Update: Mobile Weapons and Seizure Procedure

UPDATED: FCORD2016 Chapter 27 Discussion Document Seizure and Handling preparing a Best Practice Model - DOWNLOAD DISCUSSION DOCUMENT

Update: Mobile Weapons and Seizure Procedure

Regrettably a further manufacturer has entered into the arena by adapting a mobile device design(above) that transforms into a weapon for firing bullets.


The MTEB (Mobile Telephone Examination Board) Eighth Edition Section 4 Mobile Telephone Seizure Procedure (Mobile Weapons) updates on new items and handling procedures for them.  



There has been a slow but persistent level in mobile/smart phones being adapted for use as some form of weapon.

Back in 2008 trewmte.blogspot reported about the mobile phone that fires bullets. The story of this wasn't new, by any means, but was highlighted to illustrate the variety and exposure of devices that those involved in seizure procedure and mobile phone examiners can come into contact. 



Report: http://trewmte.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/mobile-phone-that-fires-bullets.html

UPDATED: 2015 Imitation Style Mobile: Cost Approx 20-euros
Note the gloves for handling procedure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieeW617pT2I

UPDATED: 2014 Officer suffered shock conducting search
An officer conducting the search suffered a shock as he examined the fake handset but was not seriously injured. Good photo example shown of safe evidence container: iphone-stun-gun-seized-from-a-14-year-old-by-greater-manchester-police
.
Over time the trewmte.blogspot has highlighted other weapons, such as Stun Guns:



 http://trewmte.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/stun-gun-cellphone.html



http://trewmte.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/another-mobile-telephone-stun-gun.html

But mobile/smart phones that propel objects or inflict severe shock are not the only adaptations out there. Take for instance the age old weapon of a knife adapted for use with a mobile phone ( seized 2005):

And now in 2012 we now have another weapon that uses an adapted iPhone case which the manufacturers purport can be used for personal protection to spray pepper in the eyes:

The above are by no means the end of mobile/smart phones adapted for some form of weapons. We only know too well how mobile phones have been rigged to set off incendiary devices etc, which the MTEB labels IMD (improvised mobile devices):  

 


Yes the photos above all present disburbing images, but not for sensational purposes. Thankfully, it is not common for those involved with seizing items and examiners to come into contact with adapted and improvised devices like these on a regular basis. We still need to be aware and have a proposed handling procedure in place to deal with them though. That is on the basis that mobile/smart phone seizure and examination happens globally. The trewmte.blogspot is not simply local to the UK but deals with international matters and therefore articles like this are not only for UK consumption but for other countries that are involved in and employ seizure and examination procedures.

Lastly, and of specific relavance to seizure and examination procedure, it is priority to deal with mobile/smart phone weapon/s as opposed to figuring out what a person may have intended to do with it/them; figuring out is a thought process that can come later on. Why? One very good reason, the person who is seizing an adapted device (e.g. iPhone case above) and accidently sprays pepper into his/her face because s/he had no prior knowledge about the adapted device is clearly a priority. It is immaterial that the owner of such a device may have had genuine reasons (attacker pepper spray) for having such a device. Apart from mal-intention and recklessness of IMDs etc, for the majority of persons seizing or examining the device they wouldn't be the intended target and are nothing more than innocent bystanders.

Mobile Weapons and Seizure Procedure

Mobile Weapons and Seizure Procedure

The MTEB (Mobile Telephone Examination Board) is preparing the Eighth Edition of Section 4 Mobile Telephone Seizure Procedure (Mobile Weapons) and will update on new items and handling procedures for them.  



There has been a slow but persistent level in mobile/smart phones being adapted for use as some form of weapon.

Back in 2008 trewmte.blogspot reported about the mobile phone that fires bullets. The story of this wasn't new, by any means, but was highlighted to illustrate the variety and exposure of devcies that those involved in seizure procedure and mobile phone examiners can come into contact. 



Report: http://trewmte.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/mobile-phone-that-fires-bullets.html

Over time the trewmte.blogspot has highlighted other weapons, such as Stun Guns:



 http://trewmte.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/stun-gun-cellphone.html



http://trewmte.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/another-mobile-telephone-stun-gun.html

But mobile/smart phones that propel objects or inflict severe shock are not the only adaptations out there. Take for instance the age old weapon of a knife adapted for use with a mobile phone ( seized 2005):

And now in 2012 we now have another weapon that uses an adapted iPhone case which the manufacturers purport can be used for personal protection to spray pepper in the eyes:

The above are by no means the end of mobile/smart phones adapted for some form of weapons. We only know too well how mobile phones have been rigged to set off incendiary devices etc, which the MTEB labels IMD (improvised mobile devices):  

 


Yes the photos above all present disburbing images, but not for sensational purposes. Thankfully, it is not common for those involved with seizing items and examiners to come into contact with adapted and improvised devices like these on a regular basis. We still need to be aware and have a proposed handling procedure in place to deal with them though. That is on the basis that mobile/smart phone seizure and examination happens globally. The trewmte.blogspot is not simply local to the UK but deals with international matters and therefore articles like this are not only for UK consumption but for other countries that are involved in and employ seizure and examination procedures.

