decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Pick Your Brain Time - A Lawyer Requests Your Input - Updated
Wednesday, December 26 2007 @ 12:12 PM EST

We have another request to pick your brain, please. It's a follow up to the earlier work you guys did on the UMG v. Lindor case preparation [here and here], which appears to have resulted in a supplemental report [PDF] from the RIAA's expert, which he'd appreciate it you would analyze.

I'll let the lawyer, Ray Beckerman, explain the details and what he'd like you to do. Lawyers are experts in the law. You know the tech. Please explain it to him.

********************************

Ray Beckerman:

Has RIAA expert Jacobson contradicted himself?

A year and five months after examining the defendant's hard drive in UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA's "expert" witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson, has issued a "supplemental report" which appears to contradict his earlier "reports" alluding to the hard drive inspection.

In view of the superb job the Groklaw community and the Slashdot community did in helping first to prepare for, and then to vet, Jacobson's deposition, I humbly submit for your learned review the now three (3) versions of the "expert's" opinions based on the hard drive, for your analysis.

As with almost all federal litigation documents nowadays, they are, unfortunately, in *pdf format: (a) December 19, 2006, declaration; (b) unsigned October 25, 2006, report, awaiting approval from RIAA lawyers; and (c) December 15, 2007, version.

The initial observations of commentators on my blog are located here.


Update: We have the December 2006 declaration done as text now, thanks to rpenner, and I've done the other two, so you can compare.

Here's the December 2006 Declaration of Dr. Doug Jacobson [PDF, local copy]:

****************************

Case 1:05-cv-01095-DGT-RML Document 114 Filed 12/20/2006

United States District Court
Eastern District of New York

05 CV 1095 (DGT)(RML)
----------------------------x
UMG Recordings, Inc., et al,

Plaintiffs

- against

Marie Lindor,

Defendant
----------------------------x

Declaration of Dr. Doug Jacobson, Ph.D., CFCE

I, Dr. Doug Jacobson, Ph.D., CFCE, declare:

1. I have been retained by the plaintiffs in this action, among other things, to review and provide my opinions regarding data and information contained on a disk drive images from defendant's computer that was provided to me. I have also previously provided an expert report regarding the initial detection of infringement on defendant's computer and the workings of Kazaa, among other things. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declarations except as where stated on information and belief. As to such facts, I believe them to be true.

2. My qualifications and prior testimony are as follows:

a. I am employed as an associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Iowa State University and as the Director of the Iowa State University Information Assurance Center. I also have an appointment with the Iowa State University police department, where I aid in computer forensics.

b. In addition, I am the Chief Technical Officer and founder of Palisade Systems, a high-tech computer security company that specializes in network monitoring and filtering technologies.

c. My employment with Iowa State University began in 1982 as a computer programmer. I completed my Ph.D. in Computer Engineering with a focus in computer networking in December 1985. In January 1986, I was hired by the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering as an Assistant Professor to teach and research in the area of computer networks. Since that time, I have taught over 25 classes in computer networks at both the undergraduate and graduate level. I have received over 5 million dollars in funding for my research and have written several articles and made numerous presentations on the topic.

d. In 1995, I created and taught one of the first computer security classes at Iowa State University and in the country. Under my guidance, in 1999, Iowa State University was recognized by the National Security Agency as a center of excellence. And in 2000, the Iowa State University Information Assurance Center was created. I am its first and only director. I am a Certified Forensics Computer Engineer.

e. On September 9th 2003, I testified in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the uses of peer-to-peer protocols.

f. A true and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit A.

3. My prior relevant experience is as follows:

a. I have been teaching computer networking since 1986 and written papers and performed research on computer networks.

b. I have given over 50 presentations on computer security and networks at conferences, workshops, and various meetings.

c. I hold two patents in the area of computer network security and have won two R&D 100 awards for technologies I developed at Palisade Systems. One of these technologies is designed to detect and block peer-to-peer network protocols in addition to over 100 other network protocols.

d. I have assisted the Iowa State University Police department on several computer cases, including cases using peer-to-peer networks to distribute pirated software and child po rngography.

e. One of my graduate students, under my supervision and guidance, developed a system that monitors peer-to-peer networks and other forms of file-sharing for child po rnography.

