located, and no less than once daily.

Additionally, the policy makes clear that cell-site simulators may not be used to collect the contents of any communication in the course of criminal investigations.  This means data contained on the phone itself, such as emails, texts, contact lists and images, may not be collected using this technology.

While the department has, in the past, obtained appropriate legal authorizations to use cell-site simulators, law enforcement agents must now obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before using a cell-site simulator.  There are limited exceptions in the policy for exigent circumstances or exceptional circumstances where the law does not require a search warrant and circumstances make obtaining a search warrant impracticable.  Department components will be required to track and report the number of times the technology is deployed under these exceptions.

To ensure that the use of the technology is well managed and consistent across the department, the policy requires appropriate supervision and approval.