App icon showing dashboard for Torrential Downpour RoundUp software.

Criminal defense lawyers see the same confusion again and again in peer-to-peer (P2P) cases. The affidavit names a tool. The report names a different tool. Then the discovery production includes files that use yet another label.

This post is a plain-English map of that territory. It explains the naming, the typical investigation path, and the practical places to focus your effort.

If you need one label for your case file and your discovery letters, use this: Torrential Downpour RoundUp software.

The quick definitions (so everyone is talking about the same thing)

People often say “RoundUp” and “Torrential Downpour” as if they are the same thing. They are usually not used that way in practice.

  • RoundUp (suite): A broader law-enforcement software environment that can include multiple modules for different P2P networks. In many conversations, “RoundUp” is a shorthand for “the overall platform.”
  • Torrential Downpour (module): A BitTorrent-focused module used for identifying peers, connecting, and capturing evidence about what data moved over the BitTorrent protocol.

That distinction matters because your discovery requests and technical questions change depending on what module was used. It also matters because many claims in affidavits are really claims about a specific run and its logs.

If you need a simple phrase to keep your team aligned, use this one: RoundUp is the suite; Torrential Downpour is the BitTorrent tool inside it.

Why naming confusion happens (and why it matters in court)

Naming confusion happens for several reasons:

  • The same module can be referenced by different labels in training material, screenshots, and exported reports.
  • Officers and examiners often learn a “field name” that differs from the developer or vendor name.
  • Affidavits sometimes simplify terms to make the narrative easier to follow.

For defense counsel, the risk is obvious. If you ask for the wrong artifacts, you get boilerplate. If you cross-examine with the wrong vocabulary, you give the witness an easy out.

Your goal is not to “win the name fight.” Your goal is to pin down what was done in your case and what records support each conclusion.

The typical investigation path (high-level workflow)

Here is the common BitTorrent case-building arc you will see in reports. Different agencies vary in details. The shape stays similar.

  1. Identify a torrent and a target content identifier
    • Investigators start from a lead, a known hash set, a file name, or a prior intelligence list. (For more on how hash matching works and what to verify, see Hashes and Known-File Databases.)
    • They correlate that to a torrent (or torrent-like descriptor) and its identifiers.
  2. Identify an IP address and listening port
    • The tool’s output usually records an IP and a port used for BitTorrent traffic.
    • This is often the first “anchor fact” used for attribution later.
  3. Connect to the peer and capture protocol-level evidence
    • BitTorrent peers exchange identifiers and state via messages.
    • A core building block is the BitTorrent handshake described in the protocol specification [1].
  4. Perform a controlled download (sometimes described as “single-source”)
    • Some workflows claim a controlled download from a specific peer.
    • This is where “single-source download evidence” becomes a key phrase in litigation, because it is often used to blunt the “it came from the swarm” argument.
  5. Obtain subscriber information and pursue a warrant
    • The IP/port/timestamp evidence is paired with ISP records.
    • The affidavit then argues probable cause for a residence, devices, or accounts.
  6. Seize devices and perform a forensic examination
    • A later forensic exam may find files, remnants, client artifacts, or nothing obvious.
    • That gap (download evidence vs. disk reality) is one of the most fact-sensitive disputes in this litigation space.

This sequence is what I mean by the BitTorrent CSAM investigation workflow in this post.

What the BitTorrent protocol does (in two minutes)

You do not need to become an engineer to handle these cases well. You do need a few accurate mental models.

  • BitTorrent is content-addressed. A torrent describes content and includes hashes that allow verification. The protocol uses SHA-1 based identifiers in many places, including the well-known “infohash” concept [1].
  • Peers find peers via trackers and/or distributed mechanisms. For trackerless discovery, clients may use the distributed hash table (DHT) described in BEP 5 [2].
  • Peers exchange pieces. In normal swarming behavior, pieces can come from multiple peers. That is why the “who sent what” question can be technical and log-dependent.

Put plainly: the protocol is built to share. That feature is also the core evidentiary battleground.

What “single-source” usually means (and what to verify)

When an affidavit says “single-source download” or implies “we got it from that one IP,” you should treat that as a claim that needs proof.

Different tools and configurations can support different behaviors. BitTorrent itself supports piece exchange with multiple peers. The default architecture does not guarantee a single peer as the only source.

So, when you hear a claim that the file (or part of it) came from one specific peer, you should ask:

  • What, exactly, was downloaded?
    • A whole file, a partial file, or selected pieces?
    • Was the download hash-verified? If so, how and where is that shown?
  • Was the tool configured to restrict sources?
    • If the tool can restrict sources, how did it do that?
    • Is there a configuration export or run log that proves the restriction?
  • What is the precise timeline?
    • Start time, end time, time zone, and clock sync method.
    • If the affidavit uses “local time,” ask which system’s local time.

