Project 1: Understanding Investigative Parameters ✓ Solved

Project 1 Understanding Investigative Parameters

Prior to any incident happening, it is important for any company to implement a “forensic readiness” plan. Discuss the benefits of a forensic readiness plan and name what you believe are the top two (2) requirements to establish forensic readiness within a private sector business like Provincial Worldwide. Support your answers. (Please note that while cyber security and digital forensics have overlaps in incident response preparation, please limit your answers here to forensic readiness in the digital forensic arena, not cyber security.)

Ms. McPherson, out of concern for the theft/sharing of the “Product X” source code, and after discussing the issue with one of the Corporate attorneys is requesting that you and Ms. Bass start searching the areas in which Mr. Belcamp had access within the building. Can you or Ms. Bass search Mr. Belcamp’s assigned locker in the Company’s on-site gym for digital evidence, and why? Additionally, can you or Ms. Bass use a master key to search Mr. Belcamp’s locked desk for digital evidence, whether still on site, or after Mr. Belcamp has left the premises? Support your answer.

A check with security confirms that John Belcamp passed through the security checkpoint when coming in to work in his vehicle. A sign at the checkpoint states that the purpose of the checkpoint is for security staff to check for weapons or other materials that may be detrimental to the working environment and employee safety. Screening is sometimes casual and usually consists of verification of an employee’s Company ID card. Can security staff at this checkpoint be directed to open Mr. Belcamp’s briefcase and seize any potential digital evidence, why or why not? Support your answer.

There is a page in the Company’s “Employee Handbook” that states that anything brought onto the Company’s property, including the employees themselves, are subject to random search for items belonging to Provincial Worldwide. There is a space for the employee to acknowledge receipt of this notice. Mr. Belcamp has a copy of the handbook but never signed the receipt page. Does that matter; why or why not? Explain.

The police have not been called or involved yet, however, Mr. Newman asks if involving the police will change your incident response. Describe how you will respond to her concerning the parameters of search and seizure, and if it will change by involving the police in the investigation at this time. Support your answer.

You know as an Information Security Analyst that it is important to document the details of your investigation if the company wants to insure admissibility of any evidence collected in the future. However, Mr. Newman or Ms. Bass have never heard of the term “chain of custody.” How would you explain what chain of custody means, why it is important, and what could occur if the chain of custody is not documented? Support your answer.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Implementation of a forensic readiness plan is a crucial component of an organization’s strategy to effectively respond to digital incidents and safeguard its digital assets. Forensic readiness refers to an organization’s capability to maximize the potential value of digital evidence while minimizing the costs and operational impact of an incident response. One of the primary benefits of such a plan is the ability to collect and preserve digital evidence in a manner that maintains its integrity and admissibility in a legal context (Rogers & Goldberg, 2009). Additionally, having a forensic readiness plan ensures swift response times, reduces the risk of data loss, and potentially diminishes the legal liabilities associated with digital incidents.

Among the key requirements to establish forensic readiness within a private sector business like Provincial Worldwide are comprehensive policies regarding data collection and evidence preservation, and technical measures such as monitoring and logging. First, implementing clear policies ensures that all employees are aware of acceptable use, data handling procedures, and evidence management protocols (Casey, 2011). Second, establishing technical capabilities—such as logging user activities, maintaining audit trails, and securing these logs—is essential because it allows forensic investigators to reconstruct events accurately and reliably (Garcia, 2018). These requirements together create a robust framework enabling an organization to respond effectively to digital evidence collection, preserve chain of custody, and support potential legal proceedings.

Regarding the search of Mr. Belcamp’s assigned locker in the company gym, the investigation requires careful consideration of legal and organizational policies. Since the locker is designated as a personal space that likely falls under the employee’s expectation of privacy, searching it without consent or proper legal authority could violate privacy rights (Fisher & Wray, 2018). However, if the locker is within a designated workplace area that the company explicitly monitors and controls, it may be deemed part of the workplace premises. Nonetheless, in formal terms, searching the locker would typically require either the employee's consent or a valid warrant, unless organizational policies explicitly allow searches under specific circumstances. Therefore, unless the company has a clear policy permitting searches of personal lockers without consent, conducting such a search could jeopardize the integrity of evidence and opening the company to legal liabilities.

As for the use of a master key to search Mr. Belcamp’s locked desk, the legal and organizational context is similar. Use of a master key to access private employee property without explicit consent or a warrant may be considered an invasion of privacy and could undermine the admissibility of any evidence obtained (Casey, 2011). Moreover, if Mr. Belcamp has already left the premises, the question becomes whether the company has a legal right or policy to conduct searches post-termination without employee consent. Generally, unless explicitly authorized by company policy or supported by legal authority, such searches should be avoided or conducted with proper legal oversight to prevent future challenges to the validity of the evidence.

At the security checkpoint, where the stated purpose is to monitor for weapons and dangerous materials, security personnel are typically authorized to perform routine checks of identification and conduct casual inspections, such as verifying IDs. However, directing security staff to open and seize digital evidence from Mr. Belcamp’s briefcase raises legal concerns. This action would constitute a search and seizure, which under the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause or a warrant unless an exception applies (Fisher & Wray, 2018). Given that the sign indicates the purpose is limited to weapons and safety concerns, and unless there is reasonable suspicion linking Mr. Belcamp to digital contraband, seizing digital evidence from the briefcase could be considered an unlawful search. Unless employees have signed consent forms that include digital evidence searches, security staff should not conduct invasive searches beyond visual inspection or ID verification.

The Employee Handbook emphasizes that items brought onto the property are subject to search and that employees acknowledge notice by signing a receipt page. Mr. Belcamp, having not signed this page, technically did not provide a signed acknowledgment of the policy, which could impact the enforceability of the search policy. However, courts often uphold such policies as having implied consent or being standard in employment contexts, especially if the employee is informed of the policy (Fisher & Wray, 2018). The absence of a signed acknowledgment may weaken the company's position if legal challenges arise, but it does not necessarily nullify the policy or the legality of searches conducted in accordance with organizational procedures.

Involving law enforcement changes the parameters of search and seizure significantly. Typically, law enforcement authority arises from legal warrants or probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, as outlined in the Fourth Amendment (Rogers & Goldberg, 2009). If the company involves police, any search conducted must adhere to legal standards, including obtaining warrants when necessary. As an internal investigator, my response would be to inform Ms. Newman that until law enforcement is involved and appropriate legal procedures are followed, the company’s ability to search and seize digital evidence remains limited to organizational policies and internal rights. Once law enforcement becomes involved with proper legal authority, the scope of searches and evidence collection may expand, but it must always be done in compliance with legal standards to preserve admissibility of evidence in court (Casey, 2011).

Understanding the chain of custody is fundamental in digital forensics. It refers to the documentation process that tracks the possession, transfer, analysis, and storage of evidence from collection to presentation in court (Rogers & Goldberg, 2009). Proper chain of custody ensures that the evidence remains untampered and authentic, supporting its integrity and admissibility during legal proceedings. If the chain of custody is not maintained or documented, the evidence risk being challenged or rejected in court, as its integrity could be questioned, potentially invalidating the entire investigation (Garcia, 2018). Therefore, meticulous record-keeping of who handled the evidence, when, where, and how, is essential to uphold the credibility of forensic findings and safeguard against legal challenges.

References

• Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet. Academic Press.
• Fisher, E. A., & Wray, J. B. (2018). The Law of Search and Seizure (6th ed.). LexisNexis.
• Garcia, J. (2018). Digital Forensics: Principles and Practice. Wiley.
• Rogers, M. K., & Goldberg, L. (2009). Digital Forensic Evidence and Its Analysis. Elsevier.