Lastly, and of specific relavance to seizure and examination procedure, it is priority to deal with mobile/smart phone weapon/s as opposed to figuring out what a person may have intended to do with it/them; figuring out is a thought process that can come later on. Why? One very good reason, the person who is seizing an adapted device (e.g. iPhone case above) and accidently sprays pepper into his/her face because s/he had no prior knowledge about the adapted device is clearly a priority. It is immaterial that the owner of such a device may have had genuine reasons (attacker pepper spray) for having such a device. Apart from mal-intention and recklessness of IMDs etc, for the majority of persons seizing or examining the device they wouldn't be the intended target and are nothing more than innocent bystanders.

Mobile Face Recognition Might Replace Password/PIN

Mobile Face Recognition Might Replace Password/PIN

One exciting aspect about forensic examination of mobile handsets is the constant exposure to innovation and change in the variety of handsets with which we are exposed, sometimes on a daily basis. Legality and privacy are two imposing factors when in comes to dealing with content on mobile phones and the right of access. Where PIN and/or Password is not revealed by the suspect, authority is needed to continue to gain access to a device in order to reveal content.

Passwords/PIN are commonly alpha-numeric digits and there are ways and methods of dealing with those. When Android introduced symbol based password options for their handsets, this feature added a new dimension an examiner had to cope with during the examination process.  Now there is a new development to deal with, created from an EU funded project, MOBIOproject. MOBIO stands for Mobile Biometry. More on this subject.........

http://forensicmobex.blogspot.com/2010/10/mobile-face-recognition-might-replace.html

Mobile Phone that fires bullets

Mobile Phone that fires bullets

For those that read today's Daily Mail 26th November 2008 or went online to Mail Online, will probably have noticed the article titled "Dial M for murder: The Mafia gun disguised as a mobile phone" By Nick Pisa. The weblink to the article is below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1089355/Dial-M-murder-The-Mafia-gun-disguised-mobile-phone.html

This mobile phone gun has been news for quite sometime, although there have been few incidences where there have been published newspaper reports and therefore the Daily Mail and Mail Online article make useful historical reference material.

Indeed, there has been a video in circulation on the Internet about a mobile phone gun for quite sometime and a copy of the video is below.



It is for that reason why this mobile phone weapon is discussed in the section on safety first when handling mobile phone weapons in the TrewMTE Mobile Telephone Seizure Procedure guidelines and observations for examiners who may come across such a weapon. The guidelines will soon be finished but there have been some new developments in mobile phone seizure and handling procedures that require to be addressed before publication.

Acknowledgements:
Video first linked to here: http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=cellphonegun&gbv=2
Image first linked to here: http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=cellphonegun&gbv=2

Mobile Calls on Aeroplanes

Mobile Calls on Aeroplanes

.

Back in November 2006 I wrote here at trewmte.blogspot a brief piece regarding "Switch On, Update, Lose Evidence":

.

http://trewmte.blogspot.com/2006/11/switch-on-update-lose-evidence.html

.

The discussion thread related to the same but more indepth discussion in "Switch On, Update, Lose Evidence" that could be found in MTE (Mobile Telephone Evidence) Newsletter - copy of the May 2006 Newsletter can be downloaded here:

.

http://www.filebucket.net/files/1579_ov3rx/Switch%20On%20Update%20Lose%20Evidence%20.pdf

.

The purpose of the indepth discussion related to how evidence can be corrupted and contaminated where poor Seizure, Handling and Examination Procedures had been adopted. The discussion illustrated where a user with a mobile telephone steps off an aeroplane and the attempt to discover where the mobile phone had been used.

.

I had been aware for some years before I wrote the MTE Newsletter article that Airline companies were looking at and developing ways passengers could use their mobile phones on planes. At the time of writing the article it wasn't too difficult to imagine that "Switch On, Update, Lose Evidence" implicitly gave a heads up as early as May 2006 to pay attention to formulating various procedures for mobile telephone evidence at airports. Importantly, the indepth discussion wasn't then and isn't now intended to suggest victimising everyone who gets off a plane holding a mobile phone as being involved with something suspicious.

.

It would appear that the MTE Newsletter advanced warning though was well placed, for it now appears March 20th 2008 that according to BBC online middle east news that "Dubai-based airline Emirates has become the first commercial airline to allow passengers to make mobile phone calls during flights. Emirates said the first permitted mobile phone call was made on a flight between Dubai and Casablanca.":

.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7308041.stm

.

The technology behind Emirates being able to offer mobile calls on their flights originates from http://www.aeromobile.net using pico-cell radio access technology inflight:

.

"AeroMobile allows the use of GSM phones and can also support GPRS mobile data (for BlackBerry’s etc), Wi-Fi, CDMA and 3G/UMTS. AeroMobile comprises an aircraft cabin ‘pico cell’ system that interfaces with the aircraft’s air-to-ground communications systems, typically a satellite-based system. Once transmitted to the ground, signals are sent to AeroMobile’s ground system and on to the destination mobile phone and telecoms networks around the world."

.

Evidentially, this could be very interesting but the use of mobile phones on planes may seem problematical at first. But we will cope, we always do. The evidence from the device shouldn't be too much of a problem although issues of dead-man's trap should always be considered. Equally of interest will be usage, call records and cell site analysis. The latter, cell site analysis, should prove thought provoking, for is there sovereignty on an aeroplane? If there is not (and sovereighty is only applicable to airspace) and a call starts and terminates within the same airspace the sovereignty of which belongs to country XYZ then there may well be some jurisdictional issues to deal with. However, given the confines of the plane's cabin it may well be difficult for a user, if you follow my drift, to suggest that when the call was made s/he wasn't in the plane, but somewhere in the neighbourhood.