Network investigative source codes and due process
The US federal government has developed an electronic computer tool known as the Network Investigative Technique (‘NIT’). Essentially, an NIT is a device used by law enforcement to invade an individual computer to obtain access to and obtain all types of information, including computer files, pictures, emails, and other data.
This success has led to numerous prosecutions of those receiving and sharing child pornography. However, in response, defendants are starting to raise challenges to the manner in which this technology functions. The courts are struggling with where to draw the line between a defendant’s right to a fair trial, which may be infringed upon if the defendant does not have adequate understanding of how the technology works, and the government’s interest in maintaining secrecy regarding the investigative tools that it develops. For example, criminal defence attorneys in Baltimore were largely unaware that officers with the Baltimore Police Department used cell site simulators over 4,000 times in criminal investigations.
This article addresses the use of NITs in the prosecution of a series of related child pornography cases. The first part addresses not only how the FBI began investigating the child pornography distribution ring, but also the issuance of a search warrant by a federal magistrate judge in Virginia that was central to the indictment and prosecution of each defendant around the country. In response to their indictment and prosecution, the defendants raised a number of legal challenges to the FBI’s use of the NIT. These various challenges are discussed in the second part. Most defendants did not succeed in avoiding a conviction for some kind of child pornography charge. However, the third part discusses one case that resisted this trend of convictions based on the notion that the defendant needed access to the NIT source code in order properly defend himself.
Index words: United States of America; network investigative technique; source code; due process
Copyright, licence and acknowledgement
The author retains copyright and grants the publishers of the Review a licence to publish the article in the Review and to create and maintain digital copies on the internet at the discretion of the publisher and via third parties in subscription databases. The author warrants that they are the owner of all rights of copyright in the article.
Work published in the open access version of Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review on the SAS Open Journals System is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.Where the author subsequently publishes the article, the author is requested to acknowledge the article first appeared in the Review, in whatever format it is subsequently published.
Those who contribute items to Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review retain author copyright in their work but are asked to grant two licences. One is a licence to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study of the University of London, enabling us to reproduce the item in digital form, so that it can be made available for access online in the Open Journals System and repository and website. The terms of the licence which you are asked to grant to the University for this purpose are as follows:
'I grant to the University of London the irrevocable, non-exclusive royalty-free right to reproduce, distribute, display, and perform this work in any format including electronic formats throughout the world for educational, research, and scientific non-profit uses during the full term of copyright including renewals and extensions'
The other licence is for the benefit of those who wish to make use of items published online in IALS Student Law Review and stored in the e-repository. For this purpose we use a Creative Commons licence allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to your entry in Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review and/or SAS-SPACE, but they can't change them in any way or use them commercially.
For the avoidance of doubt, the author is not granted permission to publish the article in the format in which the Review publishes it. The publisher own the copyright to the text as it appears in the published journal. The author may only publish the article in word format or html, unless the author pays the publisher for a licence to re-publish as it is printed.