Category Archives: Computer Forensics

Cloud Takeouts: Can I Get That to Go?

07 Wednesday Nov 2018

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery, General Technology Posts, Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Apple take outTwo-and-a-half years ago, I concluded a post with this bluster:

“Listen, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and all the other companies collecting vast volumes of our data through intelligent agents, apps and social networking sites, you must afford us a ready means to see and repatriate our data.  It’s not enough to let us grab snatches via an unwieldy item-by-item interface.  We have legal duties to meet, and if you wish to be partners in our digital lives, you must afford us reasonable means by which we can comply with the law when we anticipate litigation or respond to discovery. You owe us that.  Alexa, are you listening?”

Amazon hasn’t listened; but, Apple lately gave users the ability to download our data.  Credit for this awakening goes to the European Union’s Global Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that went into effect on May 25.

Data takeout capabilities are essential to protecting civil liberties and meeting legal duties.  Google’s given users a simple, effective means to repatriate data (including Gmail and calendar data) for five years, although search histories have only been supplied for two.  Twitter’s supported robust data takeout for five years; and eight years ago, Facebook became the first big social media site to offer its users the ability to download contributed content.

Apple is late to the party but it didn’t come empty-handed.  The Apple takeout is extensive and can be huge.  My download comprised 63GB in 26 compressed Zip archive files.  It took Apple five days to assemble the data and make it available for download; then, I had to download each file, one-by-one.  There’s no way to download them all, leaving the distinct impression that Apple doesn’t want takeout to be too easy.  In fairness, had I opted to have Apple deliver my data in 25GB chunks (the largest chunk option) instead of the 5GB file limit I specified, it would have been easier.

In my case, almost all the volume were photos replicated in iCloud.  Notably absent was my messaging, which Apple can’t archive and thus can only be obtained from the iPhone or a backup of same (see my post Mobile to the Mainstream). Continue reading →

Mad About Metadata

02 Friday Nov 2018

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

mad about metadataIt’s the month for giving thanks, and I’m ever-grateful for the daily e-discovery blog penned by my friend, Doug Austin, for CloudNine.  It’s tough to get out a post every business day, and Doug’s done it splendidly for, what, nine years now?  Kudos!  Doug’s EDiscovery Daily blog is often my first heads-up for new e-discovery cases, true again for the decision he featured this morning,  Metlife Inv’rs. USA Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, No. 2:16-CV-97 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 25, 2018)

It’s a familiar scenario.  The requesting party expressly demands native file production.  The responding party, a big insurance company, produces static image formats as non-searchable PDFs.  When the requesting party objects, the carrier argues that the metadata it strips from the evidence isn’t relevant and that the request for native forms is disproportionate, again challenging relevance, and also claiming that producing in the native forms sought would be cumulative because (chutzpah!) they’d already produced in PDF over their opponent’s timely objection.

To its credit, the Court makes short work of MetLife’s high-handedness and orders native production but stumbles a bit on the relevance and scope issues.  The Court addresses the relevance objection by noting that native production may shed light on who accessed information and that this may inform whether the insurer had a duty to investigate the policy application.  Maybe.  More likely, it won’t.  But, the Court shouldn’t have let itself be drawn in by a specious relevance challenge.

There are two varieties of file metadata: application metadata and system metadata.  Relevance should never matter for application metadata or dog tag system metadata.  If a file is sufficiently relevant to be responsive, no requesting party should be required to further demonstrate that metadata within the file is independently relevant.  The burden to prove a right to excise parts of relevant files should rest with the party altering the evidence.  Moreover, a file’s name, path and last modified date (“dog tag” metadata) are so patently useful that their utility more than relevance should serve as  sufficient basis for the production of essential system metadata. Continue reading →