4. In connection with my analysis, I have reviewed all of the underlying investigative data for this case, including all of the data supplied by MediaSentry. I have also reviewed the information supplied by defendant's Internet service provider, Verizon Internet Service. In particular, I considered the following:

a. MediaSentry Screenshots

b. MediaSentry Systemlog

c. MediaSentry UserLog (compressed)

d. MediaSentry UserLog

e. MediaSentry Download Logs

f. Certificate of Registration

g. MediaSentry Trace

h. Verizon Internet Service subpoena response

i. Disk drive image from defendant's computer

5. Based upon my review of the foregoing materials, as well as on my education and experience, it is my opinion and belief that defendant's computer had a public Internet Protocol ("IP") address and was not connected to the Internet via a wireless router. I base this on the data mentioned above, as well as on the registry entries recovered from the computer and the fact that there was no internal IP address here. Based on how IP addresses are assigned, it is not difficult to determine whether a computer was connected to the Internet via a wireless router. This computer was not.

6. In addition, it is my opinion and belief, based on my education and experience and on the data recovered from the hard drive that I reviewed, that this hard drive was not the same hard drive that was used to share copyrighted sound recordings as shown by the MediaSentry materials. A forensic inspection of a computer hard drive in a case like this one can provide significant information regarding the infringement alleged. For example, a forensic inspection would allow one to see, among other things, whether a file-sharing program was downloaded or installed and whether there is a share folder. It would also show whether the audio files, or any remnants or evidence thereof, that MediaSentry observed being distributed from defendant's IP address remained on defendant's computer. Finally, a forensic inspection can reveal whether a party attempted to delete file-sharing programs or other files. The MediaSentry data here showed that the computer connected to defendant's Internet account was running the Kazaa program. As such, a forensic inspection of that computer would have reveals at least remnants of the Kazaa file-sharing service, as well as the existence of a share folder, or remnants of it, had someone attempted to delete it. The hard drive that was provided and that I inspected, showed little usage at all, as evidenced by the lack of user created files and e-mails, and did not reveal the evidence noted above, which I believe the correct hard drive would certainly have shown.

7. The hard drive that was provided did contain the resume of Gustave Lindor, Jr., and that document indicates that he was living and working in Brooklyn, New York during the dates that the copyrighted music was being shared.

Executed this 19th day of December, 2006, at Ames, Iowa

(signed)
Dr. Doug Jacobson, Ph.D., CFCE

Here's the report from October of 2006:

*************************

EXHIBIT
Deft's 15
2/23/07

Lindor report
[whited out]sk.doc (35 KB

--Original Message--
From: Doug Jacobson [mailto:redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Richard Gabriel
Subject: Lindor report Disk

Here it is

Doug

--
Doug Jacobson
Director. ISU Information Assurance Center
Dept. Electrical & Computer Engineering
[address, phone, fax, email, website urls]


****************************

UMG Recordings, Inc., et al v. Lindor
ED - NY Case Number: 05-cv-1095

Affidavit and Supplemental Expert Report

Dr. Doug Jacobson, Ph.D., CFCE
Ph.D. Computer Engineering
Certified Forensic Computer Examiner
International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists

________________________

Qualifications & Prior Testimony

1) I am employed as an associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Iowa State University and as the Director of the Iowa State University Information Assurance Center. I also have an appointment with the Iowa State University police department, where I aid in computer forensics.

2) In addition, I am the Chief Technical Officer and founder of Palisade Systems, a high-tech computer security company that specializes in network monitoring and filtering technologies.

3) My employment with Iowa State University began in 1982 as a computer programmer. I completed my Ph.D. in Computer Engineering with a focus in computer networking in December 1985. In January 1986, I was hired by the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering as an Assistant Professor to teach and research in the area of computer networks. Since that time, I have taught over 25 classes in computer networks at both the undergraduate and graduate level. I have received over 5 million dollars in funding for my research and have written several articles and made numerous presentations on the topic.

