Search_&_Seizure_Statutes

Search_&_Seizure_Statutes - 2008 Purdue University...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–9. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 2008 Purdue University Marcus K. Rogers CIT 1 Computer Forensics: Basics Search & Seizures: Legal Rules 2012 Purdue University Marcus K. Rogers CIT 2 Learning Objectives At the end of this module you will be able to: Explain the various court orders etc. required to search and seizure electronic evidence Describe the statutory exceptions Explain the difference between retrieved and un- retrieved communications Discuss the importance of understanding what court documents would be required for a criminal investigation. 2012 Purdue University Marcus K. Rogers CIT 2012 Purdue University Marcus K. Rogers CIT 3 Federal Statutes Wiretap Act Pen/Trap Statute Stored Communications ECPA Privacy Protection Act (PPA) National Security Letters 2012 Purdue University Marcus K. Rogers CIT 4 Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. ! 2510 et seq Interception of content communications while they are in transit. Sniffer programs Listening device bug Prohibits anyone who is not a participating party to a private communication from intercepting the communication.. 2012 Purdue University Marcus K. Rogers CIT 5 Pen/Trap Statute 18 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. Applies to Internet and telephone communications Forbids nonconsensual real time acquisition of noncontent information Header information only Not data IP address Email address No subject line or below 2012 Purdue University Marcus K. Rogers CIT 6 Pen/Trap Pen Register Outgoing connection data Trap and Trace Incoming connection data Patriot Act created nationwide coverage of court authorization Similar exceptions to wiretap act 2012 Purdue University Marcus K. Rogers CIT 7 Statutory Exceptions Non-court ordered Consent (of a party to the communication) Provider Self Defense (acquisition to protect its rights/property) Computer Trespasser (Patriot Act) Accessible to the Public * 2012 Purdue University Marcus K. Rogers CIT 8 Consent of Party Consent of party; 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) Interception allowed if a party to the communication has given prior consent to such interception Consent from several possible sources: banner terms of service employment agreement/policies...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/29/2012 for the course CNIT 420 taught by Professor Dr.marcrogers during the Spring '12 term at Purdue University-West Lafayette.

Page1 / 27

Search_&_Seizure_Statutes - 2008 Purdue University...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 9. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online