Is the electronic evidence real or fake in the digital age?

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Ross Ulbricht, a very unassuming fellow, would sit in various locations around the world on his laptop, overseeing Silk Road. On October 1, 2013, that came to an abrupt end. The FBI located, apprehended, and shut Mr. Ulbricht down on that day. However, their method of operation—or lack thereof—may be the key to an epic court battle that will likely yield new precedents on the Fourth Amendment – right to privacy – and admissible evidence based on methods of retrieval.

Backstory—Silk Road was an anonymous market place providing highly secure methods of obtaining narcotics and fire arms. At the time of the site’s seizure (October 2013) it showed approximately $1.2 billion in sales transactions. Ulbricht’s account had $6.8 million of bitcoins shown on a screen shot taken by the FBI at the time of Mr. Ulbricht’s arrest. That photo, among many others, were submitted as evidence.

websearch

Is Digital evidence real or fake in this day and age?

Unfortunately for the FBI, their e-trail, time line and methods of obtaining evidence did not add up and was challenged by expert witness Joshua A. Horowitz, a criminal defense attorney specializing in forensic technology.
In an October 1, 2014, Declaration e-filing, United States of America v. Ross Ulbricht, Horowitz points out 9 specific points demonstrating the FBI’s testimony may be less than truthful.  As a result of Mr. Horowitz’s expert declaration, many more may speculate that the FBI’s claimed methods of server access could not have been used and that the government is flat-out lying; and, ultimately, they never did access the server.  Therefore, all of the FBI’s so called evidence has been faked and this will get tossed out of court.  To add insult to injury, Mr. Ulbricht, would be able to recover monetary damages from the government once this goes to trial.  What do you suppose the plaintiff’s arguments will be on this matter.

You be the judge. Is evidence real, or fake, in this digital age? What constitutes admissible?[:de]Ross Ulbricht, a very unassuming fellow, would sit in various locations around the world on his laptop, overseeing Silk Road. On October 1, 2013, that came to an abrupt end. The FBI located, apprehended, and shut Mr. Ulbricht down on that day. However, their method of operation—or lack thereof—may be the key to an epic court battle that will likely yield new precedents on the Fourth Amendment – right to privacy – and admissible evidence based on methods of retrieval.

Backstory—Silk Road was an anonymous market place providing highly secure methods of obtaining narcotics and fire arms. At the time of the site’s seizure (October 2013) it showed approximately $1.2 billion in sales transactions. Ulbricht’s account had $6.8 million of bitcoins shown on a screen shot taken by the FBI at the time of Mr. Ulbricht’s arrest. That photo, among many others, were submitted as evidence.

Unfortunately for the FBI, their e-trail, time line and methods of obtaining evidence did not add up and was challenged by expert witness Joshua A. Horowitz, a criminal defense attorney specializing in forensic technology.
In an October 1, 2014, Declaration e-filing, United States of America v. Ross Ulbricht, Horowitz points out 9 specific points demonstrating the FBI’s testimony may be less than truthful.  As a result of Mr. Horowitz’s expert declaration, many more may speculate that the FBI’s claimed methods of server access could not have been used and that the government is flat-out lying; and, ultimately, they never did access the server.  Therefore, all of the FBI’s so called evidence has been faked and this will get tossed out of court.  To add insult to injury, Mr. Ulbricht, would be able to recover monetary damages from the government once this goes to trial.  What do you suppose the plaintiff’s arguments will be on this matter.

You be the judge. Is evidence real, or fake, in this digital age? What constitutes admissible?

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail