Cost Considerations for Managing Digital Assets as Evidence
White Paper White Paper Cost Considerations for Managing Digital Assets as Evidence Saving money is top of mind for resource constrained agencies. Learn how to help make the most of the resources you have with a Digital Evidence Management solution. MediaSolv-InCar-FactSheet-Rev01 Cost Considerations for Managing Digital Assets as Evidence White Paper Contents 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overview Technology Considerations Human Resources Considerations Chain-of-Custody Considerations 1.0 Overview Digital technology is advancing at a record pace. Increased access to computers, availability of the internet and the proliferation of video/camera technology in consumer products all have contributed to the rise in digital information or assets that needs to be managed for evidentiary purposes. This digital information, or digital evidence, is defined by the National Institute of Justice as, “information and data of value to an investigation that is stored on, received, or transmitted by an electronic device. This evidence is acquired when data or electronic devices are seized and secured for examination.”1 The goal of this white paper is to help law enforcement and other public safety officials identify the cost of manually managing digital evidence and present an alternative solution for automatically managing digital evidence using the MediaSolv Digital Evidence Management solution. Most organizations are already managing terabytes (TB) of digital evidence and that number is expected to significantly increase as digital technology continues to advance and the cost of components continue to decrease. According to the National Institute of Justice, the amount of digital evidence acquired for the investigation of crime is expected to double every 18 months.2 The cost of managing the sheer volume of all of these digital assets is high both in terms of actual cost and in human resources. There are two different types of costs we will address that are associated with managing digital assets as evidence, Direct and InDirect. Direct costs are related to consumables such as CD’s, DVD’s, or storage devices and thereby can be associated to specific dollars. Indirect costs are more difficult to quantify, as they are assumed costs such as the cost of lost productivity, negative publicity, or potentially even legal actions. Most organizations are already spending a lot of money, both directly and indirectly, to manage their digital assets as evidence, but often the cost 5.0 Other Considerations 6.0 The Solution: Digital Evidence Management 7.0 Conclusion is hidden because the workload is being assumed by existing personnel that are simply taking on additional tasks, most often in already time-constrained roles. There are many considerations that must be explored when organizations are identifying associated costs and allocating funds for digital evidence management. The following areas of consideration are recommended: 2.0 Technology Considerations ∙ ∙ ∙ Media Storage: Most organizations currently store all of their digital assets on CD’s, DVD’s and even VHS tapes. The cost to the organization, while not high in dollar value, is high in terms of management. Also, when digital evidence is no longer needed, it is often kept because of the burden of searching and removing the information. This cost will be explored in more detail in the “Human Resources Considerations” section below. Media Storage Devices: Some organizations keep their digital evidence on media storage devices like servers. These organizations typically keep all digital evidence for the same period of time. Digital evidence involving a violent criminal offense is kept for the same period of time as a traffic infraction. This adds a significant burden to the storage space on servers where digital evidence is stored. Digital Evidence Growth: Organziations must consider that the amount of their digital evidence will continue to grow at a rate of 2X every 18 months. This explosive growth will, no doubt, start to impact even the most efficient organizations using current manual practices. 3.0 Human Resources Considerations ∙ Officers manual processes: Officers often come in contact with digital assets throughout their day that they must manage as evidence. Photographs from their digital camera, digital files -1- ∙ ∙ ∙ collected from the public, as well as many in-car video systems require officers to physically remove storage media devices that contain digital evidence. In most instances, these digital files must be manually collected and then checked in with the Evidence Technician to be managed as evidence. This is not only a burden to the officer because they have to manually manage the files, but also because they can have their integrity called into question if a file is not properly managed. Evidence Technician manual processes: The processes used by the Evidence Technician can vary. Some organizations have computerized solutions that help the technician check in and check out evidence, while others have a paper trail process. In either case, the files must be maintained in a way in which they can be located and associated to a case in the future. If there are multiple files for the same case, they are not always located in the same place. Management personnel manual processes: Law enforcement and other public safety officials need access to information