Virtual machines have always been one of the neatest aspects in computer technology.  My first exposure to a virtual machine was in a digital forensics courses I took at FLETC and I knew that this would be the coolest thing ever.  The coolness factor of being able to run one operating system (the virtual machine or VM) inside another operating system (the host) has not grown old for me especially because of the forensic and security implications that exist more so today than that day of first exposure.

It has been 10 years since I wrote the first of two papers on virtualization and forensics.  The first, “vmware as a forensic tool” and subsequently “Virtual Forensics: A Discussion of Virtual Machines Related to Forensic Analysis”.  Some of the information has been outdated, but most of the information and certainly the concepts are still in play today.  I recommend looking at these two papers to get started on thinking about VMs as it relates to your cases.

Skip forward some years after those first papers; I began to find VM use occur more often on forensic cases in civil litigation matters.  In the majority of the cases, the VMs I found were not used to facilitate any malicious activity, but did result in longer examination time of each hard drive with VMs.  In one case of my cases, a single hard drive contained over 50 (yes, FIFTY) virtual machines and each one VM had multiple snapshots and practically all were being used with malicious intent.  After that case, I made sure to include virtual machine investigative information in two books I wrote (Placing the Suspect Behind the Keyboard and Hiding Behind the Keyboard) to make sure investigators consider VMs as a source of evidence.

There was a time when computer users, including criminal using computers, were oblivious to the amount of evidence a forensic analysis can recover.  Those days are virtually gone since most anyone with a computer knows for the most part, that a ‘deleted’ file can be recovered.  In addition, with Hollywood producing movies and TV shows showing forensic analysis of computers, common criminal knowledge now includes knowing about electronic evidence that is created on computers and forensics recovers it.  Every push of a button, click of a mouse, and click of a link litters the system with evidence.  The litter (creation/modification/access/deletion of files) is everywhere in the system, spread out among various locations from the registry to free space to system files, and most can be attributed to a user’s activity.  Getting rid of every bit of the electronic litter is practically impossible, even as certain amounts can be wiped securely.

However, with a VM, all of that electronic litter, aka evidence, is kept within one file that stores the virtual machine.  The user need only wipe that one file to destroy all the electronic litter and evidence that was created during the malicious activity.   The only evidence able to be found will be on the host, and usually that will just show a VM had been started.  The malicious activity/user activity…gone.    Going a step further, a VM booted to a Linux bootable OS (even to an .iso file), will have no evidence saved in the VM to begin with.

I am not discounting other important evidence, such as network logs, captured traffic, or the evidence that can be recovered on the host machine.  That is all good evidence too, but when the actual user activity is contained in a single file that can be wiped securely, digital forensics gets harder if not downright impossible.

A recent article I read on malicious use of VMs goes one-step further.  In the article (https://www.secureworks.com/blog/virtual-machines-used-to-hide-activity), an attempt to remotely start a VM inside a compromised system failed only because the compromised system was also a VM.  Considering that scenario, a hacker starting a VM on a compromised machine can effectively hide nearly all activity within that VM by subsequently wiping it after the hacker is finished.  Incident response just got harder.

Not only are virtual machines used to facilitate criminal activity, but can also be used as a tool to compromise systems.  One creative example of malicious VM use can be read here: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/08/18/compromising-linux-virtual-machines/  where virtual machines in the cloud can be used to attack another virtual machine if hosted on the same server.  Now that is clever.

Virtual machines are here to stay for all the good uses they provide, which also means they are here for all the bad uses too.  In the world of cyber-cop vs cyber-criminal, every day is another day where each side tries to out-MacGyver the other side with something new, unique, and sometimes pretty cool.

My personal library of digital forensics books has grown from two books to two shelves of books.  All nonfiction.  All technical.  All specific to specific sub-topics in digital forensics.  My fiction bookshelf is full too, but my nonfiction bookshelf is most important since I have dog-eared and marked up each one as references.

I have bought and read so many digital forensics books that when I see a good forensic book on Amazon, I have to double-check my collection to make sure I don’t order the same book twice.  I’ve even published three digital forensics books and they also sit on my shelf because I even refer back to them as needed…and I wrote them!

When I first started in digital forensics, it was called “computer forensics”.  This was in the days of yanking out the plug from the back of the machine, seizing every mouse and keyboard, and imaging every piece of media for full exams that took weeks for each one. Training was hard to come by unless you could afford to travel for weeks on end across country. 

Luckily, I was lucky. My employer (a police department) sent me everywhere.  West coast, east coast, and the mid west.  I had in my collection about three forensics books because there weren’t any others I could find.  These few books were so generic that as a reference in doing the actual job, they were mostly books giving a 10-mile high overview of what to do.

My very first forensic case was a child pornography and child rape case that involved “one” computer in a single-family residence.  I was told it was “one” computer, but when the search warrant was served, I found a home network consisting of a server with 25 computers connected to it…plus more than 50 hard drives laying around EVERYWHERE in the house and probably no less than 500 CDs.  Wires were everywhere, tacked to the ceiling, in the attic, and under the carpet.  Some computers were running, others off.  The case detective simply said, “Get to work.”  And I had three books as a reference and training to rely on.  I was also the only forensics examiner in the department…that was a long day and the three books were of no help.

After surviving that case, I have seen more books on sub-topics of sub-topics in the field of forensics get published month-after-month.   With each book, I keep saying, “I sure wish I had this book a few years ago.”  Three of the books I wrote were books that I was waiting for someone to write, but got impatient and did it myself (with help from two other co-authors).  The books published today in the field of digital forensic and incident response are simply invaluable.  Anyone starting out today in the field has a wealth of information to draw upon, which is a good thing.

On top of the nonfiction books I have already published (including ghost writing book projects), I have a few fiction books wrapped up and ready to go.  Soon….hopefully soon…they will be published and put on my fiction bookshelf, and when they do, it will be something I’ll be talking quite a bit about.  The value of a good fiction book is just as important as the nonfiction.  Fiction may not be able to help you with your job like a good nonfiction book can, but it certainly can give you some good reading with a good story.

Due to a dozen tragedies, a half dozen fires popping up, and twice as many projects due at the same time, I’ve been way late in updating an X-Ways Forensics course along with updating the WinFE.  But now, the X-Ways course is about done to be uploaded as soon as the finishing touches are finished.  The new course includes a whole lot more than originally made and updated to the current version of X-Ways (everyone currently registered will receive an email when  the course has been published (no cost to current registrants). 

The WinFE online course will be depreciated and replaced with a longer ‘Forensic Boot CD Course” that includes Linux forensic CDs along with some updated WinFE  information.  The goal of this course is to complete cover just about every aspect of using a forensic boot OS (CD/DVD/USB), with examples of the most currently updated Linux forensic CDs.  There are plenty of outdated distros to avoid and those are not described in the course.

