±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 0 Overall: 36779
New Yesterday: 2 Visitors: 135

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

±Latest Videos

±Latest Jobs

Faraday Protection

Discussion of forensic issues related to all types of mobile phones and underlying technologies (GSM, GPRS, UMTS/3G, HSDPA, LTE, Bluetooth etc.)
Subforums: Mobile Telephone Case Law
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 

Senior Member

Re: Faraday Protection

Post Posted: Apr 22, 09 19:13

I have one of THE FLAT BLUE BOX, heavy little things aren't they!!!!  

Senior Member

Re: Faraday Protection

Post Posted: Apr 26, 09 23:08

Sorry to sound like a dog with a bone here but I have just had to justify with my department that I should not be using a faraday cage, thankfully I have got my point home and I have had conformation that I do not HAVE to use one, this does not satisfy totally as I was making the point that I should not use one due to their use being prohibited under the Wireless and Telegraphy act (1949 2006).
I am constantly told that the W&T act refers to jammers being illegal and it does not aim at Faraday cages.
For the record (and how I see it) Jammers have their own section.
Section 68 ( W&T act) refers to deliberate interference and states
(2) This section applies to—
(a) whether or not the apparatus in question is wireless telegraphy apparatus;
(b) whether or not it is apparatus specified in regulations under section 54;
(c) whether or not a notice under section 55 or 56 has been given with respect to it, or, if given, has been varied or revoked

The key reference is DELIBERATE,which (again as I see it) means that if I was to buy a lead-lined dustbin and DELIBERATELY place a handset in it to block access, this, in turn would fall under the act of deliberate interference and is therefore prohibited.
Surely any examiner who places a handset into a Faraday cage to block access is doing so deliberately  

Senior Member

Re: Faraday Protection

Post Posted: Apr 28, 09 14:09

The 'intention' element to use apparatus to which bigjon is referring that is not the same as someone deliberately going into an underground car park 10 levels down where no RF signal is detected and there are no in-building microcells. Otherwise everyone going into a building that blocks a signal might potentially be said to be using an unlawful apparatus.

The above discussion is not fantasy, there are some of have tried to argue that one.
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 

Senior Member

Re: Faraday Protection

Post Posted: Apr 28, 09 15:36

I think you are getting bogged down in the letter of the legislation and possible ignoring the rules on interpretation. Courts nowadays are adopting the European purposive approach to determining what the mischief is that a particular bit of legislation is intended to resolve. It seems clear that the W&T act is designed to prevent unauthorised interference with broadcast signals in the sense that someone might block the local emergency services, the military, Air Traffic or some other essential transmission such as CBBC.

I can not see that when parliament passed this act that it was there intention to prevent someone placing a phone in a screened bag in order to carry out an investigation.
Paul Sanderson
SQLite Forensics Book

Forensic Toolkit for SQLite

Page 4 of 4
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4