Category Archives: Criminal Litigation Services

Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be criminals

vm escape
Let’s put this simply to begin: you don’t want your children to search the deep web or dive in the dark net. These would be, generally speaking, bad things.
In recent years, though, it’s gotten progressively easier to hide on the dark web. The code for The Onion Router (TOR) is getting a revamp in 2017, with the goal being stronger encryption — and letting administrators easily create full dark net sites that can only be discovered by a long string of essentially-unguessable characters. This could signal a next generation of hidden services. In the past, some of these sites have used a .onion address and declared that to hidden service directories. Now, it appears there will be an unique cryptographic key, and said key will be given to TOR hidden service directories. It’ll be a way for the dark net to become a bit easier to stay dark.
In the context of all this, how do you best protect your family? While some dark net sites are primarily in existence to avoid censorship in countries like China, there is a lot of non-family-friendly material on the dark web. You don’t want your children seeing a good portion of this content. How do you ensure that?
There is a fine line in these discussions, because it does involve some monitoring of your children’s activity online — and some parents don’t want to cross that line. But because of an increasing amount of pedophiles and illegal drugs on the dark web, vigilance is crucial. Some approaches include:
  • Be aware of what your kids search for/talk about with their friends
  • Check with their school to see how Internet research is being taught and monitored
  • Use the right software and trackers (I can be asked about some good options if you’d like)
  • Talk to them about the different types of content one comes across on the web
  • Explain to them explicitly what the dark web is vs. the “normal” web
  • Talk to them about the realities of cyber-bullying, which often occurs in dark web formats
Also bad, although less-discussed: many students use the dark web to cheat their way through high school, so have realistic discussions with your kids about what is happening in all their classes and how they view it contextually. If they don’t have good answers or backgrounds about what they’re learning, ask how they’re completing some of their work. If they stumble over those answers, there’s a chance dark web sites might be involved — and then you know it’s time to look at their histories.

Do users have a reasonable expectation of privacy on TOR?

On January 26, 2017, I testified in Federal court as an expert witness for the defense in a case.
The testimony was regarding The Onion Router (TOR), Dark Net, and Playpen.  The case involved Network Investigative Technique (NIT); the FBI had engaged in their Operation Pacifier, wherein, a Search and Seizure Warranted allowed FBI to seize and operate the server that hosted Playpen.  The FBI had then employed NIT to place Malware on the computer of visitors to the server that hosted Playpen.
I’ve testified in other cases before, but this was an interesting one because it brought up a lot of questions that are paramount for the current era. Namely: when a computer user uses TOR, do they have an expectation of privacy? Is that legally relevant? And should the general public look at TOR and assume an expectation of privacy?
Ultimately, the judge in this case (and others) said that users don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy on TOR. VICE explained this in a recent article too. The judge’s ruling was, in part, predicated on the idea that users give their IP address to connect to TOR; thus, the judge said, the IP address is “public information that … eventually would have been discovered.”
Now, the law is one of the slower-moving entities in terms of reacting to, and understanding, technology. I’ve seen this for years. In true form, then, they missed the boat on the TOR ruling. Users do reveal their IP address via a guard node when they log on, yes. But then TOR bounces data around the globe via different nodes, so no ISP can correlate which IP address is visiting which site.
You can technically identify a specific TOR user with advanced traffic correlation protocols, but to do so you’d have to control a massive number of nodes. It’s virtually impossible. The judge’s ruling seems to indicate that the government would have found another way to get IP addresses from TOR users, but then doesn’t talk about how that could have possibly happened. In fact, in this case the only reason the FBI was using NIT to begin with was because it couldn’t find another way to determine the true users of hidden sites.
I’m not going to come out and say that I’m a huge fan of TOR — some legitimately bad stuff happens on there hourly. But TOR users should have a legitimate expectation of privacy, and the general public should assume that expectation as well. Part of this is because people don’t understand how TOR works, and part is because of hyper-sensitivity these days around privacy issues as mobile and digital continue to scale globally. But there absolutely should be a legitimate expectation of privacy on TOR networks.

Dedicated and Fully Committed Criminal Litigation Services Help Defendants Resolve Their Case

Anyone can be charged with a crime he did not commit and face criminal prosecution. Though the US Constitution does have provisions deeming an accused not guilty until his “crime” is proven beyond reasonable doubt it does not always work that way. An accused has the right to a speedy trial according to Amendment VI and Amendment V safeguards him against self-incrimination. An accused may remain silent during questioning. Amendment IV prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. All these protections notwithstanding an accused may be convicted purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, especially in cases where digital evidence is involved. Prosecution may not be able to unravel digital evidence or may simply ignore it. It is for the defendant to hire a competent attorney well versed in getting to the root of the matter and even being able to unravel digital data and present it in a form that stands up as compelling evidence disproving the accusations and circumstantial evidence against the defendant.

Technology is here since quite some time. However, attorneys are more focused on various aspects of the law and may be quite unfamiliar with handling digital data, especially in instances of cyber crimes such as Ponzi schemes, bank frauds and white collar crimes. This is where services of an expert in computer and digital forensics prove to be invaluable.

Litigation, whether civil or criminal, is a drawn out and expensive affair. If, at the end, a wrongly charged defendant loses, he stands to spend time in prison, pay a hefty fine or both. In addition, his reputation is besmirched and he loses his social standing as well as his job. If convicted, once returned to society he cannot regain his previous status. He is marked forever. This may never have happen if he had the benefit of expert investigative assistance. Employing experts in examining witnesses, compiling testimony, unraveling digital data and even appearing on the witness stands can turn the tables in favor of the defendant.

One such organization committed to helping wrongly accused defendants is ICFECI. Dan James, an expert in computer forensics and a certified fraud examiner powers ICFECI and pursuance of its goals to provide investigative and adequate representation of defendant services under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3006A. If any one is embroiled in a criminal case as accused and has retained a lawyer for criminal litigation services then ICFECI provides indispensable investigative support that will help the lawyer defend the case for his client. Dan has a BS in criminal justice, is a licensed private investigator and has a wealth of experience in conducting investigations as well as compiling evidence. He and his team of experts at ICFECI diligently pursue every lead in order to prepare a rock solid defense. ICFECI’s expertise in computer and digital forensics proves especially invaluable in cases where digital data is involved. An individual may be wrongly involved through indirect, circumstantial inferences by authorities but Dan and his team unravels digital data to disprove such allegations.

Computer forensics is but one part of compiling evidence to support defendants by ICFECI criminal litigation services; examining witnesses and pursuing a paper trail as well as appearing on the stand as an expert witness are the other aspects. ICFECI and its team never give up even if the case appears to be hopeless. People wrongly accused of crimes have trusted ICFECI and have been acquitted.