Wader2
Papershuffler, thank you for your analysis. One should consider the reason for any leakage of information. From the initial CVR leak to this one. Obvious reasons are vanity and money. Where it is hard evidence the motive could well be greed.
Very easy to slip a cell phone in your pocket, especially if you know that others have been found. Self-justification would be easy and lots of money could be made. There must be journalists aplenty in the area 'protecting their sources'
Any investigators searching should have been briefed on the correct way to handle electronic evidence ("EE"). There may even be a specialist on site to handle/secure anything found, to ensure no data is lost. (This was standard procedure for the cases I worked on. A device could be 'imaged' - a digital copy made - and left in situ if the correct equipment was available, but I don't consider that would have been practical in this case.)
As an example of how EE is dealt with: on one of my first operations, I found a mobile phone. I reacted as you would on finding a poisonous snake - I stepped back, swore, and yelled for help. I then wrote the discovery in my notebook, and left the arriving geek to deal with it. It had been hammered into us to
not do anything which may compromise the data. e.g. If it was the execution of a search warrant, it's possible the phone owner had been attempting to send a text to warn someone else that a raid was on, and touching that phone or moving it may have sent the message. If multiple items were found at the same time, it would greatly impede a search, especially if there were limited staff. You could not move on until it had been dealt with/handed over.
On the side of a mountain/bottom of a gully, recovery procedures are probably slightly different. I would however hope that investigators would still have the presence of mind to not interfere with devices, and to keep them isolated.
What really, really concerns me is that if any of the clips are real, it's also likely valuable evidence has been lost forever. When a device is forensically analysed, they can find often find 'that little bit more'. When a device is operated under non-sterile conditions, some of this data is irretrievably written over.
That's why picking up a device 'to see if there's anything on it' is so damaging. How easy would it be to hit the wrong button on an unfamiliar device? To power on an already-damaged device which then short circuits and wipes the memory?
Also, do you think that anyone who has already stolen something from the deceased would respect any last messages to their friends or family that have been left? Or photos taken while on holiday which relatives may treasure forever?
I don't think such an action can be justified in any way. In fact, it disgusts me. And it disgusts me that any organisation would pay someone for such 'information', or even provide an outlet for them. All involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Isotope Toast
1. The article leads off by saying that they have obtained a "video of the final seconds of the crash."
IF they have obtained a video, it was likely to be by nefarious purposes. And likely to have destroyed other evidence in the process.
oldnetd
Phone video might auto upload
If a phone survived the crash, then it is possible that it uploaded a video file to the cloud. I know lots of people whose partners know their passwords and would be able to retrieve a file.
There probably was no signal on the mountain, however if the searchers did not put any phones in metal boxes, it is possible that they uploaded as soon as they got to civilisation.
The three immediate limitations that occur to me are:
- battery length
- recovery procedure
- sterile forensic atmosphere
However, IF devices are not being secured or processed in a sterile atmosphere, it is possible.