Mobile to the Mainstream

17 Wednesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery, General Technology Posts, Uncategorized

≈ 11 Comments

Mobile data burden and relevance scorecard

Click f/ PDF

Once you’ve preserved the contents of a mobile device, how do you extract responsive content in forms that are searchable and amenable to review?  Most information items on mobile devices aren’t “documents” that can be printed to a static format for review.  Instead, much mobile content is fielded data that must retain a measure of structural integrity for intelligibility.  This article looks at simple, low-cost approaches to getting relevant and responsive mobile data into a standard e-discovery review workflow, and offers a Mobile Evidence Scorecard designed to start a dialogue leading to a consensus about what forms of mobile content should be routinely collected and reviewed in e-discovery, without the need for digital  forensic examination. Continue reading →

On the Road Again: PREX and FEST

24 Monday Sep 2018

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery, General Technology Posts, Personal, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

PREXFEST_SMThe Texan in me can’t hear the phrase “on the road again” without also hearing Willie Nelson’s nasal voice singing it.  But, the life I love IS making music with my friends, if by “music” we mean bringing “aha” moments to lawyers and others interested in e-discovery and forensic technology.

Today, I head to Portland, for the 2018 Preservation Excellence or PREX Conference put on annually by the good folks at Zapproved.  It’s a splendid faculty congregated in an always-lovely venue and punctuated by good conversation, fine food and the splendor that is Oregon in September.  PREX is always worth the trip; so, if you have the chance to go, by all means, attend.

This year I have a lot to do at PREX.  I have the privilege to host a keynote discussion with CNN and The New Yorker magazine legal commentator, Jeffrey Toobin.  You can be sure that the U.S. Supreme Court, the Mueller investigation and Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing will all come up.  Toobin is a bestselling author of seven books, including several on the Supreme Court and on the O.J. Simpson murder case and kidnapped heiress Patty Hearst.  Talking with Toobin rounds out my opportunity to do Charlie Rose-style conversations with Doris Kearns Goodwin and Nina Totenberg at earlier Zapproved events.

I’ll also moderate a “People’s Court” debate between Brett Tarr and Dan Nichols.  Brett is Chief Counsel for E-Discovery and Information Governance at gaming conglomerate Caesars Entertainment, and Dan is a partner with Redgrave LLP, the far-flung corporate e-discovery consultancy.  These two really despise each other, so there’s sure to be a lot of eye-gouging and attacks on legitimate parentage.  (That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it).

Finally on Wednesday, I’ll be doing a little speaking of my own in a lonely breakout session where we will talk about preserving and discovering evidence on mobile phones.  They’ve titled it, OMG, SMS & ESI: Preserving & Collecting from Mobile Devices.  The session description reads:

How does one craft a discovery request for text messages? What are the different techniques for preservation, collection and review of mobile data? When does it make sense to complete a full forensic collection on a mobile device? This session will deliver foundational information and practical examples of process and policy management for mobile devices in ediscovery.

if you haven’t yet come to grips with mainstreaming mobile devices into day-to-day e-discovery, know you’re not alone–everyone is struggling, or more likely closing their eyes, hoping mobile will go away.  Perhaps we can make some progress together.

PREX  September 25 – 27, 2018  |  Portland, OR

Then, no-rest-for-the-dreary, I wing to the Windy City of Chicago (so-called NOT due to weather, but for the propensity of its politicians to pontificate at length).  I’m heading to the annual Relativity Fest, a stupendous amalgamation of e-discovery education and evangelical tent meeting cum rock concert.  If there were the slightest doubt that Relativity dominates the e-discovery review space (and is hungry to gobble up the rest of the EDRM), such foolish doubt will be crushed by the power of Fest.

I enjoy Fest for many reasons, not the least of which is the chance to work with the always-engaging David Horrigan, Relativity’s discovery counsel and legal content director.  David is a fine writer, insightful commentator and skilled teacher.  Eclipsing that is his distinction as a great guy, someone always fun to be around and adept at eliciting the best from those he hosts.

