Ready to Get Started?

If you’re in need of legal assistance or guidance, don’t hesitate to reach out to Casey Ebsary and his experienced team. They are here to help you navigate your legal journey with expertise and care.

Why Choose Casey Ebsary?

Casey Ebsary is not just any lawyer; he’s a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer. What does that mean? It means he’s exceptionally skilled and experienced in handling criminal cases. Whether you’re dealing with a legal issue or need expert advice, Casey is the professional you want on your side.

Convenient Office Location

Finding Casey’s office is a breeze. It’s situated near the Courthouse, which is just a short drive from Apollo Beach. The best part? They offer free parking, so you won’t have to stress about finding a parking spot. This means you can focus on what’s most important: your legal concerns.

Tell Us Your Story

Your unique situation is important, and Casey Ebsary wants to hear your story. To discuss your legal matters or get the guidance you need, call his team at (813) 222-2220. They’re approachable, understanding, and ready to assist you.

Summary

When it comes to legal challenges in Apollo Beach, Casey Ebsary is the attorney you can rely on. He’s an expert in handling criminal cases and is dedicated to helping you with your legal needs. Don’t hesitate to reach out to him at (813) 222-2220 for support or advice. Casey and his team are here to listen and assist you on your legal journey.

Ready to Get Started?

If you’re in need of legal assistance or guidance, don’t hesitate to reach out to Casey Ebsary and his experienced team. They are here to help you navigate your legal journey with expertise and care.

Many hearings are now conducted byTelephone or Video, Zoom, or Skype. Some Florida Courts have strict rules for appearing.

The year 2020 generated a lot of changes for us all. Chief among them are how to appear safely court proceedings. To that end, some Florida courts have initiated formal rules of procedures and electronic hearings. While many courts have not overflow of this, these new Federal rules have some common sense tips that we all can find useful.

Some judges have noted that parties have not dressed appropriately for court. Business casual or a suit and tie seems to be the preference for most judges.

Ask yourself, would someone really expect you to be on a beach in Hawaii

while you are involved in an possibly life changing matter in court?

In addition, some software packages allow for changing backgrounds, make sure in the background is appropriate to the formality of the court. Ask yourself, would someone really expect you to be on a beach in Hawaii while you are involved in an possibly life changing matter in court?

Some judges prefer and some courts prohibit appearing from your vehicle.

Make sure your phone and video connection is stable.

Some courts require only one speaker for each party to speak on behalf of their cause. When you’re not speaking try not to interrupt. Make sure you identify herself each time you speak.

Tips for Appearing

We use a headset, external microphone, studio lights, and a plain white background. Generally, we also use this equipment for our virtual meetings with clients, witnesses, and other lawyers.

Here are the actual rules that for one court that will be in effect starting in early 2021.

Chief United States District Judge, Timothy J. Corrigan encourages litigants to “Please visit the Court’s website for more information about the changes to the Local Rules, including a video presentation (that will qualify for CLE credit) and bullet point summary explaining the changes.”

Florida District Court Rules on Appearing in Court by Telephone or Video, Zoom, or Skype

If a judge conducts a proceeding by telephone or video, a participant:

(1) must dress in professional attire and use a professional background if either is visible,
(2) must use a landline if available,
(3) must designate one speaker for each party or interested person,
(4) must not participate from a vehicle,
(5) must use the mute setting when not speaking,
(6) must try to avoid background noise or other interference,
(7) must wait for the judge to address the participant before speaking and must not interrupt a speaker, and
(8) must start each distinct presentation by saying “this is [name]” or the equivalent.

Android Security Pattern

Feds cannot Bypass Android Security Pattern Screen Lock! After too many failed attempts phone is locked. Forensic software apparently cannot read a locked Samsung Android phone. We have just posted the FBI application for the search warrant issued to Google to tell Feds how to retrieve data here: Android Phone Search Warrant

Easy to Bypass Security Screen Lock on iPhone Wired has published a “quick method to circumvent an iPhone’s passcode-protected lock screen: tap the “Emergency Call” button, then enter three pound signs, hit the green Call button and immediately press the Lock button. That simple procedure gives a snoop full access to the Phone app on the iPhone, which contains the address book, voicemail and call history.”

Thanks to Wired Story here: m.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/fbi-android-phone-lock/

Search Warrant For a Phone? Call Casey at (813) 222-2220

“we are not inclined to believe that the Fifth Amendment should provide greater protection to individuals who passcode protect their iPhones “

A court in Florida just ruled that a defendant could be forced to provide the password to his iPhone. A distinction is important – they got a search warrant. Without a warrant, the case may have been decided in favor of protecting the phone owner’s privacy. The phone had a cracked screen and had been allegedly used to take photographs that would have been useful in the prosecution of the phone’s owner. You can review a typical iPhone Search Warrant here. At the bottom of this article are numerous other articles we have written on this topic.

Right to Remain Silent

Usually, we think that we have a right not to incriminate ourselves. However, this Florida Court in the Tampa Bay area ruled that providing the password did not constitute testimony against one’s self. In a convoluted 19-page ruling the court found that while there may be evidence of a crime, providing the passcode was not testimonial.

Here Are Some Excerpts from the iPhone Court’s Ruling.

“That an accused may be “forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents,” but he cannot “be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe,” Doe, 487 U.S. at 219 (Stevens, J., dissenting), is another often repeated quote. See, e.g., Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 43; Doe, 487 U.S. at 210 n.9; In re Grand Jury, 670 F.3d at 1345; Kirschner, 823 F. Supp. 2d at 669. Despite the many cases referencing the quote, we have found none that provide details of “surrender[ing] a key.” We question whether identifying the key which will open the strongbox—such that the key is surrendered—is, in fact, distinct from telling an officer the combination. More importantly, we question the continuing viability of any distinction as technology advances. See Fisher, 425 U.S. at 407 (“Several of Boyd[ v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)]’s express or implicit declarations have not stood the test of time.”). In that respect, we are not inclined to believe that the Fifth Amendment should provide greater protection to individuals who passcode protect their iPhones with letter and number . . . . ”

“In this case, the communication was sought only for its content and the content has no other value or significance.11 By providing the passcode, Stahl would not be acknowledging that the phone contains evidence of video voyeurism. See Doe, 487 U.S. at 215. Moreover, although the passcode would allow the State access to the phone, and therefore to a source of potential evidence, the State has a warrant to search the phone—the source of evidence had already been uncovered. See id. Providing the passcode does not “betray any knowledge [Stahl] may have about the circumstances of the offenses” for which he is charged. See id. at 219 (Stevens, J., dissenting). It does not implicitly “relate a factual assertion or disclose information.””

“The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination has been held to apply not only to verbal and written communications but also to the production of documents, usually in response to a subpoena or summons, because the act of production itself could communicate incriminatory statements. See Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410. The courts that have addressed the Fifth Amendment implications for providing decryption keys and passcodes have largely applied the act-of-production doctrine and the foregone conclusion exception. See, e.g., Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Huang, No. 15-269, 2015 WL 5611644, *1 (E.D. Penn. Sept. 23, 2015); United States v. Fricosu, 841F. Supp. 2d 1232, 1235 (D. Col. 2012); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Boucher (In re Boucher), 2:06-MJ-91, 2009 WL 424718, *2-3 (D. Vt. Feb. 19, 2009); Gelfgatt, 11 N.E.3d at 612; Commonwealth v. Baust, 89 Va. Cir. 267 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2014). But see United States v. Kirschner, 823 F. Supp. 2d 665, 669 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (concluding that providing the password was testimony protected by the privilege against self-incrimination).”

“Invoking the privilege still requires the accused to establish compulsion, a testimonial communication, and incrimination. And as we have said, in this case compulsion and incrimination are not at issue, leaving only the testimonial element. Testimonial elements of production include (1) the existence of the documents, (2) the accused’s possession or control of the documents, and (3) the authenticity of the documents. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36.”

“The difficult question whether a compelled communication is testimonial for purposes of applying the Fifth Amendment often depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Doe, 487 U.S. at 214-15. Here, the trial court rested its determination that producing the passcode would be testimonial exclusively on the concept that production would require “the use of the contents” of Stahl’s mind. The phrase “the contents of the accused’s mind” has often been repeated in cases discussing the privilege. See, e.g., Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 43; Doe, 487 U.S. at 211; In re Grand Jury, 670 F.3d at 1345; Kirschner, 823 F. Supp. 2d at 669. And although the trial court correctly quoted the Eleventh Circuit’s statement in In re Grand Jury, that “[t]he touchstone of whether an act of production is testimonial is whether the government compels the individual to use ‘the contents of his own mind’ to explicitly or implicitly communicate some statement of fact,” 670 F.3d at 1345, the trial court did not consider the law as stated in Hubbell and Doe—that the contents of the accused’s mind must be “extensive[ly] use[d]” in creating the response, Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 43, or must “relat[e] him to the offense,” Doe, 487 U.S. at 2013.10 That is, “it is not enough that the compelled communication is sought for its content. The content itself must have testimonial significance.” Doe, 487 U.S. at 211 n.10 (emphasis added) (first citing Fisher, 425 U.S. at 408; then citing Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 267 (1967); and then citing United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 222 (1967)). ”

“Although the phrase “the use of the contents of the accused’s mind” has been used in act-of-production cases, we note that the case cited by the Eleventh Circuit for its proposition that the use of the contents of the accused’s mind is the touchstone of whether an act of production is testimonial does not so hold. Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S. 118 (1957), provides that there “is a great difference” between compelled production of documents and compelled testimony, specifying that testifying as to the location of documents “requires him to disclose the contents of his own mind.” Id. at 127-28. ”

Source: STATE OF FLORIDAv AARON STAHL Case No. 2D14-4283 Opinion filed December 7, 2016.

