Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Computer Forensics Docket Sheet
Net Use, Encryption Program
Allowed As Evidence In Sex Case
In a case involving allegations of attempting to use a minor in a sexual performance, the trial court admitted evidence of the defendant's Internet use and of the existence of an encryption program on his computer. Specifically, the trial court admitted parts of a computer forensic report that revealed the defendant used search terms such as “Lolita” relating to sex with minors. The computer forensics expert who authored the report testified that the computer also contained the text of a statute relating to sex with minors and an encryption program. The expert stated that the encryption program could “basically encrypt any file” and that “other than the National Security Agency,” he was not aware of anyone who could break such an encryption. On appeal, the defendant argued that his case was prejudiced because the court specifically used evidence of his Internet use and the encryption program in finding him guilty. The defendant also contended that these factors were unrelated to the charges in the case. The appellate court rejected the defendant's argument and found that the evidence was appropriately admitted, noting that: “the district court did exclude other and more inflammatory search terms and phrases because it found them more prejudicial than probative. … Evidence of appellant's computer usage and the presence of an encryption program on his computer was relevant to the state's case.”
e-Discovery Docket Sheet and Computer Forensics Docket Sheet were written by Michele C.S. Lange, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, and a staff attorney with Kroll Ontrack, with assistance from Charity Delich, a Kroll Ontrack law clerk. Lange has published numerous articles and speaks regularly on the topics of electronic discovery, computer forensics and technology's role in the law. Information in these summaries is taken from the Kroll Ontrack monthly E-Discovery Case Law Update and Computer Forensics newsletters, which may be accessed at http://www.krollontrack.com/. Lange can be reached at [email protected].
Net Use, Encryption Program
Allowed As Evidence In Sex Case
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.