So this caught my eye for the exact reason it happens to be literally a thing I do albeit not as often as it could be. There are three major instances where OSINT was a core part of my investigative research for discovery and yes, there were tons of public record requests. More significant was the dot connecting I became aware many litigators do not naturally seem to do. Keeping it to OSINT allowed me to remain safe that I wasn't overstepping anything. When I worked directly alongside an attorney (as I was a core source of best presenting defined elements in her case) I was able to be more in control and aware of how data was likely applied. This resulted in, her words, the initial most damning smoking gun due to a state department's absolute incompetence.
This seemed almost contrary to the next case but I was brought in by the plaintiff having previously assisted them and been of apparent significant help. Their lack of insight into what OSINT could accomplish and what I knew could benefit their case caused likely the most harm. I delivered a very formal sort of report with my findings upwards of 35 pages but so long as I explained to them the sources it wasn't as important to show it in the report. Despite not knowing what OSINT could accomplish I was significantly more limited and unable to make records requests I typically would have. This was a legal team and fell into the lap of an out of state attorney who made it to half the few meetings we had.
I would charge significantly less than a PI who is sticking to OSINT and certainly less than a purchased online report which are more often than not spotty and inaccurate. I really wish I knew how to make this something consistent and usable by attorneys and their clients.
A good read, sadly USA centric but if there only USA based contributers one can expect nothing else. If OSINT is captured forensically,the workflow being screen captured, the end resut being hashed to prove there has been no interference and the continuittty maintained in the chain of custody then I see no reason why this isn't mainstream in the defence case in criminal or civil law. I would demand it if I were falsey accussed of something and the prosecution (i.e police) do this as a matter of routine.
So this caught my eye for the exact reason it happens to be literally a thing I do albeit not as often as it could be. There are three major instances where OSINT was a core part of my investigative research for discovery and yes, there were tons of public record requests. More significant was the dot connecting I became aware many litigators do not naturally seem to do. Keeping it to OSINT allowed me to remain safe that I wasn't overstepping anything. When I worked directly alongside an attorney (as I was a core source of best presenting defined elements in her case) I was able to be more in control and aware of how data was likely applied. This resulted in, her words, the initial most damning smoking gun due to a state department's absolute incompetence.
This seemed almost contrary to the next case but I was brought in by the plaintiff having previously assisted them and been of apparent significant help. Their lack of insight into what OSINT could accomplish and what I knew could benefit their case caused likely the most harm. I delivered a very formal sort of report with my findings upwards of 35 pages but so long as I explained to them the sources it wasn't as important to show it in the report. Despite not knowing what OSINT could accomplish I was significantly more limited and unable to make records requests I typically would have. This was a legal team and fell into the lap of an out of state attorney who made it to half the few meetings we had.
I would charge significantly less than a PI who is sticking to OSINT and certainly less than a purchased online report which are more often than not spotty and inaccurate. I really wish I knew how to make this something consistent and usable by attorneys and their clients.
A good read, sadly USA centric but if there only USA based contributers one can expect nothing else. If OSINT is captured forensically,the workflow being screen captured, the end resut being hashed to prove there has been no interference and the continuittty maintained in the chain of custody then I see no reason why this isn't mainstream in the defence case in criminal or civil law. I would demand it if I were falsey accussed of something and the prosecution (i.e police) do this as a matter of routine.
Hey now! I think 4/6 of the contributors are Canadian! :) *waves and smiles*