He pleaded guilty to each count of a five-count indictment charging computer crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030. In pleading guilty, [the man] who is known as one of the members of the self-titled hacking group called ‘The Deceptive Duo,’ admitted that he unlawfully accessed computer systems of various federal agencies in April 2002, including the Department of Defense’s Defense Logistic Information Service (DLIS), the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), and NASA’s Ames Research Center (ARC). In particular, [the man] admitted that he: Gained unauthorized accessed to DLIS computers in Battle Creek, Michigan, for the purpose of obtaining files that he later used to deface an OHA website hosted on computers in San Antonio, Texas. “

Recently I reviewed a computer crime case where the dates on files on an SD card seized by the police, examined by the police computer forensic laboratory, and by a defense expert in computer forensics showed some unusual patterns in the dates of files that allegedly contained contraband. Those files on the SD-card were later the basis of criminal charges and an arrest. There were claims of evidence spoliation. “Spoliation” is a fancy word for tampering. Sometimes a Computer Crimes Experts can come in handy. During a lengthy interrogation by the Prosecutor there were some answers given that may apply to virtually any cases involving data stored on a mobile phone SD card.

Questions and Answers from Computer Crimes Expert Testimony on SD Storage Devices in Mobile Devices

What Are Hash Values in SD Cards and Stored Files?

“These are the hash values of that. That is a method that I use to be able to correlate that picture with the picture on the SD cards, things like that; but it’s a fingerprint. Every file has a unique fingerprint.”

What Is the Creation Date on a File Stored on an SD Card?

“I have seen instances where if a file was moved to another system, the creation date is what the current date is of that system. Because, as far as that system’s concerned, hey, it was created on my system today.”

What About iPhone, Where There Are No SD Storage Devices?

“For example, with iPhone being a proprietary system, you’re — you’re talking about something that’s an encrypted system and we constantly stay abreast . . . . “-

Do Both Police and Forensic Examiners Use Cellebrite?

“[W]e — as a company, in general, stay abreast of that, the changes there, as I’m sure your group has the same — same challenges. With that, we’re — we ‘ re always challenging our vendors. There’s three primary vendors we use, including Cellebrite, which you guys use, as well. But challenging them to stay abreast of it.”

What Is the Job of a Computer Forensic Examiner in Case Involving Cell Phone Data and SD Storage Devices?

“To look at it with the eyes of a computer forensic expert to determine whether the evidence being portrayed was accurate or if there was evidence being omitted or not looked at from a different way and we all know that when you’re looking at it from a prosecution point of view, you look at evidence from that angle. If you’re looking at it from a defense point of view, since I work both sides, I know I’m going to look at the evidence differently in cases because in one you’re trying to find underlying causes one way or another. So I felt my job in this was to look at the evidence to determine whether or not everything was being described accurately and completely.”

Are There Different Types of Files Stored on Mobile Device SD Cards?

“When you talk about system files, it’s a little bit more complex. The system does many, many things to make your life work better on a computer. And storage locations could be temporary areas; the system just uses and works with. That’s very beneficial to us in a forensic area because that can be very telling as far as how the system was used, what the system is doing, who’s doing what and what’s automatic, what’s not, what’s user initiated, what’s system initiated, all that is good. You can tell that from the temporary areas. There’s also caching areas.”

What Are Cache Files on an SD Card?

“Caching areas are when the computer does something and then it goes and does something else, it caches it out, caches something back in; that’s very telling of what’s going on in the system to us. Who initiated, whether it’s automatic, whether it’s deliberate, stuff like that. There is allocated resources, unallocated resources, deleted areas; there’s just a — just a plethora of stuff that the system does and there’s a lot of different storage locations. Now the ones that I’m focusing in on, for this particular case and this particular report, are the ones that, you know, give us telltale sign of something. And I would have to read it real quick here to know what we’re getting at. I was hoping you were going to ask something specific in here, but that’s basically an overview of what storage locations are.”

What Is the Significance of Where Files Are Stored on an SD Card?

“So storage locations, I gave you an example to help you understand how storage locations work, the difference between pictures and documents, stuff like that. The system is the same way. It does certain things, it will store them in different places. The other key point here then, also is that in — when you’re talking about the system storage locations, they’re not accessible by the user. These are areas that obviously if the user could access those, you could — you could destroy your system. But these are typically areas that are not accessible by the user. By us, yes, from a forensic point of view.”

Why Are System Storage Files Important?

“Because, depending on how the device acquired a particular piece of information, whether it be media or text or whatever, how it was — how it came to exist on the phone matters. And system storage can help us to determine that.”

Can Date Meta Data on an SD Storage Device Used on a Phone Be Altered?

