John Zawahri, 23, was gunned down the day before his 24th birthday in the Santa Monica College library after he went on a shooting rampage that left several injured and five people dead, including his father and older brother.

Law enforcement officials suggest Zawahri was motivated by anger over his parents’ divorce, which may have been exacerbated by documented psychological issues. Initial reports concluded that the gunman had no connection with Santa Monica College and that his choice to go there was random, but further investigation has revealed that he was enrolled at the college in 2010.

The chain of events that ended at the college library suggests the spree was premeditated and authorities have confirmed that suspicion. After shooting his father and brother and setting the family home ablaze, Zawahri carjacked a woman and forced her to drive him to the college. At the time, Zawahri was clothed in black and wearing a protective vest, and carried an assault rifle, a handgun and nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition.

One injured woman who attempted to intervene in the carjacking described Zawahri as acting with “no hesitation” as he shot her three times. Debra Fine, who is now recovering at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, said she played dead in an attempt to avoid being killed by the gunman.

Five others were not so fortunate. In addition to Zawahri’s father and brother, also killed were Carlos Franco, 68, his daughter Marcela Franco, 26, and one woman who has yet to be identified.

Police say they have not found any connection to terrorist organizations or extremist groups, and believe Zawahri’s actions may have been triggered by an incident of domestic violence. The gunman’s mother, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting, returned upon hearing the news and authorities have questioned her to find further evidence of a motive.

Now that Americans know their government has nearly unlimited access to all of its digital data via the PRISM program and the acquiescence of the world’s largest Internet companies, some are concerned that Google Glass will usher in the end of personal privacy as we know it.

Google Glass gives users the ability to record everything they see and hear through a piece of computerized eyewear. That means every single thing that happens within the wearer’s field of vision (and within earshot) will end up on a Google server, including the actions of people who would prefer not to be recorded.

Much like with cell phones, the device also allows Google to track users’ movements and privacy watchdog groups have raised the red flag over what it might mean if millions of people start wearing Google Glass. The Chertoff Group, a global security privacy firm helmed by former secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, likens Google Glass to wearable drones capable of tracking and recording literally everything that happens in the public space.

Recordation isn’t the only threat, either, and some argue that it barely rises above the amount of tracking smartphones impose on users now. What may pose more of a threat is that Google Glass uses face recognition technology that could be appropriated to track the movements of specific people over time. Another concern is what happens when a user witnesses an intimate or criminal act – the moment is instantly uploaded onto a remote serve and, to some degree, is no longer owned or controlled by person who recorded it.

That gives Google – and, by extension, the U.S. government – far more surveillance power than many people realize. Congress has already asked Google for answers to several questions about potential privacy violations, but Google execs have yet to answer, instead opting to tell the press that people’s privacy concerns are unfounded.

War crimes leave an indelible mark on the people who survive them, but all too often the true fates of those who are lost are never fully revealed, which is why some scientists are now working on new technologies to locate hidden graves.

The research, which was recently announced at the Meeting of the Americas conference, entails using geophysicists’ tools to locate mass graves. The pilot project is being organized in Colombia, where scientists will bury pig carcasses and then attempt to find them using an array of radar and other technologies.

The technology, if perfected, would have uses beyond that of locating evidence for the prosecution of war criminals. Many countries face wars of different kinds that result in mass casualties. Mexico’s drug war is one example. One 2012 report estimates that more than 48,000 people have died a violent death a result of the illegal drug trade, which doesn’t include 5,000 who have simply disappeared.

If those people are dead, finding them could play a significant role in finding their murderers and providing clues as to how to better manage the conflict. Geophysicists’ tools like the ones used in the ongoing research could help.

Of course, developing new ways to find hidden graves isn’t new. In 2009, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory announced the development of the “Labrador,” an instrument that can detect buried corpses through chemical identification in the soil. The Labrador can even differentiate between animal and human remains, and was successfully tested at the University of Tennessee’s Body Farm, a well-known forensic research facility.

That technology, which has been improved upon in recent years, is now often used to replace dogs when looking for hidden graves.

Even so, the new studies, which focus more on technology that measures geologic differentiation that can indicate a hidden gravesite, could add one more weapon in the fight to bring some of the world’s deadliest criminals to justice.

Amid a growing scandal involving the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation into Associated Press (AP) reporters, it has now been revealed that they also surveilled FOX news reporter James Rosen.

Reports indicate that Attorney General Eric Holder, who previously said he recused himself in the AP investigation, signed off on the surveillance affidavit for Rosen, which also labeled him as a possible “criminal co-conspirator” who may have violated the Espionage Act.

The incident is part of a wider leak investigation that involves a former US State Department official named Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who has been charged with a crime for leaking sensitive information about North Korea.