At Fest, David will moderate a panel I’m on called The Internet of Things from a Legal, Regulatory, and Technical Perspective.  I’m fortunate to join Gail Gottehrer, Partner and Co-Chair of the Privacy, Cybersecurity, and Emerging Technology Practice at Akerman, who will give the regulatory perspective, and Ed McAndrew, Partner at Ballard Spahr and former DOJ cybercrime coordinator, who’s charged with the legal point of view.  I guess that leaves the technical stuff to me, which is where I’m happiest anyway.

Relativity Fest  Sep. 30 – Oct. 3, 2018 | Hilton Chicago

I hope to see you at one or both of these exciting confabs, enjoying two fine faculties in wonderful venues.  The joy and value of these events isn’t just what’s planned, but the interactions around and outside of the sessions, too.

Easing the Pain of Protective Orders

03 Monday Sep 2018

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

protective_orderDoes anyone read what they sign anymore?  We all click through EULA’s; but shouldn’t lawyers and experts pay close attention to the terms of protective orders?

Here’s a familiar scenario:

Client says, “we have discovery responses you need to review, sign this acknowledgement to be bound by a protective order.”  I read the order and respond, “I can’t,” adding, “Like you, I have work product to protect, and like you, I back up my data.  I can’t ‘return’ data residing on backups.  I’ll carefully protect the data, but I can’t commit to destroy or return it when the case concludes.”

I’m the bad guy because everyone else signs.

First, let me further explain the conundrum.  Continue reading →

Drafting Digital Forensic Examination Protocols

28 Tuesday Aug 2018

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery, Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

A computer or smart phone under forensic examination is like a sprawling metropolis of neighborhoods, streets, buildings, furnishings and stuff–loads of stuff.  It’s routine for a single machine to yield over a million discrete information items, some items holding thousands of data points.  Searching so vast a virtual metropolis requires a clear description of what’s sought and a sound plan to find it.

In the context of electronic discovery and digital forensics, an examination protocol is an order of a court or an agreement between parties that governs the scope and procedures attendant to testing and inspection of a source of electronic evidence.  Parties and courts use examination protocols to guard against compromise of sensitive or privileged data and insure that specified procedures are employed in the acquisition, analysis, and reporting of electronically-stored information (ESI).

A well-conceived examination protocol serves to protect the legitimate interests of all parties, curtail needless delay and expense and forestall fishing expeditions.  Protocols may afford a forensic examiner broad leeway to adapt procedures and follow the evidence, or protocols may tightly constrain an examiner’s discretion, to prevent waiver of privilege or disclosure of irrelevant, prejudicial material.  A good protocol helps an examiner know where to start his or her analysis, how to proceed and, crucially, when the job is done.

As a litigator for over 35 years and a computer forensic examiner for more than 25 years, I’ve examined countless devices and sources for courts and litigants.  In that time, I’ve never encountered a forensic examination protocol of universal application.  “Standard” procedures change over time, adapted to new forms of digital evidence and new hurdles–like full-disk encryption, solid-state storage and explosive growth in storage capacities and data richness.  Without a protocol, a forensics examiner could spend months seeking to meet an equivocal examination mandate.  The flip side is that poor protocols damn examiners to undertake pointless tasks and overlook key evidence.

Drafting a sensible forensic examination protocol demands a working knowledge of the tools and techniques of forensic analysis so counsel doesn’t try to misapply e-discovery methodologies to forensic tasks.  Forensic examiners deal in artifacts, patterns and configurations.  The data we see is structured and encoded much differently than what a computer user sees.  The significance and reliability of an artifact depends on its context.  Dates and times must be validated against machine settings, operating system functions, time zones and corroborating events.

Much in digital forensics entails more than meets the eye; consequently, simply running searches for words and phrases “e-discovery-style” is far less availing than it might be in a collection of documents.

If you can conceive of taking the deposition of a computer or smart phone, crafting a forensic examination protocol is like writing out the questions in advance.  Like a deposition, there are basic inquiries that can be scripted but no definitive template for follow-up questions.  A good examiner–of people or computers–follows the evidence yet hews to relevant lines of inquiry and respects boundaries.  A key difference is, good advocates fit the evidence to their clients’ narrative where good forensic examiners let the evidence tell its own story.