“I’ve seen people fool that and they’ll put a cell phone in a shield bag in which case it doesn’t make connection; and there is an app, I think, that can change the date. So there’s people that could do things like that but in these particular cases, these were active and that’s really not the issue that I want to get into. The problem is that depending on the software use or how things come about — and it’s called a feature. And there’s a feature that when you take a file and you put it onto a system, that it maintains the original creation date that that particular, let’s say photograph you made, was maintained. And it’s a feature because you want to know that the Christmas of 2004 occurred on December of 2004, not when you happened to move it over there. So it is a feature of something. But then there are some operations when you move things over, and I’ve seen it before because I’ll see stuff come to be on a system, and they’re milliseconds apart, the creation date. And I know that those were — that was a copy operation performed.”

“You plug in the SD card and the metadata is put on the SD card. Last access date in — in doing the correlation was — would be updated on the phone, as well. But let’s say, for instance, if you put an image, a brand new image on there, and the creation date was last year and you put another image on there, maybe you copied three images and the way you copied it it happened to pick up the date of the computer which was, you know, maybe you changed the date of the computer and you wanted to show it to be last month. Then when you take that SD card and you plug it in the phone, you’re going to see one image with that date from last year as a create date and then you’re going to see three images, milliseconds apart, that are from last month. What I’m saying is that the phone becomes slave to the SD card as far as the metadata –“

Can Computer Crimes Experts Discover Data Files Placed on a Mobile Device Without the User’s Knowledge?

“[J]ust realize that when I’m talking about the push, that the technology is there, that the . . . potential is there for stuff to be pushed on your computer. And of course, the user is oblivious to all this going on. And that’s why you could actually go to a website that had unfortunate information on it and your computer now is a recipient of that information and you, the user, are none the wiser.”

“Sometimes the user doesn’t even know they went somewhere. Sometimes in — in this world of malware and viral attacks and exploitation of compu — of people’s identities, there’s a lot of times — like, and I use the term unfortunate, is if you do a search, one thing these search engines do not do is assess where it’s going to take you and you could click on something and then it could actually take you to a site that doesn’t display anything but it certainly puts stuff on your computer and then redirects you to something else to show you what you think you wanted to see. There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors going on behind the scenes that the user’s not aware of. That’s the push technology I’m
talking about . . . .”

“Whether or not you saw it, whether or not you meant to go there, that’s — that does not — those two statements don’t come into play when it comes to push. . . . Push includes whatever the — and I’ll call it malicious in some cases, but whatever the site, or whatever the originating prospect that might be. It could be a server, it could be a site, it could be almost anything. Whatever it is, it will push on there
and I can’t tell you what that will be. In — I can tell you in general what it is. In general it’s thumbnails.’

“The fact that Windows does that, is a feature to allow you to operate better. But how many times have we heard about there being a hole, an exploited hole in Windows that Microsoft had to go in and patch with a new release or with — with a new update they patched this hole or they discovered this — this whatever was open and they come in. You take a feature on something and you get a website that exploits that feature, I think you kind of then answered your question because then okay, well whose fault is it? Well, it’s a feature of Windows to do this. But they’re — the reason it was written was to optimize web browsing, that’s it. Now to push big stuff on there, and push other stuff on there, when people are taking it to its limit and exploiting it and doing the wrong thing, then I’d say it’s the fault of the site.”

Is Hacking an Instagram Account Always a Crime in Florida?

A guy in Florida was convicted of unauthorized computer use. the court reversed his conviction. The guy“logged into his ex-girlfriend’s Instagram account and posted nude photographs of her without her permission.” The prosecutor claimed that constituted a violation of section 815.06(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2013).

What Is Hacking a Computer Network in Florida?

Section 815.06 makes it illegal under Florida computer law and states “[w]hoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization [a]ccesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network . . . commits an offense against computer users.” § 815.06(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013).

The court reversed the conviction and focussed on three defintions in the law:

• “Computer” means an internally programmed, automatic device that performs data processing
• “Computer network” means any system that provides communications between one or more computer systems and its input or output devices, including, but notlimited to, display terminals and printers that are connected by telecommunication facilities.
• “Computer system” means a device or collection of devices, including support devices, one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic instructions, or input data and output data, and which perform functions, including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage, retrieval, communication, or control. The term does not include calculators that are not programmable and that are not capable of being used in conjunction with external files.§ 815.03, Fla. Stat. (2013).

The state failed to prove that Instagram was a Computer, computer system, or “computer network. The winning argument was that an Instagram account does not fall within any of these statutory definitions.

Instagram Hack Case Excerpt:

“The plain language of the statutory definitions of “computer,” “computer system,” and “computer network” refer to tangible devices, not the data and other information located on the device. Thus, to prove a violation of section 815.06(1)(a) the State must establish that the defendant accessed one of the listed tangible devices without authorization, not that the defendant accessed a program or information stored on the device without authorization. See Rodriguez v. State, 956 So. 2d 1226, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (reversing conviction under section 815.06 because evidence only established that the defendant accessed a “computer function” that he was not authorized to access).”