Until the Forensic Boot CD Course is uploaded, you can download the Mini-WinFE builder from this link: http://brettshavers.cc/files/Mini-WinFE.2014.07.03.zip  as currently, the reboot.pro download link for Mini-WinFE is broken.  I have sent the developer a message to repair it.

I have given 20 presentations this year and that was only in the first half of 2016 (although, I have not scheduled anything for the remainder of the year to finish some projects).

In each of the presentations, whether the attendees were parents, children, law enforcement, or digital forensics analysts, I have always been able to give really good examples of compromises.  On the day of the presentation or day before, I search for a recent breach and will most always find a good one.  If I search a day after the presentation, I sometimes find a new breach that would have also been a good example of a hacking incident.

So for the cybercrime preventation talks, I tell everyone that anyone can be a victim no matter what you do.  Sometimes you are specifically targeted and other times, you fall into a group of victims from a third party breach.  And the more 'third party' accounts you have, the more risk of having your personal data exposed.  For example, if you have a T-Mobile phone, Premera for health insurance, applied for a government security clearance, shop at Home Depot, and ate at Wendy's, you potentially have had your personal data or credit card information compromised five times by doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Digital forensics analysis is the easy part of an investigation. That is not to say that the work of digital forensics is simple, but rather recovering electronic data is a rote routine of data carving and visual inspection of data. Interpreting the data requires a different type of effort to put together a story of what happened ‘on the computer’.  As important an analysis is to determine computer use, it is just as important to identify the user or users and attribute computer activity to each user.  An investigation without an identified suspect is a case that remains open and unsolved..sometimes for years or forever.

In many investigations (civil and criminal), identifying the computer user is obvious through confessions or by process of elimination.  Proving a specific person was at the keyboard is barely a consideration since the person either admitted control of the device or was caught red-handed and the examiner can focus more on the user activity on the computer devices rather than spending time identifying the user.

However, simply accepting the suspect’s identity without further investigation into other aspects of the suspect’s identity may sell the investigation short.  Whether the suspect is known or unknown, compiling a complete identity of the suspect adds important information that is beneficial to a case, such as motives, intentions, and identification of more crimes.  The most important point is that a physical person that has been identified, or even arrested, does not give a complete identity of that person.  It is only the physical identity.  Investigators should strive to compile a complete identity that includes digital identities.

So what’s in it for you?

Building a case against a suspect requires more than just finding evidence.  A case needs evidence to point to a suspect as well as showing motive and opportunity.  Providing evidence of every identified persona of a suspect paints a picture of the suspect, to include intent, desires, motive, behaviors, and overall character to add to the supporting evidence.  In short, you get a better case.

The Complete Identity

A physical identity (aka biometric identity) and digital identity comprises the complete identity of a person.  Biometrical features of a person, such as fingerprints and eye color, are bound to the physical identity and typically permanent to the person depending on the feature.  Although eye color can be temporarily changed with color contacts and hair can be temporarily dyed to a different color, the majority of physical features cannot be changed without drastic injury or surgery. 

Internet users create digital trails of use and subsequently (and without intention) create digital personas based on their unique computer use.  The normal, everyday use of the Internet creates a digital identity that is based on Internet surfing habits (the Websites visited), communications made online through forums, chats, e-mails, blog posts and comments, and through the accounts created for online services to include online shopping.

Compiling the digital identity and physical identity may seem like an obvious and easy task, but assembling the identities is not so simple.  In an ideal case, a suspect has a single physical identity and a single digital identity, but in reality, a person may have multiple physical personas tied to a single physical identity and multiple digital personas.  Some personas may be intentional while others unintentional.  For example, a criminal wanting to travel in a name other than his true name may create or purchase a fake driver’s license. As he goes about using the fake or stolen driver’s license, he creates a persona under the false name.  Although this persona is not truly a ‘physical’ identity, as it is not biometrically tied to a physical body, it is part of his physical identity as he uses the false name as if it were his true name. 

One example of a digital identity is the accumulation of normal Internet and computer use.  A person’s computer use is generally a reflection of that person’s personality, desires, and intentions.  The unique activity of one device is typically replicated across devices under that person’s control.  For instance, given a new computer, a user will configure it by personal preference by arranging icons, colors, sounds, and folder structure to save.  When the user has an additional computer, both computers will have a very similar order of computer activity when used over time and will even look the same, such as the placement of desktop icons and wallpaper choice.  Configurations of the computers will likely be similar, if not exact for some items, and Internet use will most certainly mirror each other by bookmarks and frequently visited Websites.  Merely comparing the type of computer use and configuration between two or more devices can give an indication that the same person used all of the devices. 

Adding to the complexity of finding both digital and physical identity of a suspect is that of multiple aspects of both types of identity.  A person leading a double life may have two spouses and two jobs with one being a false identity.  This person is physically tied to both identities, even if the false identity contains no true information.   Leading a double life is an extreme example of a fake physical identity, and examples that are more common include using a fake ID to make consumer purchases, or using fake names to register at hotels.  The depth of a fake physical identity depends upon the person’s intention and resources. Types of physical identifiers are seen in the following figure.

Digital identities, being far easier to create, generally mean that any one person can have multiple, or even hundreds, of fake digital identities.  A harassment suspect may have dozens of online identities that he uses to harass a single victim or victims through repeated e-mails from different e-mail accounts created to appear as different people.  In any investigation, treat each digital identity as its own identity that will be tied to a physical person at some point in the investigation.  Each identity gives information about a person based on the fake identity, whether the only information is the username of an e-mail or a completely falsified social networking account.

An example of having multiple digital identities is that of one fake identity used to create specific online accounts and a different fake identity used to create other specific online accounts.  In this manner, a person is simply trying to distance himself from something (such as registering for a pornographic Website) by using a fake digital identity while using a different fake identity to distance himself from other aspects of his online life.  An investigator who can identify the fake accounts adds to the case by showing the intentionally hidden aspects of a personality, motive, or intention of the real person based on the real person’s actions under the fake digital identities.  A pedophile whose physical identity has no ties to pedophilia may appear innocent until fake digital personas are found and tied to his physical identity.

Of note is that each person has a true physical identity and a true digital identity.  Typically, the true digital identity shows the real information, such as a real name, and is easily tied to the physical person.  However, every identity and persona (real and fake, digital and physical) should be compiled together to show the complete identity of a person.  False information is just as important as the true information to build a complete picture of a suspect.

A great example of tying a physical identity to a false persona is in the Silk Road case where the creator of Silk Road (Ross Ulbricht) used his public e-mail/forum (rThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) account on the open Internet to market the Silk Road.  One simple post eventually tied his legitimate physical identity to a secret, false, and criminal persona on the Dark Web site, the Silk Road.

