We talk about Cellebrite, a company dedicated to the forensic analysis of mobile devices, something that perhaps a few years ago was unthinkable but that today is even a business medium. In effect, this company is assisting the FBI in extracting data from the iPhone 5c, owned by one of the terrorists involved in the San Bernardino attacks, and points out that this data extraction is only part of the challenge. . They analyze the great changes that the creation of back doors can produce in our privacy, and they leave a series of questions and questions that sooner or later must be answered by the competent authorities.
On its website this company has left a small statement that is worth mentioning:
As in the rest of the evidence, the admissibility of digital evidence depends on the kissing handling procedures throughout the entire chain of custody. Each link in the chain is responsible for keeping, collecting, and recording appropriate documentation practices to demonstrate that this evidence has not been tampered with and is in its 'original' state.
For example, you can certify that a sound test has remained unchanged, and reports are produced that attest to this, therefore the test is true and accurate. However, when it comes to testing within digital devices, we must ask ourselves a number of questions:
- Is it really a means of proof?
- Has this test been reviewed by other independent experts?
- Is it valid to use the testimony of an expert on this matter in a trial?
- Are these practices accepted within the forensic community?
The answers are obvious, with the creation of back doors lchain of custody and standard evidence-taking methods would take a backseat, the evidence would also be easily manipulated. All this would easily put the justice of this country in check.