“Here, the charge against Appellant was based only on the unauthorized access of his ex-girlfriend’s Instagram account, not the computer server on which the account is presumably located. We say “presumably” because the only evidence in the record explaining what Instagram is was the ex-girlfriend’s testimony that it is a form of social media and “a place where you post pictures [and] your friends get to see it.” Nothing in the record establishes or explains how accessing an Instagram account works from a technological perspective, leaving unanswered whether or how Appellant’s actions amounted to accessing a specific computer, computer system, or computer network. Accordingly, in this case, the State failed to provide the necessary evidentiary foundation to prove that Appellant’s actions violated section 815.06(1)(a).”

Revenge Porn Statute Section 784.049, Florida Statutes

The court conclude a revenge porn prosecution under Section 784.049, Florida Statutes, that specifically prohibits the publication of sexually-explicit images of a person on the Internet without his or her consent is now a tool prosecutors can use. The court noted the new revenge porn statute was needed because “Florida law does not specifically prohibit posting pictures of a nude adult person on the Internet for viewing by other adults if the picture was taken with the knowledge and consent of the person”.

Source: Crapps v State, CASE NO. 1D14-4569 (Fla 1st DCA Dec 8, 2015). edca.1dca.org/DCADocs/

What Happens When Police Search Your Lost Cell Phone That Has Illegal Material On It?

The story begins in a Walmart in Florida. The owner lost their phone at Walmart. After he left the phone, it was found, and the owner agreed to pick it up from the store. The owner of the phone failed to pick the phone up from the store. The store manager looked at the phone in an effort to find a photo of the owner. When the manager found contraband on the phone, she called the cops – police search lost cell phone.

Search Warrant for an Abandoned Cell Phone

Police search lost cell phone – The cops waited 23 days to get a search warrant. A Florida Court ruled that this did not constitute an unreasonable delay to obtain a search warrant. First, the court found that the defendants had hoped the store manager would not report the materials found on the phone to the police. Second, the phone owner had filed an insurance claim and replaced the phone with the exact same model. The decision to not retrieve the phone from the store, coupled with the filing of an insurance claim, and replacing the phone with the same model constituted an abandonment of ownership of the phone. Search and seizure law requiresthat those who challenge a search and seizure must have standing to challenge the search. In this case, the phone owner had no standing to challenge the search, the phone and any rights the owner had to challenge the search and seizure were gone. The court also addressed the Private Search Doctrine that supports searches by citizens, that otherwise might be illegal if performed by the police or the government.

Sentenced to 600 Months in Federal Prison

By the way, the court found that a 600 month sentence for the materials found on the phone was just fine. The phone owner entered a written plea agreement and the sentence was a possible outcome that while it was as harsh as the judge could impose, it was within the terms of the plea agreement.

Case Excerpts

“When Vo [store manager] failed to meet Sparks [phone owner] with the phone as the two had previously agreed, Defendants knew how to find Vo to get their phone back. But Defendants did not return to their Walmart store and look for Vo. Nor did they ask for Walmart’s assistance in obtaining their phone, found in its store, by its employee. They also did not file a report with Walmart or the police complaining that Vowould not return their phone, despite their requests. Instead, they made a conscious decision to stop pursuing the phone, even though they knew how to get it back with reasonable effort. That decision—whether because Defendants hoped that Vo would not report them if they did not continue to seek the phone or because Defendants simply thought recovery of the phone was not worth their reasonable effort—can be viewed only as a deliberate decision to abandon the phone. Because Defendants abandoned their phone within three days of having lost it, they lack standing to challenge law enforcement’s 23-day delay between recovering the phone and obtaining a search warrant to search it.”

The Private-Search Doctrine

“The Fourth Amendment provides that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The protection the FourthAmendment affords, however, extends to governmental action only; “it is wholly inapplicable ‘to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.’” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S.109, 113, 104 S. Ct. 1652, 1656 (1984) (quoting Walter v. United States, 447 U.S.649, 662, 100 S. Ct. 2395, 2404 (1980) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)). So once an individual’s expectation of privacy in particular information has been frustrated by a private individual, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit law enforcement’s subsequent use of that information, even if obtained without a warrant. Id. at 116,104 S. Ct. at 1656; see id. at 117, 104 S. Ct. at 1658-59.”

Read Complete Opinion Here: media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201412143.pdf

The underground world of cybercrime is thriving, with millions of stolen credit card numbers and personal identification details available for mere dollars. This report delves into the activities of digital mobsters who specialize in phishing expeditions, sending millions of scam emails daily. These cybercriminals remain hidden behind digital aliases, screen names, and encrypted communication channels, engaging in various illicit activities.

Virtual Hit Men: Anonymity and Retribution

One significant incident involved the theft of 150,000 consumer records, credit reports, and Social Security numbers by cybercriminals. These individuals operate as a digital gang, punishing errant members by exposing their true identities on public websites, effectively assassinating their virtual personas. The Secret Service has recently made a major breakthrough, arresting 28 individuals, indicting 19, and uncovering a network of 4,000 web-based mob members.