This is the practical heart of the “Torrential Downpour logs discovery” problem. You want the run artifacts that show the conditions, not a narrative summary.

Defense takeaway: where the battle usually is (and where it usually is not)

Every case is unique. Still, patterns repeat.

Where the battle usually is

  • Logs and exports
    • Do the logs support the affidavit’s claims line-by-line?
    • Are there gaps, contradictions, or missing run outputs?
  • Attribution
    • Subscriber name is not “user at keyboard.”
    • Router, Wi-Fi, guests, malware, VPNs, and remote access all matter.
  • Intent and knowledge
    • Technical facts can support or undercut a claim of knowledge.
    • Default client behavior can confuse non-technical users.

Where the battle usually is not

  • Broad arguments that “it’s all unconstitutional” without case-specific facts.
    • Courts often treat publicly shared P2P material as outside a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially when the user knowingly shares. A commonly cited example is United States v. Ganoe [3].

This does not mean suppression is never viable. It means you should prioritize arguments tied to concrete defects: staleness, nexus, material overstatements, omitted limitations, and scope.

A short glossary (terms you will see in reports)

  • Hash: A fixed-length digest of data used for integrity checking. If the input changes, the hash changes. (This is the general idea; the details depend on the hash type.)
  • Infohash: A SHA-1 hash tied to the torrent’s “info” dictionary, used as a key identifier in BitTorrent contexts [1].
  • Swarm: The set of peers participating in distributing a torrent’s content at a point in time.
  • Seed: A peer that has the complete content and can upload pieces to others.
  • Peer ID: A string of length 20 which a downloader client software uses as its id. Each downloader may generate its own id at random [1].
  • DHT: A distributed hash table used for decentralized peer discovery in trackerless modes [2].
  • Tracker: A server that helps peers find each other for a torrent [1].

What to ask for in discovery (a practical starter list)

If you only take one section from this post, take this one. Ask for artifacts that let you test the claims.

  • Run-specific outputs
    • The complete exported report for the specific target IP/port and timestamp window.
    • Any “details” output that enumerates connections, peers, and transfers.
  • Configuration evidence
    • Tool configuration at the time of the run.
    • Any settings that relate to source restriction or peer selection.
  • Network capture / raw evidence (if it exists)
    • Packet capture or event logs showing the handshake and subsequent messages.
    • If there is no capture, ask what was recorded and how.
  • Hash verification details
    • What hash was matched (file hash vs. infohash) and where that appears.
    • Whether verification was automated, manual, or inferred.
  • Timekeeping
    • The system clock source and sync method.
    • The time zone used in exports and reports.

If you want a plain English label for what you’re requesting, use this phrase in your letters: Torrential Downpour investigation tool run logs and configuration exports for the specific investigative session.

A note on terminology: avoid the traps

Words like “downloaded,” “possessed,” and “distributed” carry legal weight. The protocol language can sound similar, but it is not identical.

For example:

  • “Connected and exchanged a handshake” is not the same as “downloaded a complete file.” (See: BitTorrent handshake evidence and Peer ID.)
  • “Had pieces available” is not the same as “had a file on disk,” unless the case proves it with artifacts. (See: BitTorrent bitfield evidence.)
  • “Made available” can be a legal theory, but the technical proof often hinges on actual transfers and verification.

When you read an affidavit, highlight every technical verb. Then ask, “What log line proves that verb?”

When to call a defense forensic expert

Bring a technical expert in early when you see any of these conditions:

  • The affidavit relies heavily on tool outputs and you have not received the raw logs.
  • The case hinges on “single-source download evidence” and you need to validate the claim.
  • The forensic exam did not find the alleged file and the timeline is disputed.
  • There are multiple potential users, networks, or devices that could explain the IP attribution.
  • You need help translating technical records into cross-examination questions that land cleanly.

If you’d like to discuss scope, deliverables, and what to request first, contact Lucid Truth Technologies using the LTT contact form: Contact.

Continue reading

This article is for informational purposes and does not provide legal advice. Every case turns on specific facts and controlling law in your jurisdiction. Work with qualified counsel and, where appropriate, a qualified expert.

References

[1] B. Cohen, “The BitTorrent Protocol Specification (BEP 3),” BitTorrent.org, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0003.html

[2] A. Loewenstern and A. Norberg, “DHT Protocol (BEP 5),” BitTorrent.org, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0005.html

[3] United States v. Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008), Justia US Law. [Online]. Available: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/538/1117/483243/