When accused of computer crime, it is necessary to do all the things necessary for lawyers to defend. It is important to keep away from prison, avoid criminal record, and protect family. Then, when you hire a computer crime lawyer, does the lawyer know nothing about computer forensics?
As a lawyer, we must be all experts. That makes this job happy. We can not always be experts of all things, but we need to understand fundamentally the problems we face. It is the same reason that the days of general practitioners are dead considerably. There are too many things to know. So, I do not think many lawyers will become experts in computer forensics. It is necessary to understand basically what they are and how to use it to devise defense. However, as most lawyers attended law school before modern computers became a common place, most people are not. Therefore, many people still have fear of computers and technology in general. This lawyer may be superior in other fields, but choosing the same lawyer to protect you in case of computer crime can lead to a disaster.
Computer forensics is art and science that applies computer science to support legal processes. It is a huge subject area that first requires deep knowledge of computers and networks and it is why many lawyers do not even care about learning it. Therefore, in this article, it is impossible to make even the most fundamental concept of computer forensics strict. Instead, I emphasize why it is important for lawyers to understand computer forensics when defending computer crime cases and why.
Just in all cases, the state hires computer crime professionals and discusses computer forensics. Therefore, experts may be necessary in some cases. If you have, he or she can help you understand the meaning of your expert's report and testimony. But this person is not a lawyer. Essentially relying on their input will essentially turn the case defense into a non-lawyer. Do you want the surgeon to operate based on the advice of a person who is not a doctor? In addition, it may not always be fortunate to have a customer who can afford to buy experts. Therefore, we need to be able to understand what their experts are saying in both the report and the testimony.
This will also prevent the appearance of "headlight deer" which is often created when experts "teach" a defense attorney. As a lawyer on the defense side, you should teach rather than a national expert. But I saw a defense lawyer asking open end questions to understand expert testimony. Experts teach everyone, including judges and defense attorneys, so they suffer more damage than they face. This leads to an irrational, rarely existing cross test. The case may be lost soon as the jury may completely believe the experts. After all, why is not it unless there is something that really impeaches the testimony of the experts?
Experts are not necessarily experts, but I think that experts certainly do. Quite often, they are trained on how to testify. Several seem to have almost a script. If you do not know what you are talking about, they will walk across you. If you can talk, you can not only pay tribute but you can see. Your cross can be much more closely focused. More importantly, you can easily remove things from scripts by using terms, knowing its methods and policies. Your job is to know more about the main issues in your case. You have the advantage that you can put everything you want in front of your eyes while you are in the position of a witness without doing anything. I was able to impeach our policy manuals to skilled witnesses. I ask open-ended questions where the answers can not hurt me to test their knowledge where. "I do not know the answer" does not give so much damage, but there is a wrong answer. As soon as you get the wrong answer you can impeach them with their own materials. There is nothing to get rid of the wind from the situation of the state faster than to indicate that there is no clothes on the emperor (witness).
In the trial version problem, lawyers can not discover without practical knowledge of computer forensics. Also, while defense experts can help, it should not be trusted to interpret the whole case. In my case, I rarely tell you what the defense is. Instead, I need an expert to testify to the extent that I can.
Just all computer crime cases involve some degree of computer forensics. If a lawyer guarantees that the police are right, lawyers are not properly defending their clients. Computer forensics include collection, storage, filtering, and presentation of digital evidence. At each stage of this process, something can be made seriously wrong, making the client appear to be actually innocent.
The collection of digital evidence is when the artifacts considered as evidence value are identified and collected. They can take the form of external disks, computers, telephones, video game machines, servers, and other devices capable of recording data. Large amounts of storage devices and their reduction in size have become a major issue of law enforcement. In the case of a lawyer, how important is it for those who collect this evidence, especially when the people of enforcement agencies other than law collect evidence?
What is closely related to the collection is the preservation of digital evidence. In order to make digital evidence reliable, the evidence needs to be complete, accurate and verifiable. Data tampering can lead to many defensive arguments. Most law enforcement agencies have systems to prevent this from becoming a problem, but common people such as clerks and corporate security can completely change the original data. Of course, only lawyers who understand computer forensics can pick up this and solve the problem.
The filtering process is where the analysis takes place. Evidence / suspicious files are extracted and undoubted files are excluded. Due to the increase in hard drive size and lack of staff, this process can take several months. A computer crime defense lawyer must have an accurate prison about what the examiner is doing and why to do it. Examiners often use automated tools to speed up filtering. With this, they can "trace" quickly, but they may also present one side of the story. Defense attorneys can not know what to look for when defending their defense by relying on their own experts. Instead, the examiner did not do anything for some reason, but must grasp everything. Which files were not checked? What settings were used in the automated tool? As a result, which file was ignored? What does these files show? What did they show? To be effective, the state must make everything fix. They can write to the jury by writing to the defense authorities.
Presentation of suspects of evidence data usually begins with the examiner extracting the artifacts and organizing them into the form of a medium such as a DVD. In addition to the media on which the data is stored, reports and testimonies are also part of the presentation. Just in almost all cases, the examiner will use computer forensic software to generate reports. Defense authorities must understand the mechanism of this program and how to read and use reports. As mentioned earlier, in some cases the most important is not only what is included in the report, but what is left. Penetrating the examiner to the report and using those gaps can only be done if the lawyer is well aware of the entire computer forensic process.
As you can see, there are many things you always need to know about computer forensics. Even if you can not afford to buy experts, if computer crime lawyers have practical knowledge on computer forensics and prosecutors do not, they will stretch out during petition negotiations, motors, trials . When a judge is in the court, your lawyer is challenging each judge, the jury or both. If your lawyer does not understand the material, how can you expect anyone to teach something to anyone? Instead, state experts will guide, the jury will tell you that you are guilty, and that your counsel is ignorant.
EmoticonEmoticon