Web Mob Busted: Coordinated Law Enforcement Action

Law enforcement agencies took synchronized action against this cyber mob, conducting raids on multiple gang members simultaneously while they were engaged in web-based discussions. By capturing key figures and taking control of the gang’s website, they issued warnings to potential suspects. This operation significantly disrupted the criminal network’s activities.

Bottom Line: A Dark Marketplace

The cybercriminal marketplace operates discreetly, with stolen credit card data, worth thousands of dollars, being sold for as little as $1 to $10. Personal identification information, including email addresses, is even cheaper. The culprits range from high school dropouts to IT postgraduates, all exploiting the perceived anonymity of the internet to profit from confidential data on the world’s computer networks.

Authors: W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr., CentralLaw.com and Albert Lucas, B.A. Mathematics

Full Text of Article:

Millions of stolen credit card numbers and other personal identification information are available for less than ten dollars according to experts at Baseline magazine and the United States Department of Justice. Unlike Michael Corleone’s crew, these mobsters exist solely in cyberspace. Phishing expeditions are their forte, with estimates of between 75 and 150 million scam emails sent daily.

Virtual Hit Men

Recently one large data collector was hit by mobsters who stole or accessed nearly 150,000 consumer records, credit reports, and Social Security numbers. This gang hides behind digital aliases, screen names, and nicknames. To punish wayward gang members, enforcers will publish the true names and identifying information of formerly anonymous transgressors on websites. Supplying the rat’s true identity to law enforcement virtually assassinates the individual in cyberspace.

The Secret Service recently tracked down one such gang. With 28 arrests, 19 indictments, and 4,000 gang members, the Government has penetrated one of the largest, if not the largest known web mob. Again, unlike secret meetings of the heads of the families, the web mobs met in web based discussion forums where they discussed and attempted to perfect the stealing and the forging of bankcards, and a myriad of other personal identification documents. They cloak their identities and encrypt their communications.

Web Mob Busted

Agents with the Secret Service staged synchronized raids on several gang members. Since word travels fast in cyberspace, they simultaneously knocked on dozens of doors across the country while the gang members were chatting and plotting in a web-based forum. By moving in concert, they captured the capos before they could compromise further investigation by publicizing the bust and/or destroying computer records of their dark deals. Eventually the agents took control of the mob’s website and posted a warning on their homepage to those not yet busted – “Contact your local United States Secret Service field office before we contact you!!!”

In the digital equivalent of a bunch of televisions falling off Tony Soprano’s truck, batches of credit card data were falling off electronic trucks and onto the hard drives of gang members. They tested batches of purloined information to grade and evaluate the data for accuracy and to determine whether or not the card numbers were cancelled or valid. Testing of the data consisted of illicit entry into a retailer’s computer and running a series of nominal charges for each card number to see if the charges were approved or declined. Once tested and graded, the data is sold to the highest bidder on clandestine websites.

Bottom Line

According to the Secret Service, a credit card with a $10,000 limit would sell for between $1 to $10 dollars or more. E-mail addresses and associated personal identification information are cheaper – they go for a few cents each. From high school dropouts to post graduate students of Information Technology, cyber criminals now use the illusion of anonymity and take unrestricted license with confidential information housed on the world’s computer networks.

Authors: W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr., CentralLaw.com and Albert Lucas, B.A. Mathematics

The survey found that speakers reading slides, flying text across the screen, and annoying use of sounds were some reasons for disdain for the technology. To that list add the users’ tech timeouts when the software or the hardware fails to display the desired show. With prices tumbling on hardware, including cheap projectors and notebook computers, expect the visual delirium to continue until audiences stand up and complain, walk out, or fall asleep during these moments of mediocrity.

Combining the laser pointer with the video projector can exponentially increase the risk of midday narcolepsy in the jury box or the seminar room. Actually, since the searing red dot of the laser pointer resembles the laser sight on the SWAT team’s M-16, some might claim it to be a useful device for waking up bored audience members or jurors. Jurors know that labels on laser devices warn of eye damage. Use of the powered pointer might actually keep them on the edge of their seats protecting themselves from blindness and more importantly not hearing a word said.

We revel in new technologies but hope their use will help, not distract and bore the audience. To that end, make sure that use of presentation technology serves and does not supplant. Evaluate each tool and ask a few simple questions: Does this technology work? Do you know how to work it? Is the technology really necessary to convey the message? Does it distract from the message? Is the technology persuasive? New technologies will emerge. Each must be reviewed by asking these questions.

In a culture where computer-generated scenes can appear real, just because it was on the television or the big screen projector doesn’t necessarily mean that the audience is convinced that either a droid army saved the universe; or that your side of the case should prevail.