Identifying the digital identity becomes easier as Big Data continues to grow exponentially through massive data collection by government and corporations.  Social media sites contribute to identifying digital identities as the connectivity between sites exists through single usernames, using the same e-mail address across online accounts, and algorithms created to ‘find’ friends based on relationships and Internet use.  The digital identity is the sum of all electronic information of a person.  Corporations have been compiling digital identities of consumers in order to focus on advertising efforts.  Investigators should focus on compiling digital identities of suspects to determine motive and opportunity.

Any investigation benefits by compiling the complete identity of suspects.  Whether the identities contain true information about a suspect is not as relevant as tying the identities and personas to a person. Motives and intentions are clearer with a complete picture of a person in both the physical and digital worlds. 

Now that you know the ‘why’, become competent in the ‘how’ in each investigation with thorough research to find the connection between each identity in order to place your suspect at the keyboard.  Digital forensic skills are necessary and important, but solid cases usually need some old fashioned, gumshoe detective work too.

I was part of an interesting and product online podcast today.   You can check it out at: http://nopskids.com/live/

The topics ranged from hacking, forensics, how to catch hackers, and a little on how criminals sometimes get away with it. Although I didn’t give any tips on how to get away with a crime, other than DON’T DO IT, I did speak a little on some of the things that can be found forensically on a hard drive.  Actually, I think I only had time to talk about one thing (the Windows registry) for a few minutes and nothing of which that has any impact on a criminal using the information to get away with a crime.

The one thing I wanted to stress that even if every top secret, secret squirrel, spy and investigative method was exposed, criminals would still get caught using the very techniques they know.  Proof in the pudding is seeing cops being arrested for committing crimes.  You’d figure they would be the most knowledgeable of not getting caught, but they get caught. Same with accountants being arrested for fraud, and so forth.  I’ve even arrested criminals when they had in their possession, books on how not to get caught.   The most diligent criminal can be identified and arrested by simple mistakes made and sometimes by sheer massive law enforcement resources put on a single case to find a criminal or take down an organization.

With that, I learned a few things from the podcast too.  One of the moderators was actually a case study in my latest book (Hiding Behind the Keyboard).  To be an expert, to be knowledgeable, and to be more than just competent requires talking, listening, and sharing.  That doesn’t mean sharing trade secrets or confidential information, but it does mean having conversations to learn your job better.

When I worked as a jailer, I talked to every person I booked (at least the sober arrestees and those cooperating with the booking process).  I asked personal questions like, “how did you get started with drug use?” and “how did you start doing X crime”?  I learned a lot after hundreds of bookings.  I learned so much that when I make it to patrol and hit the streets, I had a big leg up on the criminal world, in how it worked with people.  That directly helped me in undercover work.  I spoke to so many criminals, both as a police officer and as an undercover (where they didn’t know I was a police officer), that I learned how to investigate people who committed crimes.  I was darn effective.

The point of all this is that talking to “the other side” is not a terrible idea.  Working on the law enforcement side, I promise that if you have a conversation with a criminal defense expert, you will learn something to help win YOUR case.  If you talk to a hacker, you will learn something to help figure out YOUR cases.  The best part, like I said, nothing you give will make a criminal’s job easier.  In fact, anything you say will only make them worry and make more mistakes.

If you are more-than-competent, you can do your job like a magician.   My first undercover case was buying a gram of meth from a cold phone call of a guy I didn’t even have a name for.  As soon as we met, I recognized the meth dealer as someone I arrested a half dozen times when I was in patrol.   Luckily for me, he didn’t recognize me and believed my UC role.  Arrested, booked, and convicted.  This was a career criminal with dozens of arrests who probably met more cops that I ever did at that time.  Still, he was arrested, by me, because I was more-than-competent in my job.  Digital forensics work is no different.

Talk to everyone and share.  I promise you will get more than you give.  And there is no shame in learning that you don't know it all, because none of us do.

I had the amazing honor of speaking before a full room at Enfuse this week.  This was not only my first time speaking at Enfuse, it was my first time at Enfuse. The conference was put together well.  Kudos to poolside event coordinator.  Those who know my forensic tool choices also know that I do not use Encase as my primary forensic tool.  However, I have a license for v7 and have used Encase since v4 (with sporadic breaks of use and licensing).

This year at Enfuse, I did not speak on any forensic software (or hardware) at the conference. I gave a snippet of two recent books I published (Placing the Suspect Behind the Keyboard and Hiding Behind the Keyboard).  I say “snippet” because one hour is not even near enough time to talk about the investigative tips in the books.  I was able to give a few good tips that I hope someone will be able to take the bank and boost case work.   I could spend weeks talking about investigative methods of not only finding suspects that are using computers to facilitate crimes, but also to place them at a specific device with both forensic analysis and traditional investigative techniques.   

After my talk, I received emails from some who did not or could not attend my Enfuse talk; I am providing my slidedeck for them and others who may want to see high-level notes from the Powerpoint slides.  However, I removed a number of slides that had personally identifiable information to avoid any embarrassment from Google searches and cases.  I did not get to a few slides in the presentation due to time (only one hour!), and I removed them as well.   Nonetheless, the meat and potatoes of the presentation is in the below PDF.

A few toughts on digital forensic skill development and giving away investigative secrets

Forensic examiners/analysts generally follow the same path in skill development, with some exceptions of course.  For most of us, the tools are just plain neat and we initially focus on the tools.  High tech software and using the type of hardware that you cannot find at Frys turns work into play.  We dive into the box, swim around in it for days, weeks, or even months, and then we pull out every artifact we can to write a report of what happened ‘in the box’.  Writing a report usually means pushing the "Create Report" button. I suggest that every examiner go through this stage quickly and move forward.  Get it out of your system as soon as you can. There is more to digital forensics than the toys, I mean, tools.

Digital forensics investigators must investigate, unless your job is solely looking at data because someone else is investigating the case.  This is where leaving the stage of ‘playing with high-tech toys’ turns the new forensic examiner into a real digital forensics crime fighter.  When an examiner can integrate data recovered from ‘the box’ with information collected from ‘outside the box’, using any tool and investigative method available, we have a competent and effective digital forensics investigator, not just a tool user.

I have always believed that a good digital forensics investigator can practically use any software, as long as the software can do the job, without relying on the software to do the complete job.  Pushing a button to find evidence, then pushing another to print a report does not a forensic analysis make.  Just as Picasso could paint a masterpiece only using an old paintbrush and watercolors, a good forensic examiner can make a great case with only using a hex editor and gumshoe detective mindset.  The high-tech tools should be used to make the work easier and faster without becoming a crutch.

And that was the inspiration of why I wrote Placing the Suspect Behind the Keyboard and Hiding Behind the Keyboard, boiled down in two simple intentions:

1) To push forensic examiners out of the high-tech toy reliance into becoming a well-rounded, effective, efficient, and competent investigator.

