Computer Forensics

Computer Forensics

Chapter 13

Ethical and Professional Responsibility in Testimony

USA PATRIOT Act, Section 225 gives immunity to one who complies with a court order or valid request for emergency assistance. If the government has a court order, there is no problem. Without a court order, however, immunity is not automatic because a court might later determine that the “emergency” was not valid

Imagine for example that you are a network administrator. A federal office comes to your office and says that he believes that a terror attack is planned in an hour. He needs confidential customer information in your custody. He does not have a court order, warrant, or any other formal authority. If you turn over the information, you may save lives, but you are also exposing yourself and your firm to potential civil liability if a court later determines that no valid emergency existed.

1. What ethical dilemmas do you face in this situation?

2. Discuss what you should do. How much evidence should you demand before you turn over the information?

3. In your opinion, does the heavy- handed use of techniques such as sneak and peak searches violate ethical rules or legal obligations under the Constitution? Explain your opinion

Chapter 12

Federal Rules and Criminal Codes

The majority opinion in Daubert v Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) was authored by Justice Blackmun. According to the opinion, “general acceptance” is not a necessary condition fo the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. But according to the Rules of Evidence, trial judges need to ensure that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.

1. Read “Daubert in a Nutshell” at www.daubertontheweb.com/Chapter_2.htm.

2. What was the Frye test? What rule replaced (supplanted) Frye?

3. How does Daubert help prevent “absurd and irrational pseudo-scientific assertions” by expert witnesses?

4. What was the response to the fear that Daubert’s new evidentiary standards would sometimes stifle courtroom debate?