If you’ve come here for a form examination protocol, you’ll find it; but the “price” is learning a little about why forensic examination protocols require certain language and above all, why you must carefully adapt any protocol to the needs of your case. Continue reading →

Preserving MAC Times Collecting Files in E-Discovery

20 Wednesday Jun 2018

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery

≈ 5 Comments

MAC timesChecking the mailbag, I received a great question from a recent Georgetown E-Discovery Training Academy attendee.  I’m posting it here in hopes my response may be useful to you.

My student wrote: I have a question in regard to zipping eDiscovery data. We’ve always used 7zip to zip our collections. The filenames are too long for Microsoft to be happy with them in their original state. One of our consultants is now telling me that I’m changing metadata. Can you clear this up for me? Am I changing metadata just by zipping a file? If I am, are there other simple tools that I can use? 

Metadata is always changed in the copying of files within a Windows environment.  Anytime you copy data to new media, Windows changes some of its metadata.  Some e-discovery collection tools change the values back to the originating values as part of the collection process.  Thus, the metadata changes, then changes back to undo the change.  If you want to use such tools, they are out there.

I think the more important concern is whether the tools and methods you employ reconstruct the metadata that matters and preserve the integrity of the evidence files.  There is a simple way for you to assess that: check the MAC (modified/accessed/created) dates and hash the files in and out!  You did some exercises of this nature in my Georgetown Academy workbook. Continue reading →

Preserving Alexa History: Ugly-but-Easy

24 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery, General Technology Posts, Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

amazon-alexa-history-angleTwo years ago, I blogged about the challenge of seeking to preserve records of interactions with the Amazon Echo/Alexa family of devices and applications.  I concluded:

“Listen, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and all the other companies collecting vast volumes of our data through intelligent agents, apps and social networking sites, you must afford us a ready means to see and repatriate our data.  It’s not enough to let us grab snatches via an unwieldy item-by-item interface.  We have legal duties to meet, and if you wish to be partners in our digital lives, you must afford us reasonable means by which we can comply with the law when we anticipate litigation or respond to discovery. “

In a testament to my thought leadership, nothing whatsoever has happened since my call-to-arms in terms of the ability to preserve Alexa app history data.  It’s as bad as it was two years ago and arguably worse because Echo products have grown so popular and the Alexa interface has been integrated into so many devices that the problem is bigger now by leaps and bounds.

Don’t get me wrong, I am Alexa’s biggest fan (and adore her sisters, “Amazon” and “Computer,” so-called for the alternate “wake words” I use to trigger voice communication to Amazon’s servers from other Echo devices).  If anything, Craig the Consumer is happier now with the Echo ecosystem than two years ago.  Wearing my user hat, Alexa’s a peach (and, yes, I am perfectly comfortable with her from a privacy point of view).  Wearing my e-discovery propeller beanie, Alexa is a pain in the butt.  She’s a data gold digger who cooks the books to make it supremely difficult to account for what she’s taken. Continue reading →

Docendo Discimus: Q & A

07 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery, General Technology Posts, Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

teach-learn

The Latin maxim Docendo Discimus means “by teaching, we learn.”  So true, because absent my need to stay up-to-date to teach, it’s easy to fall behind.  I teach various places, but of longest standing at the University of Texas School of Law, my alma mater.  My subject is E-Discovery and Digital Evidence, a three-credit, 14-week course.  In my course, information technology enjoys equal status with case law and procedure.  Half the semester is dedicated to mastering the “e” in e-discovery: the foundations of modern information storage and retrieval.  That balance is unique among law school courses.  I don’t elevate information technology because I happen to know how to teach it; I do it because I think it’s what the students need most and don’t get.  It’s certainly what lawyers need most and don’t get.

Why?

