It is all inside the name -mobile device. Those two words inform you, your reader, that it is a product that may be mobile. By mobile it merely implies that the device might be anywhere. In a effort to the device to get “aware” of the spot for cellular and data reception it should seek out where worldwide it will be. This is simply the way the mobile phone works, and must work. If you think maybe that this is simply not the facts just turn off Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cellular (turn on airplane mode). Go outside and open up Google maps or Apple Maps and walk around. You will quickly realize that your blue dot remains being tracked. However, when you shut off Location Services And put in Airplane mode then you will be prompted to allow to get a current fix and denying this feature will in fact put you “somewhat” off the grid. However, nobody wants to turn their mobile phone in a simple music player, so valuable location information is always available when conducting mobile forensics tools.
Location information is held in the EXIF (Exchangeable Image Format) data of the photo. This data could have the unit information, varying weather conditions, latitude/longitude, focus, along with other markers. As indicated the latitude and longitude of images can be inside the EXIF which will help to recognize the area the photo was taken using the mobile device. With the ability to sharing SD cards with Android devices the investigator should be cognizant of your further information (i.e., device information) before indicating what device took the picture. Also, EXIF data does not have to get contained in the image. In the event the photo was sent or received the EXIF data is truly the first information to be removed inside the compression process. This is just done by many social media sites allowing for better speed and network performance. Massive images will be a serious bottleneck from the system. However, a user also can elect to not include location information using a global setting within both iOS and Android devices. This may be the truth as to why an investigator might not exactly see location information within the EXIF metadata.
Apps in a mobile phone certainly are a treasure trove of significant case data. With 80% of today’s users using a minimum of one social app to talk there is absolutely no reason an 85dexhpky should not be experiencing all apps on a mobile device. Also, many have location services built-in as soon as the app has a picture/video capability, directions, business lookup, business check-in, or other location type services. Also, in order to let the device to be effective better in regions of low network bandwidth things such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are employed and so the device must report general location too. This database records the searched locations within the Google Map app, storing the latitude and longitude in addition to a timestamp. This data is incorporated in the suggestions table from the SQLite database.
This property list might be fantastic for any investigation. iOS devices also cache location information such as cellular and Wi-Fi usage to help it’s many users with better performance. However, many automated tools usually do not parse or analyze this file in addition to a number of other location and settings files. An investigator armed having the ability to manually harvest these kinds of artifacts can frequently make considerable contributions towards the overall investigation.
A particular for virtually any investigation-remember we no longer use map books bought at the nearest convenience store. Everyone uses some kind of direction app, regardless of whether they generally do not drive. I have no idea how many times I have got used Google Maps to appear up an address in another country i was walking to, or looking to see how far it was actually. What great evidence if an investigator wants commonalities using a crime and a location. Did anyone look into the location prior, obtain driving directions, or any other nugget?
Location information is extremely powerful in virtually any investigation, but could possibly be the smoking gun in cases involving a couple of devices. Imagine this: While conducting an interview of a couple, both say they do not know one another and also have never seen one another prior to today. The investigator has seized both cellular devices and began the tedious technique of dealing with the information. By reviewing the area data, using a timeline of events, the investigator can rapidly realize that both individual devices, who are not from France, but thought to be associated with terrorist activities were .3 miles from one another within thirty minutes of each other. The “heat map” shows towards the examiner your day and time the tools are most active. Further investigation said that both devices were in London’s Heathrow airport two days prior, just 10 mins apart and also in the same terminal, along with the following day with a small cafe at the same time. However the subjects failed to speak to one another this location information clearly shows the devices they had possession of were in close proximity of each other on three independent days before the attack.