2) As a reminder to the former investigator-turned-forensic-analyst to get back into the investigative mindset.

If you are currently in the ‘gotta-have-the-most-expensive-tools-on-the-planet’ stage while at the same time not working outside the CPU, don’t fret. It happens to most everyone, and not just in the digital forensics field.  When I was a young Marine, I went to the local army surplus store and base PX to buy every cool tool I could think that would help me in the field.  I had so many ‘tools’ that my ALICE pack looked like a Christmas tree dangling a five years' worth of trinkets from New Orleans’ Mardi Gras parades.  After one trip to the field, I realized how much money I wasted on unnecessary gear (if you could actually call some of those things I bought "gear"..) and focused on using only the things that work and making things work for me.  Digital forensics work is no different.  Consider yourself DFIR SEALTeam 6 once you can work a case using ANY computer and ANY tool.

Giving away trade secrets?

There is a long-standing problem in the digital forensics world: Sharing, or rather, lack of sharing.  Yes, experts and practitioners share their work, but many do not.  I completely understand why.  When you share your ideas and research to the public, there is a fear that the bad guys will see it and use it for their benefit.  The fear is that once the methods are known to the criminal world, the methods become ineffective.

In short, that thinking is incorrect.

First off, cybercriminals and criminals, in general, share information with each other.  They share the methods when they work together to commit crimes, they share it online,  and they share it during their stays in the big house.  Still, they get caught.  Still, they make mistakes. Still, the methods work against them.  I have even arrested drug dealers when they had in their possession, books on 'how not to get caught dealing drugs'.  Cybercrime is no different.  An entire website can be written on how to get away with crime on the Internet and read by every cybercriminal, and yet, they can still be identified, found, and arrested.  

Second, lack of sharing only hurts us all. If you were to find a better way to find evidence, but keep it to yourself, the entire community stagnates.  But when shared, we push ourselves ahead in skills.  Do not be afraid that the bad guys will get away with crimes if they know how you catch them.  Just as watching a Youtube video on Marine Corps boot camp does not make boot camp any easier, criminals that know how we place them behind a keyboard does not negate the process that can place a suspect behind a keyboard.  In fact, the more they know, the more chance they will slip up more than once out of sheer fear of how easy it is to put enough investigative resources to find a criminal that cannot be countered with any amount of preparation.  

    If you have been in the digital forensics world for more than a day, then you know about peer reviews of analysis reports.  If you have ‘only’ been doing IR work where forensics isn't the main point (as in taking evidence collection all the way to court), then you may not be reading reports of opposing experts.  Anyway, the opposing expert peer review is one of the scariest reviews of all since the reader, which is again, the opposing expert, tries to find holes in your work.  The peer review is so effective to push toward doing a good job that I think it prevents errors by the examiner more than it does help opposing experts find errors of the examiner.  Peer reviews take different shapes depending on where it is being done (review of a book draft, review of a report, etc...) but in general, a peer review is checking the accuracy of the written words.

    Academia has always been under the constant worry of peer reviews.  One professor's journal may be peer reviewed by dozens of other professors in the same field, with the end result being seen by the public, whether good or bad. Peer reviews are scary, not for the sake that you made a mistake, but that maybe you could have missed something important that someone else points out to you.

    If you read a tech book and write a review of it (formally in an essay/journal, or informally on social media), consider yourself a peer reviewer of tech writings.  That which you say, based on what you read, is a peer review of that material.  Think about that for a second.  If you are in the field of the book you are reviewing, you practically are tech reviewing that book for accuracy (so make sure you are correct!).  That is a good thing for you as it boosts your experience in the field.  Always be the expert on the stand who can say, “I’ve read x number of forensic books and have given x number peer reviews on social media, Amazon, essays, etc….”.  If for nothing else, this shows more than that you just read books.  You read for accuracy and give public review of your findings. Nice.

    There is some stress in writing a peer review because you have to be correct in your claims.  Sure, maybe some things in the book could have been done a different way, but was it the wrong way?  The manner in which you come across in a peer review is important too.  Crass and rude really doesn't make you look great on the stand if you slam a book or paper.  You can get the point across just as well by being professional.

    Writing books takes no back seat to peer review stress, especially when it comes to technical books.  Not only does the grammar get combed by reviewers, but the actual technical details get sliced and diced.  Was the information correct? Was it current and up-to-date?  Is there any other information that negates what was written in the book?

    So, to get any positive reviews makes for a good day.  Not for the sake of ego, but for the sake of having done it right so others can benefit from the information.  Writing is certainly not about making money as  much as it is putting yourself out there to share what you have learned at the risk of having your work examined under a microscope by an unhappy camper.

    Which brings me to my latest reviews for Hiding Behind the Keyboard.  This is my third tech book (more to come in both nonfiction and fiction) and with each book, I have always cautiously looked at Amazon book reviews each time.  Not that I have written anything inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading, but that I just want to have written something useful in a topic that I wish existed when I started out in the digital forensics field.  My best analogy of what it is like to write a book is to walk outside to your mailbox nude and then check Facebook to see what people say about you…then do it again.  At least I don't have a Facebook account...

    So far, the reviews for my latest book show that I did a good job (my gratitude to the reviewers).

And that brings me to another point of this post. 

    One of the social media reviewers is actually in a case study in the book.  Higinio Ochoa read and reviewed my book in a Tweet (as seen below).   

Finally finished reading @Brett_Shavers "Hiding behind the keyboard" and let me tell ya, the man killed IT! https://t.co/2qlQIDTYRn

— Higinio Ochoa (@0x680x690x67) April 29, 2016

    You will have to check the Internet to get Hig’s story, or read it my book…  Suffice to say he was a hacker who was caught, and then ended up as one of the case studies in my book.  Positive reviews from forensic experts are great, but so are reviews from former hackers that can double-validate the work.  Like I said, it takes a lot of guts to write a book and almost as much guts to peer review it in public.  That’s what we are doing when we write a review of a tech book.  We are all peer reviewers.

The King County Library System asked me to present on cyber safety topics in a very neat program they have (“When everyone’s talking about it..”).  I have been giving two separate, but related presentations and both have been well-received by those who have attended.  Mine is but a small part of the KCLS program.  I have even attended presentations that I had interest  (like the presentation on drones!).  

For the most part, I have skipped over the basics in my presentations. There really isn’t much need to talk about “what is email” or “the Internet is a bunch of computers connected together”.  We all know that kind of information.  Rather, I have been giving practical advice on what to do right now to reduce the risk of having your devices compromised by hackers and reducing the risk of predators accessing your children online.  Every bit of information I talk about is real time applicable, from reducing your digital footprint to surfing the Internet while maintaining your privacy.  I even show how to use the Tor Browser and encrypted email!