Surprisingly, that’s a contentious question.  The arguments against teaching the technology side of e-discovery and digital evidence range from “it’s not law” to “lawyers hire people for the tech stuff, so why bother?”

I think the explanation for the marginalization of information technology in e-discovery classes is simpler: lawyers teaching law school classes have a limited ability to teach technology.  My guess is that if the teachers knew the technology as well as they know the law, there would be more balance in the curriculum.

The limits of instructors hobbles the curriculum of e-discovery, which should spring from the needs of the students.  We should gear our syllabi to what must be learned rather than what can be taught.  First, let’s teach the teachers.

That won’t be easy.  The level of interest is low, and who wants to draw the circle of competence to leave themselves outside the circle?  Too, there are virtually no instructional channels or materials.  No formal incentives.  No funding.  Many invested in the status quo ante.  And all that aside, there’s a dearth of experienced instructors.  We are fuc… challenged.

Continue reading →

Houston: We’ve Got a Problem

30 Wednesday Aug 2017

Posted by in Computer Forensics, E-Discovery, General Technology Posts, Personal, Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

19-hurricane-harveyHouston is my hometown.  I wasn’t born there (though both my children were); but, I got there as quickly as I could, at age 17 to study at Rice University.  I practiced law in Houston and kept a home in the Houston area for 38 years, longer by far than anywhere else.  I have deep Texas roots, proud Houston roots.  So, it pains me to see what’s happening in Harris County, and as a past President of the Houston Trial Lawyers Asociation, I’m thinking of all my colleagues whose offices are submerged or inaccessible and whose practices will be devastated and disrupted by Hurricane Harvey.

Right now, the needs are basic: shelter, food, clothing, medical care and such.  Soon, however, we must restore the legal and business infrastructure.  Though Houston is home to several megafirms, the majority of Houston lawyers–the best lawyers in the world–are small firm- and solo practitioners.  It’s these lawyers who will help people pick up the pieces of their lives by prosecuting claims for storm damage when insurers decline to pay what’s owed.  In Texas, the need is dire as the toadying Texas Legislature serves at the pleasure of big national insurance carriers, a fact borne out by legislation that, even before Harvey’s waters recede, will operate to deprive Texas insureds of substantial rights to recover for storm losses, effective September 1.  Ironic.  Tragic. Despicable.

So, we must pull together to help Gulf Coast lawyers recover from the storm. My friend, Tom O’Connor, unselfishly organized a relief effort for Louisiana lawyers when Katrina crippled New Orleans and environs.  I’m proud to have contributed in a small way to that effort, financially and by speaking in New Orleans about tech tools to help lawyers cope. I look forward to the chance to work with Tom and with The Computer and Technology Section of the State Bar of Texas to do the same for Gulf Coast lawyers.

There is so much to do, and we must each do what we can according to our particular ways and means. Helping Texas lawyers harness technology to weather the storm is something I can do, and I know it’s within the capability of many of my readers. Houston needs help, and Houston deserves it.  After Hurricane Katrina, Houston took in a quarter of a million evacuees, some forty thousand of them stayed.  When I was at Rice, Houston welcomed 200,000 Vietnamese refugees.  No city is more diverse.  None more self-reliant and can-do.  No city has a bigger heart.

There are a lot of sodden computers and hard drives in Houston and all along the Gulf Coast.  Where once we grabbed the family photo album in an evacuation, today, cherished photos (and crucial client data) is all digital.  To that end, I offer this link to a post I wrote after Katrina addressing data recovery.  We have come a long way since since August 2005.  The Cloud and mobile devices play a big role in data storage, and many hard drives are now solid state; still, the majority of computers rely on mechanical hard drives for long term storage, and water plays havoc with mechanical hard drives. What you do with a damaged device in the aftermath makes a huge difference in whether the data they contain can be resurrected.

Please help Houston, and Houston lawyers, get back on their feet.  Believe me, Houstonians would be there for you.  They’ve proved it many times before.