quickly. Being able to quickly locate all information associated to a case can help management make an informed decision about how to proceed. Using operationalprocedures maintained by most departments requires information to be collected and stored separately in different information silo’s. Audio files are kept in one system, video files in another, and photographs is yet another system. And gathering all this information from all the different sources is time consuming and can negatively impact the ability for management to make quick decisions. District Attorney or other legal representatives manual processes: In order for legal considerations to be reviewed on a case, there must be a thorough review of evidence related to a case. This requires the collection of digital evidence from the Evidence Room. Cost Considerations for Managing Digital Assets as Evidence White Paper 4.0 Chain-of-Custody Considerations ∙ Improper chain-of-custody processes: It is essential that all digital evidence is maintained by following chain-of-custody protocol in order for it to be used as evidence in court proceedings. The widespread use of manual processes today provides an opportunity for evidence to be questioned and potentially thrown out of court. The consequences could be dire, and derail the pursuit of justice by potentially allowing criminals to be released or wrongly accused people to be convicted. 5.0 Other Considerations ∙ Unauthorized release of digital evidence: There have been many recent cases where classified or private digital evidence has been leaked to the media or the internet. In Southern California, a popular singer, Rhianna, was beaten by her boyfriend and crime scene photos were leaked from the Police Dept. to an entertainment TV program.3 In another case, an online blog called www.wikileak.org, whose mission is to expose classified information to the public, published a highly controversial video on YouTube.com of a highly sensitive undercover operation in Iraq where civilians were killed.4 These types of violations can be devastating to an organization and they are very difficult to track back to the person who released the unauthorized information. These kinds of incidents can affect an organization in the following ways: Negative publicity Lack of public trust Potential litigation 6.0 The Solution: Automated Digital Evidence Management All the considerations for managing digital evidence outlined in this white paper are based on years of research conducted by MediaSolv. A culmination of the research MediaSolv-Cost Consideration WhitePaper-Rev01 was development of an automated enterprise solution for managing digital evidence, that meets the highest standards of demanding public safety environments. MediaSolv will customize a solution specifically to meet your needs. It doesn’t take long for even the most efficient organizations to realize a return on their investment. The key benefits of MediaSolv are: ∙ Automates file management processes ∙ Automates chain-of-custody processes ∙ Provides quick access to all digital evidence related to a case ∙ Allows or restricts access to digital evidence based on users or groups of users ∙ Streamlines security operations ∙ Eliminates repetitive manual entry ∙ Provides audit trails for proving chain-of- custody ∙ Meets International Association of Chief’s of Police (IACP) standards5 ∙ Reduces storage—automatic process saves evidence only for the time required based on the severity of the type of incident ∙ Manages all digital assets as evidence including in-car (mobile) video, physical security video, photographs, audio files, and even documents in a centralized location— no more silo’s of information 7.0 Conclusion Having all the facts about managing digital evidence effectively will help you make an informed decision about the challenge today and in the future. The bottom line is that all the tools, resources, and processes widely in use today will not allow organizations to perform in the very dynamic digital evidence environment that, in the near future, they must adopt. To be successful, organizations must be proactive. This will require a change in mind set, from focusing on simply storing static information to actively building collections of digital evidence that can be aggregated and linked together to tell a credible story. MediaSolv turns that story into a reality. -2- For more information about how MediaSolv can help automatically manage your digital evidence, send an email to [email protected] or call 1.571.748.5100. Footnotes 1. Forensic Examination of Digital Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, U.S. Department of Justice, 2004. 2. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Grant Solicitation, “Electronic Crime and Digital Evidence Recovery”, CFDA No. 16.560, 2010. 3. McGevna, Allison. “LAPD Launches Investigation Into Release of Alleged Rihanna Abuse Photo”. Fox News. February 20, 2009 <http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/02/20/lapd-launchesinvestigation-release-alleged-rihanna-abuse-photo/>. 4. Fishel, Justin. “Soldier Busted for Leaking to WikiLeaks”. Fox News. June 7, 2010 < http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/07/soldierbusted-for-leaking-to-wikileaks/>. 5. The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Day Policing: Research and Best Practices from the IACP Study on In-car Cameras, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2004.
© Copyright 2024