Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Rolling a PiXiE STiX hash paper joint Hash strain: Zoap 🧼 Size: 1x1 (will be filled with 1g flower) Always hand-rolled For Pros Only 🧚‍♀️

26,054 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

FACT CHECK: Here at the first trial, the Commonwealth’s own expert witness, Ian Whiffin, confirms the necessity & importance of hash values for the sake of “hash verification”, a necessary step in authenticating the data & being able to verify that it hasn’t been altered or manipulated. In fact, Whiffin actually gives this testimony in response to a question about when the data have been altered or tampered with, if there’s a way for the forensic examiner (him) to detect it, and/or verify its authenticity and integrity. Remarkably, despite the DFIR industry standard methodology of hash verifying a digital forensic extraction, like that of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, prior to conducting any analysis on it with any forensic tools, Ian Whiffin testified that notably, for his work on this case, not only did he abandon this standard methodology, but he also admitted that the forensic extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, which he received from the Commonwealth, was stripped of its hash value. Perhaps more remarkably, this stunning fact apparently didn’t raise any red flags for Ian Whiffin when conducting his analysis in this case, where he’s providing testimony in a murder trial. One must ask themselves why that is? However, defense expert Richard Green, in his affidavit, states that: “Typically, forensic examiners are provided with the raw image file and the associated: hash value documentation together. After validating the hash value, I would then accept that the data has not been manipulated. Here, however, the hash documentation was not provided with the raw image of the cell phone. Instead, it was withheld from the defense. As a forensic examiner having received hundreds of imaged phones over the course of my decades-long career, this was unprecedented.” Contrary to Mr. Whiffin’s approach, upon initially receiving a purported extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone without a hash value to authenticate and verify the integrity of the data, Mr. Green promptly requested the hash value and corresponding GrayKey supplemental files from the Commonwealth in order to conduct his analysis. After making this demand, and when the Commonwealth had to produce the hash verification data for Jen McCabe’s iPhone, remarkably, the Commonwealth also produced—for the first time, and over a year later on February 8, 2023—the Full File System Extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone (see “Notice of Discovery VIII,” attached). Unlike the initial purported “extraction” produced by Trooper Nicholas Guarino, this one contained Jen McCabe’s incriminating 2:27am Google search and all of the manual deletions of her communications, among other incriminating evidence, surrounding the murder of Officer John O’Keefe (see defense’s Rule 17 motion from April 12, 2023, attached). So, this begs the question: If Ian Whiffin knows the importance of hash verification in validating the authenticity of the data he’s working with in the first place, then why didn’t he take the same actions as defense expert Richard Green did to responsibly and reliably provide analysis in this case? If Whiffin ought to be deemed an expert, qualified to provide analysis and testimony at trial, then why did he abandon his industry’s standard methodology of hash verification in this case? Even Cellebrite knows this is a no-no! What say you? #KarenReadTrial #Cellebrite #DFIR

Olivia

20,211 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr