How to perform Investigation of illegal digital materials- Free Sample

Question: Discuss about theInvestigation of Illegal Digital Materials. Answer: Introduction The case starts when one customer finds a workstation belongs to M57.biz on secondary market. Case has been reported to police and it has been identified that this illegal material belongs to Jo. Our aim is to investigate this case based on USB drives. Observations needs to be make about various scenario. This work is related to the illegal digital content which takes a scenario of a company M57.biz. How We Got to Know if PC is Missing The detectives meets the McGoo at the company and it was informed about a missing computer. Although that was nonfunctional but had critical information. As per investigation Jos name came up and was under suspicious category. Our investigation now has third part USB used with the system. USB drive can have some data remaining as a part of backup. The illegal category content which is in USB drive needs to be analyzed for this part. As per USB drive we have come to know that content in Jo;s drive was suspicious. Software used is prodiscover Figure 1: Software Hard Drive The methodology starts from knowledge gathering phase, which concentrates on gathering knowledge about how we need to investigate this case. Below diagram shows the overview of the system. Figure 2 Information Direction Based on this we can answer the questions: Terry was owner of this inventory management, although Pat asked Terry to make a list of the inventory needed for the business expansion purpose. As per inventory expansion purpose Terry was supposed to make a list of the inventory needed for the business expansion. This brings in the point that missing computer was sold in secondary market. As per investigation we have not found solid attempts but yes there were some attempts to manage the list in such a way that no one notice loss of items from inventory. And also should be responsible for sale of computer. As he was owner of preparation of the list and execute the plan.. We can guess Jo is the owner of these files and to confirm this disk image has some half evidence. Also as per mail conversation jo/Terry was responsible for secondary market sold things and was owner of this area. The below evidence shows JO was involved Date 10 December 2009 Affiant Detective Joe Friday Reason for Action: Forensic persons could decide out of the PC that a USB drive conceivably claimed from Jo possession was utilized to associate with the PC, and perhaps used to exchange kitty illegal material Move Made: Starting from the suspicion that possessed drive was owner by Jo, we have asked for and been conceded rights to take the USB drive. The action was taken on the basis of the information found with respect to the PC with the number MT-2009-12-015-EV001 which was the physical address of Jos computer. Result: If we are allowed authorization to inquiry PCs, we would first take possession of the thumb drive (Present ownership is with Jo) around then. This signifies Jo;s hand in this case. Recovery of Computer The individual additionally gave the name of the merchant: Terry Johnson PC has been recuperated, the person who was login has physical address of MT-2009-12-015-EV001 and as per crime scene investigation this proves to be a critical issue. Conclusion As per investigation it can be concluded that analysis of USB drive gives important information about the owner of the illegal digital content trafficking person. Also information through this is reliable and can be fully trusted References Article III. Initiation of Cases: 12. Complaint; Investigation; Petition. (1959).Crime Delinquency, 5(4), pp.351-356. Bates, J. (1963). Presentence Investigation in Abortion Cases.Crime Delinquency, 9(3), pp.306-312. Casey, E. (2007). Attacks against forensic analysis.Digital Investigation, 4(3-4), pp.105-106. Forensic entomologyStandards and guidelines. (2007).Forensic Science International, 169, p.S27. Forensic Evidence and Crime Scene Investigation. (2013).Journal of Forensic Investigation, 01(02). Forensic Evidence and Crime Scene Investigation. (2013).Journal of Forensic Investigation, 01(02). Garfinkel, S. (2006). Forensic feature extraction and cross-drive analysis.Digital Investigation, 3, pp.71-81. Gogolin, G. (2010). The Digital Crime Tsunami.Digital Investigation, 7(1-2), pp.3-8. Haagman, D. and Ghavalas, B. (2005). Trojan defence: A forensic view.Digital Investigation, 2(1), pp.23-30. Lewthwaite, J. (2013). FrostWire P2P forensic examinations.Digital Investigation, 9(3-4), pp.211-221. Mason, S. (2005). Trusted computing and forensic investigations.Digital Investigation, 2(3), pp.189-192. Mistry, D. (2016). Ploughing in Resources: The investigation of farm attacks.South African Crime Quarterly, (6). Stttgen, J. and Cohen, M. (2013). Anti-forensic resilient memory acquisition.Digital Investigation, 10, pp.S105-S115. Wilson, J. (2001). Riverboat Gambling and Crime in Indiana: An Empirical Investigation.Crime Delinquency, 47(4), pp.610-640.