The revelation that a Trump associate made digital copies of classified documents should remind Lawyers that they, too, need to be aware of both their client’s and their own digital fingerprints and footprints.

Politics aside, the revelation that a Trump aide made digital copies of classified documents located on Trump's properties should have Trump's attorneys concerned. In basic terms, there will likely be a digital trail of where those documents went. First, let's get some of the technological basics down.

Digital fingerprints refer to the unique markers left behind by a specific device or individual when they access or create digital data. This information can be used to identify the source of a digital artifact, such as an e-mail or document, and to determine whether the artifact has been altered in any way. In simple terms, computer experts can determine the specific file in question, whose devices the file was on, who had access to the device (and file), if the file was altered, inter alia. This is the "source" of the material.

Digital footprints, on the other hand, refer to the trail of data and information left behind by an individual or device as they use the internet. This information can include search history, website visits, e-mail exchange, file exchange, and social media activity. There are various logs, cookies, and other files a computer forensic expert can look for on a device, e.g., a computer, smartphone, tablet, etc. But this trail of footprints in some form can also be found from an internet service provider, routers (the device that connects your device to the internet), and servers (the [usually multiple] devices scattered across the country/world) that allow electronics to communicate with one another. So, where does that leave lawyers?

It is crucial for lawyers to be aware of their client's digital activity as well as their own. It is not just an issue of basic internet security. Digital fingerprints and footprints can be used both by the police and opposing parties in efforts to follow potential criminal activity, sources of income (perhaps in a divorce or bankruptcy matter), or communications contrary to sworn statements. The last thing a lawyer wants to learn is that their client did something contrary to what they were told because the client thought they could get away with it unseen in the ether of the internet (this is not to infer one thing or another about the CNN article).

Remember, there are eyes everywhere in the digital landscape!

MTC.