4) In 1995, I created and taught one of the first computer security classes at Iowa State University and in the country. Under my guidance, in 1999, Iowa State University was recognized by the National Security Agency as a center of excellence. And in 2000, the Iowa State University Information Assurance Center was created. I am its first and only director. I am a Certified Forensics Computer Engineer. My Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit (A)

5) On September 9th 2003, I testified in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the uses of peer-to-peer protocols.

Prior Experience

6) I have been teaching computer networking since 1986 and written papers and performed research on computer networks.

7) I have given over 50 presentations on computer security and networks at conferences, workshops, and various meetings.

8) I hold two patents in the area of computer network security and have won two R&D 100 awards for technologies I developed at Palisade Systems. One of these technologies is designed to detect and block peer-to-peer network protocols in addition to over 100 other network protocols.

9) I have assisted the Iowa State University Police department on several computer cases, including cases using peer-to-peer networks to distribute pirated software and child por nography.

10) One of my graduate students, under my supervision and guidance, developed a system that monitors peer-to-peer networks and other forms of file-sharing for child por nography.

11) My rate for analysis and testimony is $200.00 per hour. Additional expenses relating to analysis, testimony, and travel are reimbursed at the incurred costs.

Materials Considered

12) I have reviewed the underlining investigative data for the Lindor case. This includes all of the data supplied by MediaSentry. I also have reviewed information supplied by Defendant's Internet Service Provider (ISP) Verizon Internet Services. Below is a list of the materials I considered in developing my conclusions.

a) MediaSentry Screenshots
b) MediaSentry Systemlog
c) MediaSentry UserLog (compressed)
d) MediaSentry UserLog
e) MediaSentry Download Logs
f) Certificate of Registration
g) MediaSentry Trace
h) Verizon Internet Services subpoena response
i) Disk drive image from defendant's computer

Conclusions

In addition to the conclusions contained in my report dated April 7th 2006 I have the following additional conclusions based on the additional information from the hard drive image.

13) I will testify to the procedures used and results obtained by MediaSentry coupled with the information supplied by Defendant's ISP, to demonstrate the Defendant's Internet account and computer were used to download and upload Copyrighted music from the Internet using the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.

14) I will testify that based on the MediaSentry data mentioned above and registry entries recovered from the computer that the computer had a public IP address and was not connected to the Internet via a wireless router.

15) I will testify based on the forensics examination that the computer had three usernames of interest that were named Kathleen, Woody, and Yanick.

16) I will testify that none of the three users appeared to have used the computer much due to the lack of user created files and emails.

17) I will testify that based on the data recovered from the hard drive that this hard drive does not appear to be the same hard drive that was used to share copyrighted songs as shown by the MediaSentry materials. I will testify based on the forensics examination of the hard drive that was copied from the computer owned by the defendant that the computer had no evidence of the KaZaA program nor was there any evidence of the KaZaA program ever being installed on the computer, although the MediaSentry data showed the computer connected to the defendant's Internet account was running the KaZaA program.

18) I will testify that the computer contained the resume of Gustave Lindor, Jr and that the document indicates he was living and working in Brooklyn N.Y. and working at Long John Silver's during the dates that the copyrighted music was being shared.

19) I reserve the right to review additional discovery materials, as they are made available for my review, and use any of the material considered as exhibits in my testimony.

Attachments;
Doug Jacobson -- Curriculum Vitae -- Exhibit (A)

I declare under penalty of perjury and the laws of the United States that foregoing is true and correct. Executed this ____ day of __________ 2006, at _______

______________

Dr. Doug Jacobson

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____day of ____________

_______________

Notary Public

My commission expires:

And here's the most recent Supplemental Declaration [PDF, local copy]:

****************************

Case 1:05-cv-01095-DGT-RML Document 210-2 Filed 12/19/2007

UMG Recordings, Inc., et al v. Lindor
ED - NY Case Number: 05-cv-1095

Supplemental Declaration and Expert Report

Dr. Doug Jacobson, Ph.D., CFCE
Ph.D. Computer Engineering
Certified Forensic Computer Examiner
International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists

________________________

Qualifications & Prior Testimony

1) I am employed as an associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Iowa State University and as the Director of the Iowa State University Information Assurance Center. I also have an appointment with the Iowa State University police department, where I aid in computer forensics.

