Structuring the Evaluation of Location-Related Mobile Device Evidence

Abstract Location-related mobile device evidence is increasingly used to address forensic questions in criminal investigations. Evaluating this form of evidence, and expressing evaluative conclusions in this forensic discipline, are challenging because of the broad range of technological subtleties that can interact with circumstantial features of cases in complex ways. These challenges make this type of digital evidence prone to misinterpretations by both forensic practitioners and legal decision-makers. To mitigate the risk of misleading digital forensic findings, it is crucial to follow a structured approach to evaluation of location-related mobile device evidence. This work presents an evaluation framework widely used in forensic science that employs scientific reasoning within a logical Bayesian framework to clearly distinguish between, on the one hand, what has been observed (i.e., what data are available) and, on the other hand, how those data shed light on uncertain target propositions. This paper provides case examples to illustrate the advantages and difficulties of applying this approach to location-based mobile device evidence. This work helps digital forensic practitioners follow the principles of balanced evaluation and convey location-related mobile device evidence in a way that allows decision-makers to properly understand the relative strength of, and limitations in, digital forensic results.

[1]  Denis Huber Background Positioning for Mobile Devices-Android vs . iPhone , 2011 .

[2]  Alex Biedermann,et al.  Digital evidence, 'absence' of data and ambiguous patterns of reasoning , 2016, Digit. Investig..

[3]  Danijel Cabarkapa,et al.  Comparative analysis of the Bluetooth Low-Energy indoor positioning systems , 2015, 2015 12th International Conference on Telecommunication in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services (TELSIKS).

[4]  S. Pope,et al.  Cell site analysis: Roles and interpretation. , 2019, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[5]  I Onwuekwe,et al.  Author's response , 2013, Annals of medical and health sciences research.

[6]  Naser El-Sheimy,et al.  Smartphone-Based Indoor Localization with Bluetooth Low Energy Beacons , 2016, Sensors.

[7]  Gérard Lachapelle,et al.  Evaluation of a Low Cost Hand Held Unit with GNSS Raw Data Capability and Comparison with an Android Smartphone , 2018, Sensors.

[8]  I. Evett,et al.  More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[9]  Zeno Geradts,et al.  Google timeline accuracy assessment and error prediction , 2018, Forensic sciences research.

[10]  Franco Taroni,et al.  How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[11]  Marko Modsching,et al.  Field trial on GPS Accuracy in a medium size city: The influence of built- up 1 , 2006 .

[12]  Alan Bensky,et al.  Wireless positioning technologies and applications , 2008 .

[13]  Ryan Garnett,et al.  Comparison of GPS units and mobile Apple GPS capabilities in an urban landscape , 2015 .

[14]  Robert Piché,et al.  A Survey of Selected Indoor Positioning Methods for Smartphones , 2017, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[15]  Moustafa Youssef,et al.  The Horus location determination system , 2008 .

[16]  Pete Bettinger,et al.  Smartphone GPS accuracy study in an urban environment , 2019, PloS one.

[17]  Paul A. Zandbergen,et al.  Accuracy of iPhone Locations: A Comparison of Assisted GPS, WiFi and Cellular Positioning , 2009 .

[18]  Eoghan Casey,et al.  Digital Evidence and Computer Crime - Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet, 3rd Edition , 2011 .

[19]  Jari Nurmi,et al.  Hand-grip and body-loss impact on RSS measurements for localization of mass market devices , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Localization and GNSS (ICL-GNSS).

[20]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework , 1998 .

[21]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: Benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings. , 2016, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[22]  S. Maus,et al.  Forensic Analysis of Geodata in Android Smartphones , 2011 .

[23]  Eoghan Casey,et al.  The chequered past and risky future of digital forensics , 2019, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences.

[24]  Jaime Lloret Mauri,et al.  Seamless Outdoors-Indoors Localization Solutions on Smartphones , 2016, ACM Comput. Surv..

[25]  Yong Ren,et al.  Does BTLE measure up against WiFi? A comparison of indoor location performance , 2014 .

[26]  Paolo Dabove,et al.  Towards high accuracy GNSS real-time positioning with smartphones , 2019 .

[27]  Sachin Katti,et al.  SpotFi: Decimeter Level Localization Using WiFi , 2015, SIGCOMM.

[28]  George Baciu,et al.  Introduction to Wireless Localization: With iPhone SDK Examples , 2012 .

[29]  Michael Nowak,et al.  Comparing the GPS capabilities of the Samsung Galaxy S, Motorola Droid X, and the Apple iPhone for vehicle tracking using FreeSim_Mobile , 2011, 2011 14th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[30]  Sean J. Barbeau,et al.  Positional Accuracy of Assisted GPS Data from High-Sensitivity GPS-enabled Mobile Phones , 2011, Journal of Navigation.

[31]  C. Aitken,et al.  Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings , 2010 .

[32]  R. Jones,et al.  Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet , 2003, Int. J. Law Inf. Technol..

[33]  Franco Taroni,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2004 .

[34]  R. Faragher,et al.  An Analysis of the Accuracy of Bluetooth Low Energy for Indoor Positioning Applications , 2014 .