Phone Video That Is Searchable, Not Just Extracted

What you can do together

• Search what was said in video and audio recovered from a phone, rather than opening each file from a report.
• File recovered media against the case from the identifiers the extraction already carries.
• Continue the custody record into the library, so the chain references the extraction rather than starting afresh.
• Scope which parts of an extraction come across, so a full device dump does not become the case file.

How it connects

The connection would read Cellebrite's extraction output, the UFDR container, rather than calling a live API. That shape matters for scoping: an extraction is a file produced at a point in time, so the integration is about picking up completed extractions and reading the media out of them, not about maintaining a live link to a forensic workstation.

Media pulled from the container would then be transcribed and indexed like any other item, so a phrase spoken in a recovered video is findable, and the case identifiers carried in the extraction would arrive as attributes so the material files against the right case. Everything lands under the library's access control, retention and chain of custody, which is the part a forensic workflow cares about: the custody record has to continue rather than restart.

An engagement would settle two things. Which parts of an extraction come across, because a full device dump contains a great deal that is not evidence and ingesting all of it is rarely what anyone wants. And how the custody record joins up, since the extraction has its own provenance and the library's record needs to reference it rather than replace it. Cellebrite is also a competitor in one product line and an integration target in another, and both are true at once.