The Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law (ADFSL)
Media and network systems capture and store data about electronic activity in new, sometimes unprecedented ways; computational systems make for new means of analysis and knowledge development. These new forms offer new, powerful tactical tools for investigations of electronic malfeasance under traditional legal regulation of state power, particular that of Fourth Amendment limitations on police searches and seizures under the U.S. Constitution. But autonomy, identity and authenticity concerns with electronic data raise issues of public policy, privacy and proper police oversight of civil society. We examine those issues and their implications for digital and computational forensics
Brandeis, L., & Warren, S. (1890). The Right to privacy, IV. Harvard Law Review, 5.
Caloyannides, M. (2004). Privacy Protection and Computer Forensics. 2nd ed. Artech House.
Carrier, B. (2005). File System Forensic Analysis. Addison Wesley.
Fairfield, J., & Luna, E. (2014). Digital Innocence. 99 Cornell L. Rev 981 (July 2014).
Fox News. (2007). Connecticut teacher gets new trial on web-porn charges. Retrieved on August 22, 2014 from http://www.Foxnews.Com/Story/0,2933, 278897,00.Html
Howell, B. (2004). Real world problems of virtual crime. 9 Int'l J. Comm. L. & Policy, 5.
Hurley, L. (2014). Two U.S. justices say high court will likely rule on NSA programs. Reuters News Service, April 17, 2014.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 246 (1983). Kerr, O. (2005). Digital evidence and the new criminal procedure. 105 Colum. L. Rev., 279.
Krebs, B. (2014). Substitute teacher faces jail time over spyware, Retrieved on August 22, 2014 from http://blog.washingtonpost.com/security fix/2007/01/substitute_teacher_faces_j ail.html
Losavio, M. (2006). Non-technical manipulation of digital data - Legal, ethical and social issues. IFIP International Conference of Digital Forensics 2005, 51-63. Advances in Digital Forensics, Springer 2006.
Losavio, M. (2005). The law of possession of digital objects: Dominion and control issues for digital forensics investigations and prosecutions. First International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering, 177-183. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.js p?isnumber=33521& isYear=2005
Maclean, P. (2006). Strong dissent in computer search case; Warrant based only on Web site membership. National Law Journal, April 3, 2006, NEWS, 6.
Ohm, P. (2011). Massive hard drives, general warrants and the power of magistrate judges. 97 Va. L. Rev. In Brief 1, 8 (2011).
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 473-475 (1928) (Justice Brandeis, dissenting)
Riley v. California, (2014) ____ U.S. ____
Silberman, S. (2002). The United States of America v. Adam Vaughn Wired Magazine, Issue 10.10, Oct 2002.
Srihari, S. (2010). Beyond C.S.I.: The rise of computational forensics pattern recognition and other computational methods can reduce the bias inherent in traditional criminal forensics. IEEE Spectrum, December, 2010.
The Straits Times. (2005). Racketeers and gangs prowling cyberspace. Singapore. February 23, 2005.
The Toronto Star. (2003). Wave of Cyberblackmail Hitting Offices. December 30, 2003.
United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2006)
United States v. Jones, (2012). 565 U.S. ___
United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 75, reh. Denied 426 F.3d. 83 (2d Cir. 2005)
United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2014)
United States v. Strausbaugh. (2013). U.S. App. LEXIS 16553 (unpublished 3rd Cir. 2013)
United States v. Valley, 755 F. 3d 581 (7th Cir. 2014).
Will v. Hallock. (2006). 546 U.S. 345
Wright, C. (2005). An online scam that can ruin your life. Retrieved on June 2005 from http://www.marketingsource.com/article s/view/1259
Losavio, Michael and Keeling, Deborah
"Evidentiary Power and Propriety of Digital Identifiers and the Impact on Privacy Rights in the United States,"
Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: Vol. 9
, Article 16.
Available at: https://commons.erau.edu/jdfsl/vol9/iss2/16