Subject: [NEXTEL-1] GSM mobile telephone forensics~

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 10:31:49 -0500

Here is an interesting profession. I wonder if there is anyone else here involved in GSM
mobile telephone forensics or similar?

To add the the original topic "Cell phone suits targeting firms By Laura Parker, USA
TODAY" additional information can be found on www.law.com.

Marcel~
-------- Original Message --------
From: Greg Smith 
Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Cell phone suits targeting firms
To: Marcel <[email-masked]>

Marcel
I am a UK subscriber to your newsgroup and I really appreciate
this excellent service. My area of work is GSM mobile telephone
forensics and I currently train various law enforcement agency
personnel in mobile telephone and SIM examination and cell site
analysis. We over here have learned a lot from the experienced
members of your group who have willing contributed their
knowledge - thank you for that.

Of the many interesting discussions in your group that I find, the
article "Cell phone suits targeting firms By Laura Parker, USA TODAY"
is of interest. I assume it is an application of vicariously liability
relating to employers (as we may view it in the UK) has been applied in an
interesting manner - that the culpable party was acting at the time of
the accident in the course of business (making business mobile calls),
thus was acting on behalf of her employer(?)

An angle which the news article was silent about though was whether the
vehicle used by defendant was her own or that of her employers. A few years
back I was asked to advise in a civil case regarding a personal injury claim
by an employee who claimed that he suffered back problems due to lifting a
laptop and heavy printer from the rear of the vehicle. The claimant was an
insurance salesman. I was instructed to consider the issue of foreseeable
injury likely to be sustained from repeated lifting of the specified devices.
One of the aspect relating to my investigation dealt with health and safety at
work policy and procedures - particularly in cases of staff involved
with manual handling. To cut the story short it was found that a vehicle
issued by an employer to an employee was an extension of the "premises",
thus the vehicle became the workplace ("premises") and subject to the same
principles of the duty of care owed to employees under the Health & Safety
Act 1974 and various Regulations for manual handling, workplace safety and
provision and use of work equipment etc. 

The "Cell phone suits targeting firms" had an additional interest to me as
I was involved in the first criminal case in the UK where a driver was
convicted of reckless manslaughter whilst driving and using a mobile
telephone (Regina v. Mill). Mill worked for a well known Banking group and
was on business at the time of the road fatality.
On this occasion I was giving expert evidence for the Crown (but it makes no
difference to me whether I work for the gamekeepers or the poachers, so to speak).

Following the trial I was asked by the media for my views on using mobile phones
whilst driving. I considered at that time that a car should not be used as an
extension of the office. This tended to fall of deaf ears. I recommended that
mobile phones should carry a warning notice (similar to the size given on
cigarette packets)"DANGER Do Not Use Your Mobile Phone Whilst Driving" - this too
fell on deaf ears, despite being reported in the national press. I occasioned my
first comment about car and extension of office because of my experience
with personal injury cases generally. My second comment about the warning notice
was occasioned because I am aware that people do not read the user manual 
(hence the engineers' term "RTFM").

However, there are some positive aspects about mobile phones and their use by
vehicle drivers. Most certainly in 1997 (at the time of the Mill case) the
emergency services were receiving about 60/70% of 999 calls (equivalent to US E911)
from mobile phones (presumably a percentage of emergency mobile calls were from
car drivers reporting a road traffic accident).  Additionally, in the UK, there have
been numerous cases cited where women in cars were being forced into the motorway
emergency lane by a "wouldbe" attacker but frightened off at seeing the women using
mobile phones to call the police.

Some difficulties with banning mobile phones can be which "class of person" should
be subject to the ban. Also which technology should be prescribed for ban. In the UK
we have the Wireless Telegraphy Act under which mobiles fall, due to their radio
capability, but equally PMR etc etc and correspondingly the people that use them
for their job of work. 

The UK did respond under the Highway Code that included a statement about the use of
mobile phones, which I believe has helped but which may be no comfort to those
who have lost a loved one or those who lose a loved one after the Highway Code
amendments.    

Unlike certain states in the US, the UK has yet to take the substantive step
to ban outright the use of mobile phones in cars. A penalty can be issued though
upon detection, dependent upon the circumstances at the time of use, as I understand
it.

Anyway, I hope this is of interest. Keep your superb service going.

My best wishes

Gregory Smith
Principal Consulting Forensic Engineer

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/