The internet is a rapidly expanding technology and is a global phenomenon utilizing a medium for sharing forms of digital communication. Underground classes of criminals leverage cyber technology in furtherance of their criminal goals while investigators attempt to parry by detecting and apprehending these criminals – this through a constant state of leveraging existing techniques or creating new ones. Developing investigative techniques requires experience and the ability to evolve – a reactive learning curve following behind the wake of a technocratic society. In United States v. Anthony V. Mangione, the defendant, Mangione, was sentenced to 70 months in prison after pleading guilty to one count of transportation of child pornography.
…show more content…
While ICAC commenced with the preliminary steps of a cyber investigation – e.g., the subpoenaing of AOL records, account information, subscriber and IP logs, details of Mangione's law enforcement status had not yet been revealed to investigators. Based only on one digital image from AOL, the lead was filed as a non-priority. However, things changed during the course of the investigation when an analyst discovered that Mangione could possibly be a federal agent. The revelation immediately altered the priority and course of the investigation. Were Mangione's email communications part of some elaborate undercover operation that was sloppily done? Could someone else be using Mangione's account? Could the perpetrator be leeching off Mangione's home wifi? Eliminating the potential of a misidentification would be crucial for several reasons. Failing to do so could possibly implicate an innocent person. Also, if the government were to formally implicate Mangione and then later determine he was wrongfully accused, the stigma attached to a child sexual abuse case …show more content…
This incident offered Mangione two advantages he did not have before. First, this was quite possibly the first time he was alerted to the fact he was a subject of interest to someone. Second, if the someone was a law-enforcement official, it could offer to him conclusive proof the government was investigating him. Destroying evidence would be foremost on his mind. If he believed in the latter, as investigators postulated, destroying evidence would be his priority. The investigators were now in a crunch to wrap up lose ends and approach Mangione. By the time, the search warrant was signed, investigators anticipated Mangione was likely prepared. When the task force approached Mangione, they discovered a laptop in his work vehicle. According to his family members, the laptop was off limits because it was Mangione's work computer, although, authorities later showed it to have been purchased with his own funds. A forensic analysis of the computer, revealed something of interest, but not what investigators expected to find. Instead of child abuse images, the laptop had wiping software installed. An examination of the logs revealed multiple “wipings,” the remnants of additional screen names and fragmented chats indicative of child exploitation themes. Deeper analysis revealed hibernation files depicting child erotica. At this point in the investigation, David Osborne enters.
While ICAC commenced with the preliminary steps of a cyber investigation – e.g., the subpoenaing of AOL records, account information, subscriber and IP logs, details of Mangione's law enforcement status had not yet been revealed to investigators. Based only on one digital image from AOL, the lead was filed as a non-priority. However, things changed during the course of the investigation when an analyst discovered that Mangione could possibly be a federal agent. The revelation immediately altered the priority and course of the investigation. Were Mangione's email communications part of some elaborate undercover operation that was sloppily done? Could someone else be using Mangione's account? Could the perpetrator be leeching off Mangione's home wifi? Eliminating the potential of a misidentification would be crucial for several reasons. Failing to do so could possibly implicate an innocent person. Also, if the government were to formally implicate Mangione and then later determine he was wrongfully accused, the stigma attached to a child sexual abuse case …show more content…
This incident offered Mangione two advantages he did not have before. First, this was quite possibly the first time he was alerted to the fact he was a subject of interest to someone. Second, if the someone was a law-enforcement official, it could offer to him conclusive proof the government was investigating him. Destroying evidence would be foremost on his mind. If he believed in the latter, as investigators postulated, destroying evidence would be his priority. The investigators were now in a crunch to wrap up lose ends and approach Mangione. By the time, the search warrant was signed, investigators anticipated Mangione was likely prepared. When the task force approached Mangione, they discovered a laptop in his work vehicle. According to his family members, the laptop was off limits because it was Mangione's work computer, although, authorities later showed it to have been purchased with his own funds. A forensic analysis of the computer, revealed something of interest, but not what investigators expected to find. Instead of child abuse images, the laptop had wiping software installed. An examination of the logs revealed multiple “wipings,” the remnants of additional screen names and fragmented chats indicative of child exploitation themes. Deeper analysis revealed hibernation files depicting child erotica. At this point in the investigation, David Osborne enters.