In every presentation, I am seeing parents take notes furiously, ask serious questions, and show a genuine interest in online safety for their families and themselves.  For me, this is easy stuff.  I have already raised two kids in the digital age of Facebook and cell phones (hint: they survived, but still not easy).  And I have investigated cybercriminals (hackers, child pornographers, and others who have used technology to commit crimes).  That is the biggest benefit to attendees I try to give.  Cram as much pertinent information from what I know into an afternoon or evening presentation that can be put to use right away.  Free to anyone.

This is one of the few presentations you can step out the door and put the information to use before you get home.

But if you think this is just another Internet safety program, you are mistaken.  I go through how to use social media to help get (or keep) a job, get into (or prevent getting kicked out) of school for families and individuals, and reduce the risk of cyberbullying.  I show how easy it is for anyone to be a victim by clicking the wrong link or opening the wrong email along with ways to identify the dangerous links and emails. The term "Third party provider" takes on a whole new meaning to attendees when they are shown the ways their personally identifiable information (PII) can be stolen when stored on third party service providers such as their health insurance company or a toy company.

Most importantly, I answer tough questions. Although I give some guidance on creating family rules and personal use of technology, I leave it up to the invididual and family to decide what is appropriate. My guidance is to show how to create rules on the foundation of safety. Everything else is up to personal morals and values.

I’d like to credit the King County Library System for adding these presentations to their program this year because cyber safety is probably one of the most important topics today.   Everything comes down to cyber.  Whether it is personal information being leaked or hacked online or a child being lured from home, cyber is serious.  You can use technology safely and still enjoy the benefits but to ignore safety is like betting the farm on the Roulette wheel.  You never know when your number will come up, but when it does, it will hurt and hurt for a long time.

As far as this program (When everyone's talking about it) goes, KCLS nailed it.  I have organized more than a dozen training events and several conferences over the past decade.  I know exactly the effort needed to put something like this together and KCLS did it right.  If you are in King County, Washington, you really should check out the programs.  They do a fantastic job at a price you can't beat anywhere.  

As for me, I only have two more talks left.  All you need to do is show up.  No RSVP.  No charge.  Free parking.

Again, kudos to KCLS for putting this great program together.  Let's do it again next year.

----------------------------------My next talks----------------------------------

Cell Phones in the Family

Woodmont Library

26809 Pacific Hwy S, Des Moines, WA 98198

April 30, 2016      2PM – 3:30PM

Cell Phones in the Family

Newport Way Library

14250 SE Newport Way, Bellevue, WA 98006

June 23, 2016       7PM – 8:30PM

Never thought I would still see this happening…

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/seattle-police-raid-home-privacy-activists-who-maintain-tor-anonymity-network-node-1552524

I have personally seen warrants served on the wrong address on two occasions.  The first was a drug investigation where the lead detective went to the wrong door to an apartment.   The warrant was correct in having the correct address, but the detective didn’t take the time to check the numbers on the door…

The second time I witnessed a wrong door entry was when the lead detective had the wrong address on both the search warrant and affidavit.  The detective never even corroborated the information to find the right address.  Basically, the detective looked down the street and picked the house she thought was the drug dealer’s house.  After SWAT kicked in the door and broke a few things in the process, it took all of 5 minutes to realize that it was the wrong house.  The drug dealer was on the next street over…the victim house got a new door from Home Depot and carpet cleaning paid for by the task force.  

Both of these warrants taught me something that I will never forget.  Before you kick in the door, make sure you got the right door.  After you make sure you got the right door, make sure again.  Then ask your partner to double-check that you got the right door. Then get a warrant and kick it in if the suspect doesn’t open it for you.

After investigating drug crimes, I went into cyber cases.  The same fear of entering the wrong house became even more worrisome since relying on IP addresses is not the same as relying on your eyes. You have to rely upon a fax from an Internet service provider for the address.  In an investigation case of following a suspect to his home, it is easy to physically see the house for which you plan to swear to in an affidavit.  But with an IP address, you have to rely on some third party service provider to give you the subscriber at the physical address where the IP address exists and trust that the information is accurate. That is at least one step before swearing to an affidavit to ask for authority to force your way into someone's home.  Investigators must still confirm that their suspect and/or evidence is at that particular and specific address, which requires at least some legwork to confirm the physical address.

When Tor is used by a criminal, relying on the IP address is worse than a bad idea, especially since it is so common knowledge that an exit node on the Tor network has nothing to do with the origin of any data that flows through it, other than the data flows through it.  I have taught and wrote about Tor as it relates to criminal/civil investigations for several years now, each time repeating:

IP address ≠ a person

MAC address ≠ a person

Email address ≠ a person

Tor IP address ≠ the address you want

CSI Cyber regularly does one thing right…whenever the cybercriminal uses Tor (proxies) on the show, the Hollywood FBI hackers don’t even try to trace it because they know that a proxy is not going to lead back to the cybercriminal.   They then resort to other means to find the cybercriminal before the hour ends.  Not that any of their other methods are realistic, but at least they got Tor right.  Anyone watching CSI Cyber even one time is exposed to explanations that tracing cybercriminals using Tor is virtually impossible.  This is the “CSI effect” in reverse.

Since TV show viewers can figure it out, you can imagine my surprise seeing this tweet today:

Rousted 6 am naked out of bed by @SeattlePD. Warrant to search for child porn. They knew the IP address was a #Tor exit, came in anyway.

— David W. Robinson (@jdormansteele) March 30, 2016

I don’t have access to the case reports, nor know anyone involved, but the one thing I can tell is that if this case was based on an IP address alone, I cannot fathom why no one checked to see if the IP address was a Tor exit node.  Checking a Tor exit node takes about 10 seconds.  The Tor Project even helps and provides everything you need.

https://check.torproject.org/cgi-bin/TorBulkExitList.py

Certainly, there are probably other details that could have led to going to the ‘wrong’ house, but running a Tor relay should not be one of those details.  At least currently, it is not illegal to run a Tor exit node.

The best analogy I can give to how relying on a Tor exit node to accurately reflect the physical address is that using an envelope.  Consider a criminal committing a crime through the mail (mailing drugs or something like that).  Instead of putting his address as a return address, he puts your address as the return address, drives to another city, and drops the package in a mail box on the side of the street.  Let’s say the police seize the package of drugs at its destination and then kick down your door because your return address was on the package.  Any investigator charged with tracking criminals online must (not should) be aware of how Tor works.  Even in the private sector investigating employee misconduct, or IP theft, knowing how Tor works is mandatory when IP addresses are involved.  You just can't get around knowing it unless you don't mind kicking down the wrong door one day..

https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en

On side note, I am one of the biggest advocates of those who have the job of tracking, investigating, arresting, charging, prosecuting, convicting, and incarcerating predators of children.  I have not a bit of compassion for these criminals and I cannot imagine anyone feeling any different.

Coincidently, I gave a presentation on this very topic at an ICAC conference in the Seattle area last year…oh well.

UPDATE: APRIL 8, 2016

Link to the search warrant affidavit:  AFFIDAVIT

There always comes a time when an obscure, yet important concept, leaves the technical world and enters the main stream.  Recovering deleted files was one of those where we pretty much knew all along not only that it can be done, but that we have been doing it all along. The Snowden releases were another aspect of ‘yeah, we knew this all along, but the GFP (general f’ing public) was oblivious.

Encryption is just the most current ‘old’ thing to make the limelight.  Whenever something like this happens, there are ton of people ringing the end-of-the-world bells, clamoring that national security will be lost, and personal freedoms take a back seat to everything.  It happens all the time and when it happens, there is a fire to make new laws on top of thousands of other laws, in which the promise of better safety and security is as strong as a wet paper bag holding your groceries on a windy and rainy day.

Legally, it is super easy to ban, control, and/or regulate encryption. A stroke of the pen with or without citizen oversight can make it happen quickly and painlessly.  One signature on the last page of a law that is a ream in size is all it takes.

Practically, it is impossible to completely eliminate or control or regulate encryption.  The only thing laws will do is restrict the sale of encryption products by corporations.  Encryption exists in the minds of mathematical practitioners and can be recreated over and over again. You can't blank out someone’s brain (I hope not…).  Encryption is available everywhere on the Internet, from software programs that are FREE and OPEN SOURCE to download and even in TOYS that can be bought off Amazon.com.  These 'toys' work by the way.

Go ahead and ban encryption and people will just buy a $10 toy to create cipher text for emails.  Tor use will skyrocket as will third party online privacy providers operating in safe harbors overseas.  Banning encryption or breaking the trust of companies like Apple will only result in loss of business for corporations and (more) loss of trust by consumers of both corporations and government.  Even if encryption is not banned, but under the complete control of any government, that particular piece of technology won’t be used for anything other than entertainment. No business is going to transmit sensitive intellectual property data through an insecure system.  No government is going to use a system that can be more easily compromised by enemies or hackers.

The end result of banning encryption is creating a whole new class of “criminals” who just want to protect their private communications.  “Private” does not mean “illegal”.  Controlling the source code of Apple is only going to cause Apple to end up with 3 employees who will their only customers.  Not even the government will use Apple if they know the source code has been compromised...especially if compromised by the government itself.

Not long ago, I gave a presentation on Internet investigations to a group of law enforcement investigators.  One of the first questions I asked was 'Given authority and ability, what would like to see done in regards to the Internet?".  Most answers were to 'lock it down', 'watch everything', 'control it all', and "give government complete control".  At the end of the presentation, no one felt that way after I explained how that will negatively affect everyone down to the individual person business, including the government.  Ignorance may be bliss, but that doesn't make ignorance a good idea.

If this 'ban encryption bandwagon' keeps going, the next thing we will see is envelope regulations requiring the paper to be transparent, just in case the government needs to read your mail without opening it.

If only the FBI had picked a case where the issue was clear cut…that would make this encryption issue so much easier.

1. The FBI doesn’t want Apple to simply “unlock” the phone.

Apple (and just about every other high tech company) has been unlocking devices and allowing access to data for law enforcement for decades.  That’s not the issue here.  The FBI wants the encryption to be broken. They want software to be rewritten or written that compromises security features. That’s a lot different than just unlocking a device.  That request breaks security.  Worse yet, it sets a precedent.  Law enforcement knows about precedent setting laws. Sometimes it is good, but sometimes it is not.

2. It’s not the end of the world if encryption is broken.

Our lights will still turn on. Cars will still run.  Kids will still be able to go to school.  However, online payment systems will be as protected as a wet paper bag, secure communications will be as secure as Windows 3.1, and anything you send electronically is fair game to hackers (and government).  But don’t worry. If encryption is banned or broken, there will still be those able to use encryption (hint: one is government and the other is not law-abiding citizens).

3. “Terrorist will Go Dark” is the best marketing ever created by government. 

The only time terrorists are not operating in the dark is when they use social media in the open, print terrorism training manuals (which are then posted online), and killing people in the open.  Plus, they still have to drive, fly, walk, eat, sleep, talk, go to the doctor, read a book, watch TV, and surf the Internet.  Terrorist and criminals have all the faults of ‘regular’ folks like complacency, laziness, incompetence, and bad luck when they plan and commit terrorist acts.  I've published two books on catching criminals (and terrorists) with online and forensic investigations.  You can put both books in the hands of a terrorist and the methods to find and catch them will still work.  "Going dark"? If a criminal or terrorist can do all the things needed to carry out their devious plans in encrypted emails ONLY, their plans are going to stink.  Planning an attack or conspiring to commit a crime requires way more than sending encrypted emails.  Working undercover in criminal organizations did teach me a thing or two in how it really works and how they really think and plan.

4. You have nothing to hide, so what’s the big deal?

The government claims that since you cannot build a house that is impenetrable, you should not have use of encryption that can’t be broken.  Well..if I could make my home impenetrable, you bet I would. If I could buy a safe that was unbreakable, I would.  They just don’t exist.  It’s not that I have anything illegal to hide in a safe, but I don’t want anyone to steal what I have.  It’s not that I have anything top secret in an email, but I just don’t want strangers reading what I am sending to a friend, or to a business colleague.  The point is NOT having something to hide, but rather, NOT hanging my underwear in the front yard on a clothesline for anyone to see or steal (that is, if they wanted to steal my undies…).

And of course, if Apple loses, or bows down to government pressure, I can think of at least one less customer who will buy a "secure" device from Apple since the definition of "secure" will change to "that which you can't break, but hackers and government can". 

I had a discussion with a peer of mine about writing a book, in that my peer has been thinking of writing a book but never gets around to doing it.  After about two years of listening to how he should write his book, my response was “Dude, stop talking about it and write the darn book.”

His book idea is a nonfiction technical book and is about **secret topic** (of course I’m not leaking the topic or title!).  He is an expert, or at least knows a heckuv a lot more about the topic than I do.  I would buy the book tomorrow.  I even said that if he had written this book when he first told me about it, we’d be talking about the next edition and I would have already bought the first edition.  "Dude, you’re two years and two editions behind now!”

Which brings me to my point. Years ago, I said the same thing.  “Hey, I think I could write a book.” I said it a few people and one of the guys told me, “Dude, just write the darn book.” And so I did.  Three times already. Started a fourth. Plans for a fifth.  All from one person telling me to stop talking about it and write the book.  I took the suggestion to heart because he had already published several books himself. Thanks HC.

Fair warning: It’s not easy.

If you can get a contract, you’ll have deadlines to meet, standards to keep up, and demands placed on you by the publisher. Worse yet, if you don’t have a contract and want to self-publish, you have to place those same demands on yourself.

So now you know the secret. Just write the darn thing.

I’ve been involved in about a half dozen conversations, three different email threads, and twice as many emails with friends and clients about this Apple – FBI encryption issue.   It seems to be a divided opinion with no compromise, at least as far as I can see.

FBI's Fight With Apple Over Encryption May Erode European Trust in US - Newsweek http://news.google.com Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:24:00 GMT NewsweekFBI's Fight With Apple Over Encryption May Erode European Trust in USNewsweekMax Schrems, the Austrian who brought the Safe Harbor case to the European Court of Justice and won, tells Newsweek that the FBI's possible victory over Apple isn't too concerning to Europeans because it is a targeted access to data—not the pre ...and moreﾠ» Read more ...

Here is my opinion: “Let Apple develop their software as they see fit for business and consumer demand, as long as their actions do not violate law.” 

That means that I am in agreement with Apple choosing to not decrypt a dead terrorist's phone. I am not a pro-terrorist or pro-criminal person. In fact, in my previous law enforcement career, I arrested more criminals personally than the rest of my 100+ officer department did…combined.  Not once did I have to break the law, bend the law, or misinterpret the law to make any of my cases in patrol or as a detective. Not once did I ask for any leniency or looking the other way ‘just this one time’ to make a case or to gather evidence. Not once. Ever.

So for any law enforcement agency asking ‘just this once’ to do something does not mean ‘just this one time’. It means, “just this one time until we ask again.”  Technical issues aside, whether or not Apple can unlock the phone or just doesn’t want to unlock the phone, the bigger question is why should they?  If a landlord refuses to give a key to a residence that SWAT has a search warrant for, SWAT will just boot the door. They can't force the landlord to give up the key.  I know this analogy is weak in the key area since you can't break unbreakable encryption, but the concept holds true. You can't force the landlord to give up the key unless the key is some how evidence.

Yes, yes, yes, I know this is a terrorist case. I’ve been involved in terrorism cases before  and exactly know how important these cases are (as I have also investigated murders..they are also important). I have seen quite enough to know how important it is to catch pedophiles, murderers, and terrorists. None should be on the street.  But that doesn’t mean taking shortcuts, bypassing Constitutional Rights, or asking a corporation to bend the rules a little to make a case.  Investigators can do this in Hollywood films, but not in real life.  

And yes, I have had cases where evidence was so little that probable cause to arrest didn’t exist. But such is life in the USA. Get PC (probable cause) and make the case or go back to square one.

After 9/11 and we panicked as a country to capture every terrorist responsible, the PATRIOT Act was typed, printed, signed, sealed, delivered, and implemented in 60 seconds flat. I was a federal task force officer at the time the PATRIOT when into effect. I have never seen such authority given to federal law enforcement in such short order without hardly a concern by the citizens the PATRIOT Act targeted (as in, it targets everyone's communications).  We do not need to continue along the lines of granting more authority to do what can already be done under the authority that already exists which is restricted to protect individual rights.  I’ve seen it misused before and it ain’t pretty. It's wrong.

As far as encryption goes, when any encryption is broken or perceived to broken, no one should use it. When TrueCrypt was reported to be flawed, it practically died, as it should.  Broken encryption is like a wet paper bag. It looks like it will hold your groceries until you actually put groceries in it.

Former NSA Chief Michael Hayden Sides With Apple, Though Admits 'No Encryption Is Unbreakable' - Billboard http://news.google.com Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:38:22 GMT The Week MagazineFormer NSA Chief Michael Hayden Sides With Apple, Though Admits 'No Encryption Is Unbreakable'BillboardTim Cook's opinion that Apple should not develop a way to hack into the encrypted phone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters has earned an endorsement from an unlikely source, though it comes with a big "but." Michael Hayden, the former NSAﾠ...Ex-NSA, CIA chief Michael Hayden sides with Apple in FBI iPhone encryption fightThe Week MagazineFormer Director of CIA and N ... Read more ...

As for me, any software provider (or secure device provider) that tries to sell me encryption that is so good that no one, including the NSA, can get into it, they better mean it. A disclaimer of, “well, sometimes we might let the FBI access our encryption” means that I am going somewhere else. I have nothing to hide, but I also am not going to cut a hole in my bedroom wall for anyone to peer in and look whenever they want.

For those who fall back on the ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about’, I fully support your beliefs in waiving your protections. After all, I have given Miranda warnings more times that I can remember and I always asked the suspects if they wanted to waive their rights. Most said yes. It’s their right to waive their rights.  But for me, I’m not waiving anything and I’m not in agreement that the choice to waive or exercise my rights can be taken away because a case agent can’t get enough evidence without resorting to bending the rules ‘just this one time’.

I mean, really. Would you buy a safe to hold your most prized and valuable possessions  knowing that a master key exists? That's like trusting the safe in your hotel closet....

One of the hottest topics currently is the FBI vs Apple battle over encryption, in that the FBI wants Apple to rewrite their operating system in order for law enforcement to bypass Apple’s encryption.  The arguments on both sides are strong. Law enforcement must have the ability to bypass encryption in the name of national security.  Conversely, consumers (in the USA at least) are afforded protections in the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure.  The third part of this argument is security and safety of ALL electronic data.  If the legal argument stands that encryption is outlawed, that puts all data at risk of being compromised by criminals, disgruntled employees, and lackadaisical custodians of data.

Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's iPhone - New York Times

http://news.google.com Thu, 18 Feb 2016 02:59:37 GMT

New York TimesApple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman's iPhoneNew York TimesApple executives had hoped to resolve the impasse without having to rewrite their own encryption software. They were frustrated that the Justice Department had aired its demand in public, according to an industry executive with knowledge of the case ...Google's CEO just sided with Apple in the encryption debateThe VergeOn Apple, the FBI, encryption, and why you should be worriedVentureBeatApple, The FBI And iP ...

Read more ...

Encryption does not explicitly have to be banned to outlaw encryption. Once a legal requirement of encryption having backdoors is created, encryption is effectively outlawed.

But I’m not writing about the legalities of encryption, nor the Constitutional protections of being secure in your home and possessions. There are many others debating those issues.  I’m writing about the practical law enforcement investigative efforts with encryption being a small sliver of the topic.  By the way, much of the 'encryption protections' marketed by providers such as Apple is pure marketing...access already exists in many instances.

Apple can read your iMessages despite them being encrypted - SC Magazine

http://news.google.com Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:30:40 GMT

SC MagazineApple can read your iMessages despite them being encryptedSC MagazineDespite Apple taking a pro-encryption stance, with its CEO Tim Cook insisting that iMessages are safely encrypted, it turns out that if users backup data using iCloud Backup, they need to be aware that although Apple stores the backup in encrypted form ...

Read more ...

