
A U.S. Diplomatic Security Service examiner works with a mobile device. Photo: Diplomatic Security Service/Wikimedia Commons (public domain; illustrative)
Two top executives of a widely used digital forensics company were arrested this week. Oxygen Forensics makes software investigators use to extract, preserve and analyze data from phones, computers, drones and cloud accounts. The company says it serves nearly 10,000 customers in more than 150 countries, including law enforcement and federal agencies. Prosecutors allege its executives hid the company’s Russian ownership and the Russian development of its software while selling it to the U.S. government. The complaint does not allege malicious code or unauthorized access to customers’ systems. Authorities seized Oxygen’s bank accounts, domains and related infrastructure; users reported losing access to its customer portal. It remains unclear how the seizures will affect Oxygen tools already in use in active cases. Read the complaint.
Drones

A Greenville, North Carolina, police drone. Photo: City of Greenville/Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
Ohio is writing the rules for police drones while much of the country lags behind. A new law takes effect October 6. It bars law-enforcement agencies from using armed drones, requires them to preserve relevant flight and surveillance data, and requires a warrant when police would otherwise need one to enter or observe a house or other place. It allows warrantless surveillance in some circumstances, but also codifies the exclusionary rule for evidence gathered without a required warrant.
Ohio is unusual because it already has more developed drone case law than almost anywhere else. A previous Plain Thinking analysis found only two published appellate decisions directly deciding Fourth Amendment challenges to police drone use — both from Ohio. Read State v. Bradley and State v. Stevens.
Quotable
“There are many things that AI cannot—and should not—automate.”
— Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI
AI in court

The Royal Courts of Justice in London, home to the Court of Appeal. Photo: Fred Romero/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)
A British sentencing appeal has brought a police officer’s use of Microsoft Copilot into the open. The officer used it to draft a statement presented as the victim’s own account in the case of Jerome Gibson, who received a 44-month prison sentence. At this week’s appeal hearing, the court heard that the officer had prompted Copilot to make the statement more emotionally powerful and help secure the highest sentence. Gibson argued that the statement had increased his sentence, but the judges rejected his appeal.
Derbyshire Police had already opened a criminal investigation by June into allegations that the officer used AI to create evidential material in several cases. The officer was removed from frontline duties, and the Crown Prosecution Service said it was engaging with defense teams and courts in appropriate cases.
Number of the Day
101,500
Manual reviews of Michigan firearm-license and sales records eliminated after the state added optical character recognition to its document-processing system.
In Other News
A hacking group says it stole thousands of records on FBI employees and job applicants. (404 Media)
Microsoft disrupted a cybercrime platform that used AI to sift through hacked email inboxes. (BleepingComputer)
An Australian government portal tried to block an OpenAI agent, which found another way in. (ABC News)
WHO Africa staff say AI helps them prepare a daily Ebola report on the outbreak in eastern Congo in under an hour, down from a full day. (Superpower Daily)
Anthropic says its AI model may have found a new way to edit genes. (TechCrunch)
About Plain Thinking
Grant Morgan is an attorney, former prosecutor and former Tribune Publishing reporter who covered Gary, Indiana, and Chicago’s northern suburbs. Plain Thinking covers AI and consequential technology affecting lawyers, police and courts.
Every Tuesday and Friday · Get Plain Thinking by email · LinkedIn
If an issue includes paid placements, they’ll be clearly labeled. Companies don’t pay for editorial inclusion.