The DOJ recently defended its actions by stating that Rosen was not being charged with a crime and likely would not be, but watchdog groups, politicians and powerful media professionals are not satisfied with the rationalization. They point to the characterization of Rosen as a co-conspirator to espionage and one who bribes officials for information as a critical error in judgment and an overextension of executive authority.

New reports show that the DOJ also collected data regarding Rosen’s parents’ phone line in Staten Island, which further illustrates the intrusiveness of the investigation. Analysts have pointed out that no calls were recorded, but that innocent people have been swept into the scandal has been enough to further raise the hackles of journalists and First Amendment watchdog groups.

President Obama has since readdressed the possibility of passing a shield law to protect reporters from legal harm, although his rhetoric pointedly leaves out the protection of their sources. Much hay has been made over the “chilling” effect these intrusions will likely have on reporters who are seeking the truth, but very little has been said about the effect it will have on those who hold the information needed to report that truth.

Crime scene photography, which is also referred to as forensic photography, has been around since cameras and crime first intersected, but new technology has made forensic photography a very important part of crime scene documentation, particularly when it comes to cases like the recent abductions in Cleveland, Ohio.

Ariel Castro, the prime suspect in the abduction and imprisonment of four females – three adults and one child – kept his hostages from public view for more than 10 years in his two-story home in suburban Cleveland. Although there is already strong evidence linking him to the crime, not least of which being that he’s believed to be the father of the youngest victim, it is incumbent upon crime scene investigators to collect every shred of evidence available.

But, how does one capture and catalog 10 years’ worth of evidence from a single crime scene?

It is a monumental task akin to documenting a collection of horrific and heartbreaking biographies, wherein every artifact in the home is a clue to what happened there over the preceding decade. That’s why the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office was called in to take photographs of the Castro residence.

The Medical Examiner’s Office is renowned for its ability in crime scene photography and possesses special equipment that can aid in gaining more insight into what happened in the house on Seymour Street. Specifically, they have a photographer who specializes in using a camera that can capture 360-degree images that will help better preserve the scene.

It’s an important task that will allow investigators more time to revisit the crime scene long after it changes. In this case, the Castro home is in legal limbo while the suspect awaits his fate in the courts, but since residents would like to see the home demolished as soon as possible the images collected now may prove valuable if Castro’s legal disposition outlasts the house.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Most Wanted Terrorists list, which was first created in October 2011, has reached a new benchmark by listing its first female terrorist.

Joannee Chesimard, aka Assata Shakur, is wanted for the murder of Werner Foerster in 1973. Chesimard was tried and convicted for the slaying, but escaped from prison in 1979 with the help of militants associated with known domestic terror groups.

Foerster was one of two New Jersey state troopers to pull over Chesimard and two others for a traffic violation on the New Jersey Turnpike. A gunfight ensued, and the FBI reports that Chesimard executed Foerster at point-blank range with his own firearm.

Chesimard now lives freely in Havana, Cuba, and legal analysts say the new $2 million bounty and a place on the Most Wanted Terrorists list will have little impact. In fact, some believe it will have negative results by making it even more difficult for the US administration to reclassify Cuba as a more cooperative regime under its new leader, Raul Castro.

By labeling Chesimard a terrorist (which the FBI had technically already done in 2005), it reinforces the perception that Cuba is a nation that supports terrorism. Relations between Cuba and the US have always been strained, but many hoped ties would improve under Raul Castro’s leadership.

Even so, the US State Department has announced plans to remove Cuba from its list of countries that sponsor terrorism. And, while Cuba is under no obligation to deport American fugitives, it has been known to do so in the past and may decide to do so again.

Chesimard is one of only two domestic terrorists on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list, the other being Daniel Andreas San Diego. San Diego is an American wanted in connection with two bombings in the San Francisco area in 2003.

Investigators close to the Boston bombing case have reported the presence of female genetic material on some of the bomb fragments found at the scene, but experts are unable to link any significance to the find.

The Wall Street Journal first broke the news about the DNA and suggested that Katherine Russell, the widow of alleged bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had become a suspect. Investigators have since tested Russell’s DNA against the discovered genetic material and have determined there is no match.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) first sought to interview Russell directly after the attack, but she obtained legal counsel and has chosen to deal with the authorities through her attorneys. Her initial cooperation involved submitting to a DNA test, but what she may have known prior to the attack remains a mystery.

Many feel Russell had to have known more than her attorneys allow.

Tsarnaev, who died in a confrontation with law enforcement days after the bombing, married Russell in 2010 in Boston. Russell, who was raised as a Christian in rural Massachusetts, converted to Islam after meeting Tsarnaev. Some of her friends and neighbors are convinced that it would have been impossible for her to not have known some details due to their relationship and small shared living space.

Further clouding the issue is a report that the surviving Tsarnaev brother and alleged coconspirator in the plot, Dzhokhar, told FBI investigators that the bombs used in the attack were built in the apartment Russell shared with her husband. He has since stopped talking to investigators after having been informed of his right to remain silent.

Russell, however, will likely be able to avoid an official FBI interrogation unless they find direct evidence linking her to the crime, because of the rules of spousal immunity and her ability to invoke protection against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment.

“Crowdsourcing” is a phenomenon that has been growing in many industries as more people use the Internet to extract resources from large groups, and now some are wondering if criminal investigations are the next area to benefit from the practice.

The hunt and subsequent capture of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, which involved combining input from Boston citizens with information collected from forensic investigators, has led many to question the usefulness of somehow shaping the power of the Internet into a tool to fight crime.

Reddit, a powerful kind of news aggregator that operates in real time thanks to followers and participants, received both praise and criticism for its treatment of the news during Boston’s manhunt. So-called “redditors” created a lot of false leads, which were then trumpeted by major news outlets, and many innocent people were accused of being suspects. On the other hand, redditors also did an admirable job of helping people find loved ones, locate hospitals or get food, demonstrating the power could also be used for good.

In a more positive example of crowdsourcing, images provided by thousands of people at the scene via their smartphones helped investigators eliminate leads and better narrow their search in the right areas. This type of help, a more focused kind of crowdsourcing that allowed law enforcement to decide relevance on an image-by-image basis, is decidedly different than the Reddit approach and could become a go-to source for investigators in the future.

The question both types of crowdsourcing raises, is whether Americans are helping to create their own surveillance state by becoming the eyes and ears of a criminal investigation. Some argue the rise of the surveillance state will not keep bad people from doing bad things and will only act to infringe upon the privacy of the innocent. Others argue, however, that society has arrived at a point where real-time surveillance is just a matter of fact rather than an option that can somehow be debated away.

The alleged suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing have been caught or killed and forensic techniques played a significant role in bringing the men to justice within 102 hours of the deadly attack.

It all began at the scene of the crime, which is likely impossible to fully imagine through the eyes of a forensic investigator. The twin detonations that left three people dead and more than 170 people injured created a cauldron of chaos that at first must have seemed filled with more questions than answers.

But, within hours state and local forensic experts were combing through evidence that included video and photo images, bloody clothing and other artifacts from the area of the explosion. Authorities commandeered a warehouse in Boston’s Seaport district to establish a base for forensic operations where they could sort through the growing collection of hundreds of items.

Information gleaned from these materials combined with the cooperation of the Boston citizenry and good old-fashioned forensic work would lead to the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the capture of his younger brother, Dzhokhar, in less than five days.

The crime scene encapsulated 12 city blocks and was described by many local forensics specialists as one of the most complex ever seen. While many had hoped the bombers’ DNA could be collected from bomb fragments, veterans were concerned that it may take too much time to find a fragment with a helpful sample.

Alternatively, it was also thought that bomb residue may lead to identifying the compounds used to make the explosives, which in turn could lead to a bill of sale. Sometimes bombs are made of more exotic materials that can narrow a search to a few suppliers.

In the end, though, it was a matter of identifying the suspects using images recorded at the race combined with a plan to limit transportation options and keep people out of harm’s way that eventually led authorities to the Tsarnaev brothers. And, although experts may have assembled the where, what and how, the rest of the country must now wait to find out why.

The US Supreme Court is now facing its most polarizing issue since Roe v. Wade in 1973, and once again that issue is one driven as much by religion and morality as it is by the tenets of the Constitution.

Same-sex marriage has been embraced as a legal right by nine states and the District of Columbia as well as a dozen other states that recognize and confer benefits to same-sex civil unions, but the rest of the states have passed laws banning marriage for same-sex couples – including the bellwether state of California.

Although states may elect to legislate on such topics as individual sovereign entities, it is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that stipulates that marriage is federally recognized as the union between a man and a woman. This is significant because it pertains to the federal benefits that are made available to married same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court will consider Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, as well as DOMA. Prior to the Court’s hearing, many legal pundits were confident that the Justices would rule in favor of same-sex marriage due to their individual political leanings and how they’ve ruled on various matters in the past; however, such predictions have proven difficult to make regarding such a galvanizing issue – and one that could change the face of America.

It’s easy for laypeople to view the question of same-sex marriage with a very broad lens, which leads to generalized opinions about extremely complex concepts like equality and morality. Is gay marriage right? Will legally recognizing gay marriage compromise the integrity of America’s family values? The reality for Supreme Court Justices, however, is that they must analyze these opinions within the context of the law – a fact that is quickly and easily consumed by people’s more immediate personal concerns for how the issue will impact their lives.

And, that’s a reasonable response – but one that must be balanced with the understanding that these laws shape everyone’s lives, not just those who stand on one side or the other.