For example, law enforcement receives an abundance of training on an annual and ongoing basis for an entire career. This training covers everything from blood borne pathogens to the application of deadly force.  Investigators receive so much training in how to conduct investigations that range from a broad overview of criminal investigations to specific courses on blood spatter patterns, that any investigator can probably be considered an expert in their respective fields. I stopped counting my formal training hours after it went well over 2,000 hours.  That’s 2,000 hours of formalized, in the classroom training. I’d guess I have close to 3,000 hours now.  Investigators know how to do an investigation and do not need to bend Constitional Rights to do an investigation. The ends do not justify the means.

So consider the amount of training law enforcement receives. Encryption is one small sliver.  It is so small that investigators don’t even take training in it unless they are dedicated digital forensic analysts.  Encryption is such a small concern in most cases that encrypted files are many times ignored in the investigations simply because there is so much more overwhelming evidence to make the case that fighting with an encrypted file or system isn’t worth the effort without knowing how long it will take to crack it (if ever).

And that is my point, or at least one of my points.

To be fair, I am not discounting the importance that encrypted files and systems can give to an investigation.  But at the same time, I personally know of cases were suspects have purposely created thousands of encrypted files on storage media that contained meaningless data for the sole purpose of making an investigator’s job difficult.

My point is that investigators have such an array of investigative tools that they do not need to dip into areas where a person’s possessions and papers are no longer secure.  Although television’s CSI typically exaggerates the tools and capabilities available, there are some neat things that do some neat stuff that you can’t buy off the shelf at Radio Shack.  To the extent the government wants backdoors in encryption, they may as well as for a masterkey for every safe made...just in case they can't force open a safe. Would you ever purchase a safe knowing that someone (or many people) have a master key to your safe?

In the area of providing backdoors in encrypted devices, I am on the edge of saying that if anything, this leans in the area of laziness.  I have seen only ONE case where the only evidence was on one laptop which was encrypted.  All other evidence was circumstantial and would have made a difficult trial. That laptop, to this day and my knowledge, sits encrypted in evidence after years collecting dust. The suspect walked away, no charges. Highly frustrating.  

But that was the only case that I am personally aware.  I don’t know how many more are similar, but my guess is that the ratio is about the same.  But even if there were dozens of cases, I do not believe that waiving personal protections is worth those cases. In those cases, investigators need to do more work to find evidence NOT stored in the device.  Yes, that means getting out of the office. 

Not that I disagree with the ‘easy way’, but I do believe that some things must be done the ‘hard way’. That is just the way it is.  I started in law enforcement before the Internet took off for the average consumer and I left law enforcement when the Internet became what it is today.  I have seen investigators sit at their computers on a daily basis and leaving the office usually meant grabbing a cup of coffee at Starbucks.  Long term surveillance became a thing of the past for many.  Surveillance sometimes was not even on some investigators’ mind at all!  The entire tradition of being a gumshoe detective has been lost on so many.  About the only thing to get some detectives out of the office was the promise of overtime.

Back to the encryption issue. First, be prepared for analogy after analogy about how we should (and should not) have back doors in encryption.  Remember, any backdoor requirement negates the encryption, as in, it will no longer be encryption when anyone can have the key to access it. Analogies don’t always work well, but they are already being used to argue for (or against) backdoors.  Probably the best analogy in this encryption issue is that the government is simply asking you to give them a key to the backdoor of your home, and they are asking you to trust they will only use it when and if they need it. That completely negates the security of your home. 

Second, be prepared to hear that terrorists will not be found and criminals will go free.  Well, that is true, always has been, and always will be.  The government is restrained by the Constitution.  But even with the restraints, you have no idea of the absolute power a search warrant gives law enforcement until you have held one in your hands, forced your way into a person’s abode, and looked into every nook and cranny with unfettered access. To say law enforcement needs more power than that is to say we don’t need protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

I have also read comments where people have said, “I have nothing to hide, go ahead and look at what you want.” I totally support that argument. Anyone can waive their individual rights whenever they want. I’ve read Miranda Warnings more times than I can count and asked every person if they wanted to waive their rights. Most did.  I wouldn't.  Speaking of Miranda warnings, when the warnings were required to be given (if the suspect was in custody and being questioned), I can imagine the investigators crying over how cases will never be solved because we are telling criminals to not talk. Well...that didn't pan out.  They still talk and will always talk and always confess.  Some never will, regardless if they are given Miranda warnings, but the point remains that investigators must, and do, work within legal limits.

Where I diverge on a person waiving their rights is where everyone must be forced to waive their rights by having all their electronic devices and data accessible by law enforcement.  Again, once there is cause (probably cause), law enforcement can get pretty much anything they want, from kicking down a door to seizing all the funds in a bank account.  If technology eventually allows access into highly encrypted files, then they can have that too.  You don't have to open your door for the police, but if they have a warrant (or other authority, such as exigent circumstances), they will open the door.

As much as I would hate to see Apple close its doors, I would hope that if they lose the encryption battle, Apple simply shuts down in protest.  Consumers are already suspicious of companies that have covertly cooperated, without warrants, to capture and analyze data, and snoop everyone’s phone calls regardless if any individual was suspected of a crime. It’s not that you don’t have something to hide, you just don’t want someone from the government watching you in your home through a compromised webcam to make sure you aren’t doing something wrong.

The last point to make is that banning encryption is like banning anything. It doesn’t work. Banning something only makes new criminals out of non-criminals, allows criminals the only people to possess the banned things, and creates a black market.  If guns are banned, criminals will still have guns. Citizens who refuse to turn in their guns…they become criminals.  And guns will still be available on the black market. This is the same for encryption.  It will still be available and still used by criminals and terrorists. The only people who won’t use encryption (or who agree to allow backdoors) are those who wouldn’t be using it illegally anyway.

I feel for any investigator fighting an encrypted device for file (been there, done it, still doing it).  But a backdoor will not fix the problem. If Apple folds like a cheap card table and builds a backdoor, guess who won’t be using Apple products…criminals and terrorists… They will find something else, which leaves everyone else using an Apple product to know the security has been compromised.  The problem is not solved, it is multiplied.

I’m not bashing law enforcement, but I am saying to them that rather than trying to make laws and force private companies to do their bidding, get out of the office and work. Follow suspects around. Dig through garbage in trash runs.  Interview witnesses.  Develop informants.  Work undercover. Build cases. You don’t need 100% into everything from your desktop to build a case.

As far as the criminals and terrorists go…it does not matter how much they know about the limitations and extent of authority law enforcement has, because a good investigator can make a good case on any criminal or terrorist. I mean it.  There is not a criminal alive that can remain at large if a good investigator puts a case on him (or her). Encryption? So what.  Find evidence elsewhere, because if the only evidence you have is an encrypted device or file, you really don’t have much of a case. Dig and you will find.