2) In addition, I am the Chief Technical Officer and founder of Palisade Systems, a high-tech computer security company that specializes in network monitoring and filtering technologies.

3) My employment with Iowa State University began in 1982 as a computer programmer. I completed my Ph.D. in Computer Engineering with a focus in computer networking in December 1985. In January 1986, I was hired by the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering as an Assistant Professor to teach and research in the area of computer networks. Since that time, I have taught over 25 classes in computer networks at both the undergraduate and graduate level. I have received over 5 million dollars in funding for my research and have written several articles and made numerous presentations on the topic.

4) In 1995, I created and taught one of the first computer security classes at Iowa State University and in the country. Under my guidance, in 1999, Iowa State University was recognized by the National Security Agency as a center of excellence. And in 2000, the Iowa State University Information Assurance Center was created. I am its first and only director. I am a Certified Forensics Computer Engineer. My Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit (A)

5) On September 9th 2003, I testified in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the uses of peer-to-peer protocols.

Prior Experience

6) I have been teaching computer networking since 1986 and written papers and performed research on computer networks.

7) I have given over 50 presentations on computer security and networks at conferences, workshops, and various meetings.

8) I hold two patents in the area of computer network security and have won two R&D 100 awards for technologies I developed at Palisade Systems. One of these technologies is designed to detect and block peer-to-peer network protocols in addition to over 100 other network protocols.

9) I have assisted the Iowa State University Police department on several computer cases, including cases using peer-to-peer networks to distribute pirated software and child por nography.

10) One of my graduate students, under my supervision and guidance, developed a system that monitors peer-to-peer networks and other forms of file-sharing for child por nography.

11) My rate for analysis and testimony is $200.00 per hour. Additional expenses relating to analysis, testimony, and travel are reimbursed at the incurred costs.

Hard Drive Forensics

12) This case involved the examination of a hard drive. Several terms need to be defined relative to a hard drive examination.

Current Internet History -- Internet history on the computer that has not been altered. This history can be tied to a specific user account on the computer, if the operating system permits it.

Forensically Sound -- The preservation of evidence surrounding a case such that the evidence is kept exactly the way it was received. In computer terms, "forensically sound" relates to the preservation of the state of the data -- no information has been added, edited or removed from the forensic media during the examination.

Initiating Party -- The party that brings the forensic media in for analysis, and provides the scope of the investigation to the investigators.

Internet Cache -- A location on a piece of media that contains downloaded images, movies, sounds and web pages of locations users have visited on the Internet. The Internet Cache is often cleared to make more space available on the media, and can be configured to be emptied when the user closes the Internet browser.

Investigators -- Those performing the forensic analysis of the media for the specified parameters.

Media -- The items that contain digital evidence, which are brought to the investigators for analysis. Media includes, but is not limited to, hard drives, USB devices, CD-ROM's, floppy discs, ZIPtm discs and DVD's.

Past/Removed Internet History -- Internet history on the computer that had to be recovered from unallocated (deleted) file space.

Unallocated Space -- When files are deleted from media, references to them are removed, but the actual data may still exist on the media. Unallocated space is the term used to describe any part on the media where a file may have existed. Since unallocated space is eventually overwritten, the usage of the computer dictates how long a deleted file will exist here.

13) The hard drive examination followed several steps as outlined below, which are consistent with the process outlined by the International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists.

Evidence Acquisition Phase

During the acquisition phase, the initiating party provides the investigators with relevant media associated with the case. The initiating party also provides investigators with information surrounding the investigation that will be applied in the analysis stage. Once the media is delivered to the investigators, proper documentation is signed indicating the media transfer.