Authors: W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr., CentralLaw.com and Jodi Ann Baudean, Master of Science in Civil Engineering

A first line of defense against malicious access is a hardware firewall. Without a hardware firewall, the attached computer is easily accessible. With a hardware firewall such as a Linksys Cable/Broadband router as the first layer of protection a hacker will not be able to see your computer as a first device attached to your cable modem.

The second line of defense is a software firewall. A heuristic firewall such as ZoneAlarm looks for suspicious activity per se in addition to an ever-evolving defined list of threats. ZoneAlarm uses a permission-based system to allow access to and from the Internet to be granted or denied by a user. For example, a number of attacks on Windows operating systems using Outlook as an email client, have exploited easy access to the Outlook contacts database. Once accessed those attackers replicate themselves and redistribute information from the attacked computer to email addresses found on the victim’s computer. Obviously, distribution of confidential client information is not an option for any of us. So not protecting our information is not an option either.

The third and final line of defense is maintenance of current virus protection software. Most top of the line software packages will automatically access the publisher’s website to obtain a current list of threats or virus definitions. This third line of defense will provide protection in the event the other two layers do not intercept the malicious file(s) that can compromise your home or office network.

Remember that your security system is only as strong as the weakest link. So while we obviously will focus on our desktop computers, legitimate remote access to our networks with a laptop from home or from onsite from a courtroom or client’s office, will provide opportunities for hackers to exploit our systems. You must make sure that all devices accessing our networks are equipped to deter hackers. Furthermore all users must be aware of the best practices to prevent illicit access to your firm’s digital resources.

A document contains information about the author, creation and revision dates, and other information about the lineage of the publication. The metadata as it is referred to can be used by a party to track revisions, additions, and deletions from the text. Therefore, care should be used to strip documents of these attributes when the document is to be distributed outside of the firm. Tips on stripping these attributes are available from both Microsoft and Corel. The Microsoft resource can be found at support.microsoft.com. The Corel resource is located at corel.com.

Surprisingly, the Microsoft Office stores all previous revisions of a Word document within the document itself. The revisions can be removed. One easy way to strip most of the identifiable information from document is to open a document in your word processor, select all of the text and copy it, open the Notepad application, paste the text into the Notepad document, and save the document as a text document.

Phishing is not to be confused with ‘fishing.’ There is no cast net, no baiting of the hook, and no minnow awaiting a large-mouth bass. But there are plenty of wireless fly rods out there. What do I mean? Specifically, an enterprising nerd or computer wizard of the binary-off generation can send you a disguised email representing a company you know and highly regard. The message may be duplicating a well-known logo in a misleading email suggesting you, the gullible, reply and update their files. They will frequently ask for a Social Security Number, credit card number, username and password, and/or your bank account number. Such data provides a license for identity theft. It goes on all the time. You read stories of months and months of futile effort to rectify credit reports done in by the virtual criminals. Frequently, the bait appears as an online financial intermediary asking for an update of personal information. In reality, takers just feed the ‘phisher’ valuable key information used to exploit the theft of the vulnerable victims’ identities.

Spoofing

Another popular indoor sport for some phisherman is spoofing. The digital sportsmen are hacking wireless cellular networks. First, the angler finds a cellular telephone with voice mail. Second, the piscator spoofs the cellular phone number, fooling the cellular network into authorizing access to the cellular telephone’s features. Third, the woesome whaler harvests the data and voicemail stored in the victim’s account. Data can include voicemail, user identification information, address books, photos, and passwords.

Explaining

How do they do it? Spoofing is easier and simpler than compromising most computer networks. We will not publish specifically where to go to spoof caller identification information. However, accept as fact, that information appearing to identify a caller can be falsified. Some cellular providers allow users to turn off the requirement that passwords be entered when accessing services from the user’s handset. The cellular caster then calls a cell phone number whose password is not required by the user – an option popular among many callers. The happy harpooner then gains entry into the victim’s voice mail, can control the options available to users (both authorized and otherwise), and has reign over whatever data and information is stored therein. A celebrity such as Paris Hilton and all her friends in her address book know all about it.

Preventing

Avoiding phishing and spoofing requires vigilance. Don’t supply usernames and passwords to anyone. Networks and providers already know your username and password. Change passwords regularly and use your cell phone pin number to access your voicemail every time no matter how busy you may be. These basic precautions will not stop the ever-advancing threats, but will provide a safety net. Be wary and be warned from your lighthouse attendant from on the bay.

Authors: Albert Lucas, B.A. Mathematics and W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr., CentralLaw.com

A typical white-collar criminal case can easily involve several gigabytes of data and/or several thousand printed pages of documents. Prices for Computer storage devices have plummeted. Storage capacity has sky-rocketed. A single gigabyte of storage can hold around 50,000 pages. Storage costs less than $1.50 per gigabyte. The costs associated with converting paper records to imaged and indexed data: around 24 cents a page.

To digitize or convert paper records to digital information includes high-speed imaging or scanning each page, followed by optical character recognition of the text in the documents, and finally associating the text of each image with the image files so that all of the documents could be searched by computer rather than trudging through the boxes that can fill a downtown conference room. This database containing the documents can be a deadly weapon in your arsenal. Offensively, patterns can be discerned and statistically relevant information can be easily analyzed. Defensively, smoking guns can be found and their problems addressed.

At first light, the most useful result of creating a digital copy of documents is analytical. However document imaging can also be useful for depositions, hearings, and trials. Once digitized the documents can be easily displayed on an ordinary television set, a computer monitor, a liquid crystal display projector or large screen plasma monitor.

While at the office much of the time, we do not need the original document. In such instances the digital image can be retrieved and reviewed on-screen or printed off the network printer. Document sharing and transmittal of copies is easier than ever once the digital copy of the documents has been produced. Simultaneous access to imaged materials by many users is a snap.

While away from the office, the document image can be retrieved and reviewed from a remote log-in to the network. The images or data can be stored on a notebook computer or on compact disk. Whether a desktop computer from another office, a notebook computer in court, or on a wireless device on the way to court, once the documents and files are accessible from anywhere, your handtruck and its cargo of banker’s boxes may be on its way to the junk heap. In the event of a disaster, copies of the data can be retrieved from storage and restored without missing a beat.

Adobe Acrobat has become the international standard for imaged documents. The program that creates the documents is around $250.00 per license. The program that reads the documents, Acrobat Reader, is free. Acrobat can be installed on almost any operating system, from Windows, to McIntosh, to Unix, to Linux, to Windows handheld devices, and Palm handheld devices. This yields documents that can be reviewed by anyone who receives a document and who obtains the free reader software.

Acrobat documents can be password protected, encrypted, digitally watermarked, made to be read-only, and digitally signed. Once created, an Acrobat copy can be authenticated and there can be high-level assurance that a copy has not been altered.

Can we eliminate the records center and empty our filing cabinets? Can we now eliminate putting pen to paper to sign documents? Do we really want to? What if the client wants his paperwork returned? Answers: Not yet; Yes; No; Oh-oh.

The paperless law office does not address the practicalities of the analog world. Clients may justifiably want their original source documents and courts may require them. This article was created paperlessly and was submitted to the publisher electronically via the Internet. There is not a paper copy of the article in my office. Notwithstanding the utility of digital record storage, and the promise of a paperless office, we are more likely approaching a less-paper office.

Firewalls

A two-tiered approach to security is advisable. First, a hard firewall, as simple as a router can harden you defenses against nefarious efforts to access your computer network. At CentralLaw.com we use a simple device manufactured by LinkSys. It comes in a variety of flavors both wired and wireless. Key point here with the wireless variant is to enable password protection of the device and change the default password. Those with wireless mobile access and nothing better to do play a fairly common game – “war driving.” Contestants cruise the streets of Metropolis searching for unprotected wireless networks or networks whose passwords and username were never changed from the manufacturers’ default settings. Once a wireless connection is found, the players have access to your Internet connection, possibly to you data, and possibly to your office network.

Second, a software firewall is quite useful. They are frequently and often automatically updated and can respond to threats developed after the installation of the hard firewall. Heuristic or artificially intelligent firewalls are available. At CentralLaw.com we use ZoneAlarm. This new generation of protection enables a permission based security system that learns about the user’s legitimate accesses to the network and affirmatively requests permission from the user before allowing a program or process to access a protected computer. The program is trained to learn how and what legitimate users do on the protected computer. The program will log, alarm, and identify the evil-doer, and prevent the wicked from wandering.

Recently, one morning ZoneAlarm caught and blocked a suspicious effort to access a computer resource in our office. The artificially intelligent software firewall noted viral activity that had not previously been permitted by our systems’ users. Later that day, themedia publicized the latest viral attack on the world’s computers and suggested users go to their anti-virus software and update it. We followed the advice, but were already protected from a threat. Since anti-virus and/or system software vendors had not yet responded to the attack, we would have been vulnerable.

Spyware

While programs usually run and are visible to users in the taskbar along the bottom of your computer screen, spyware installs itself in your operating system and its effects are not noticed until a computer’s internet access has slowed, a browser home page has been changed, a new search bar appears, or myriad other odd symptoms surface. We use a two-tiered approach here also. AdAware from LavaSoft and SpyBot Search and Destroy are a one-two punch to knock out these veiled threats.

Software Updates

Computer networks, like chains, are only as strong as the weakest link. Make sure all machines accessing your network are secured with the latest operating system updates. Some system updates have file sizes that require hours to download by a telephone dial-up connection. The masses use dial up, virtually guaranteeing that these updates will not be installed on those computers. Consequently, new threats propagate from throngs of unprotected computers. Take the time to assure that all computers under your control or terminals that have access to your network are regularly keeping pace with these updates. Recovering compromised data from even a single destroyed hard disk drive begins at around $5,000.00 per disk drive and it is not uncommon for data to be unrecoverable.