The Unreliable Promise of Cybercheck: How a Questionable Investigative Tool Impacted Criminal Cases
The case of Kayla Unbehaun, abducted in 2017 and later found thanks to a serendipitous encounter with a Netflix Unsolved Mysteries viewer, highlights a concerning trend in law enforcement: the reliance on commercially-available investigative tools with questionable accuracy and reliability. Specifically, the investigation into Kayla’s disappearance involved Cybercheck, a product offered by Global Intelligence, raising serious questions about the vetting process and evidentiary standards employed when utilizing such technologies. This article delves into the use of Cybercheck in criminal investigations, exploring its limitations, the lack of transparency surrounding its capabilities, and the potential consequences of relying on unverified data.
The Kayla Unbehaun Case: A High-Profile Example
The narrative of Kayla’s abduction and eventual recovery is compelling. For six years, her father desperately searched for his daughter, and the South Elgin, Illinois police department followed every lead. Their investigation intersected with Global Intelligence’s Cybercheck. Sergeant Dan Eichholz received a report placing Kayla and her mother, Heather Unbehaun, in Oregon. However, as Eichholz himself stated, “I don’t want to say it wasn’t actionable, but I couldn’t just take their information and go with it. That was always the hang-up for us. ‘OK, you got me this information, but I still have to check and verify and do my thing with search warrants.’" This candid admission underscores a critical issue: while Cybercheck provided a lead, it lacked sufficient supporting evidence to meet the necessary standards for obtaining a search warrant. The information, while potentially suggestive, proved ultimately unreliable in the formal legal context. The case was eventually resolved through entirely different means, highlighting the inherent limitations of Cybercheck in this critical situation.
Cybercheck’s Spread Through Law Enforcement: A Marketing Triumph, But A Fact-Checking Failure
Despite the limitations illustrated by the Unbehaun case, Cybercheck has gained traction among law enforcement agencies across the country. This spread is due in large part to aggressive marketing tactics employed by Global Intelligence. The company frequently offered free trials to police departments, showcasing the technology’s capabilities without providing concrete proof of its effectiveness. "Emails show Global Intelligence sales representatives regularly offered to run police departments’ cases through Cybercheck for free in order to demonstrate the technology," revealing a strategy prioritizing sales over rigorous validation. This practice raises serious concerns about how agencies assess and adopt new technologies, questioning the objectivity of their evaluation processes.
Furthermore, Global Intelligence frequently alluded to high-profile cases supposedly solved with Cybercheck’s help, yet consistently refrained from offering any verifiable evidence. This tactic, while strategically effective in promoting the product, demonstrates a disturbing lack of transparency and responsible data dissemination. The absence of concrete case studies illustrating Cybercheck’s success underscores the inherent risk of relying on such unproven methodology.
Prosecutorial Perspectives on Cybercheck: Cautious Acceptance and Adversarial Scrutiny
Prosecutors, too, have interacted with Cybercheck’s data, although their reactions vary. Some prosecutors, like Midland County’s Borden, learned about Cybercheck through local law enforcement use, adopting a wait-and-see approach. "It was new technology and I was curious, so I was like, ‘Let’s give it a try and see how far we can get,’” Borden says. “I’m thankful that it didn’t come into evidence in my case, that I didn’t need it to get my conviction.” This statement reflects a cautious attitude, acknowledging the novelty of the technology and its potential limitations. The adversarial nature of the court system ultimately ensured that the validity of Cybercheck’s information would be subject to rigorous scrutiny, serving as a critical safeguard against relying on unreliable data.
Other agencies, however, exhibited varying levels of due diligence. The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, initially enthusiastic about Cybercheck’s potential for cold case breakthroughs, actively promoted it to other agencies in the state. This eagerness, fueled by marketing materials, helped establish a degree of confidence in the technology within the Ohio law enforcement community, highlighting how marketing strategies can influence adoption decisions without necessarily validating the product’s effectiveness. This demonstrates the potential for biases within law enforcement which can result in the acceptance of insufficiently reviewed technology.
The Search for Open-Source Investigation Tools: The Need for Critical Evaluation
Despite some agencies’ experiences with Cybercheck, the desire to leverage open-source intelligence persists. Summit County Prosecutor’s office, after withdrawing Cybercheck evidence, is now actively seeking similar open-source locating services from other vendors. “We don’t want to shut doors that can help point to the truth in our cases,” Gessner stated, reflecting a desire to utilize technology effectively without disregarding potentially valuable investigative avenues. This determination, however, underscores the importance of establishing careful vetting procedures to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
The Crucial Need for Robust Verification and Ethical Practices
The story of Cybercheck reveals a significant gap in the evaluation and implementation of new technologies in law enforcement. The ease with which Global Intelligence disseminated its product, coupled with the lack of rigorous independent verification, highlights the critical need for a more systematic approach. Law enforcement agencies must prioritize independent testing and validation of any technology before relying on it for investigations. Over-reliance on commercially available solutions without sufficient scrutiny risks jeopardizing the integrity of investigations and potentially leading to wrongful convictions or the failure to solve important cases.
Furthermore, sales tactics employed by Global Intelligence raise ethical questions about transparency and responsible marketing practices. Their strategy of offering free trials and selectively highlighting successes without providing concrete evidence may seem a harmless sales technique but is ethically concerning when considering the serious implications of false leads in criminal investigations. To prevent future instances, it’s essential that law enforcement agencies establish strict guidelines for evaluating new technologies and ensuring that commercially driven incentives are not prioritized over rigorous validation.
Conclusion: Balancing Innovation and Rigor in Criminal Investigations
The Kayla Unbehaun case, alongside other examples, underscores the importance of a cautious approach to incorporating new technologies into law enforcement. While open-source intelligence gathering offers significant potential, it is crucial that agencies prioritize rigorous verification, independent testing, and transparent evaluation of such tools. The reliance on a product like Cybercheck without sufficient scrutiny demonstrates the dangers of prioritizing marketing hype over the fundamental principles of due diligence and evidentiary standards in criminal investigations. There’s a clear need for a more thorough process to vet these new technologies, and until that exists, the potential for misjudgments and errors remain high. The pursuit of justice demands nothing less.