Evidence Preservation Phase

During the preservation phase, an exact, forensically sound copy is made of each medium obtained in the acquisition phase. This ensures the original media is not tainted in any way. Further, hash values are created of the original media, and compared against the copies, to ensure that the copied data accurately represents the original media. This keeps the forensic process sound.

Analysis Stage

During the analysis stage, information that relates to the case is searched for over all the media obtained. This information is retrieved during the acquisition phase. This ensures that the investigators are only looking for information pertaining to this case. Investigations outside the parameters will not take place, unless otherwise explicitly stated by the initiating party.

Conclusion Stage

The conclusion stage will draw together everything analyzed in the analysis stage. Here, the investigator will review the recovered data, and provide explanations of why the data exists where it does, and how the data relates to the case.

Materials Considered

14) I have reviewed the underlining investigative data for the Lindor case. This includes all of the data supplied by MediaSentry. I also have reviewed information supplied by Defendant's Internet Service Provider (ISP) Verizon Internet Services. Below is a list of the materials I considered in developing my conclusions.

a) MediaSentry Screenshots
b) MediaSentry Systemlog
c) MediaSentry UserLog (compressed)
d) MediaSentry UserLog
e) MediaSentry Download Logs
f) Certificate of Registration
g) MediaSentry Trace
h) Verizon Internet Services subpoena response
i) Disk drive image from defendant's computer

Conclusions

In addition to the conclusions contained in my report dated April 7th 2006 I have the following additional conclusions based on the additional information from the hard drive image.

15) I will testify to the procedures used and results obtained by MediaSentry coupled with the information supplied by Defendant's ISP, to demonstrate the Defendant's Internet account and computer were used to download and upload copyrighted music from the Internet using the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.

16) I will testify that based on the MediaSentry data mentioned above and registry entries recovered from the computer that the computer had a public IP address and was not connected to the Internet via a wireless router.

17) I will testify based on the forensics examination that the computer had three usernames of interest that were named Kathleen, Woody, and Yanick.

18) I will testify that I found very few user created files and saved emails on the hard I was provided to by the defendant.

19) I will testify that based on the data recovered from the hard drive provided by the defendant that the users Woody, Kathleen, and Yanick accessed the Internet using the computer.

20) I will testify that based on the data recovered from the hard drive that this hard drive does not appear to be the same hard drive that was used to share copyrighted songs as shown by the MediaSentry materials. I will testify based on the forensics examination of the hard drive that was copied from the computer owned by the defendant that the computer had no evidence of the KaZaA program nor was there any evidence of the KaZaA program ever being installed on the computer, although the MediaSentry data showed the computer connected to the defendant's Internet account was running the KaZaA program.

21) I will testify based on the data recovered from the hard drive produced by the defendant that the computer had a Western Digital 100 GB USB external hard drive connected to it and that the external hard drive was first connected on or before 7/8/2004. The external hard drive was not provided by the defendant.

22) The user Woody used Windows MediaPlayer to access songs and other files from a directory:
(F:hDocuments and SettingsYanickMy Documentsdownloadyayahq) located on the external hard drive.

23) I will testify that based on the data recovered from the hard drive that the user Woody was administer of the computer.

24) I will testify that based on the data recovered from the hard drive provided by the defendant that several email addresses were associated with users on the computer including: [redacted]

25) I will testify that based on the data recovered from the hard drive provided by the defendant that the yahoo account jeanlindor was accessed using the computer.

26) I will testify that the computer contained the resume of Gustave Lindor, Jr. and that the document indicates he was living and working in Brooklyn N.Y. and working at Long John Silver's during the dates that the copyrighted music was being shared.

27) I reserve the right to review additional discovery materials, as they are made available for my review, and use any of the material considered as exhibits in my testimony.

Attachments;
Doug Jacobson -- Curriculum Vitae -- Exhibit (A)

I declare under penalty of perjury and the laws of the United States that foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 15 day of December, 2007, at 9:00 am

__[signature]___

Dr. Doug Jacobson


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )