Pre-Production: Digital Evidence Research
Electronic evidence shares most properties with traditional forms of evidence, but possesses some unique characteristics that distinguish it:
• It’s invisible to the untrained eye: Electronic evidence is often found in places where only specialists would search or locations reachable only by means of very specific tools. Just as a scanning electron microscope allows an entomologist to identify key morphologic features of fly eggs, specific tools exist in digital forensics to examine and analyse data found in computers.
"Public faith in the fairness of trials is being eroded and the justice system is approaching “breaking point” due to failures to disclose key digital evidence, the head of the criminal bar has said."
"The collapse of a series of rape cases has shaken public confidence. The Commons justice select committee is to hold an inquiry into disclosure problems which according to its chair, the Conservative MP Bob Neill, have led to “inappropriate charges, unnecessary delays in court proceedings and potential miscarriages of justice”.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/feb/12/justice-system-at-breaking-point-over-digital-evidence
Ectronic evidence has been used in most states in Europe for several years, although the obtaining, seizure, analysis, and presentation of electronic evidence before an adjudicator is carried out in different ways in each member state. In November 2005, a group of European multidisciplinary experts started to set out the different methods by which electronic evidence is adduced in the courts of sixteen member states 1 1. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.View all notesunder the Admissibility of the Electronic Evidence (A.E.E.C.) project. Previous research on the electronic evidence in Europe is not well known and very fragmentary in nature because none were comparative studies. And none dealt with the topic “admissibility.” The A.E.E.C. project has been designed to provide a response to the current situation since the lack of knowledge in this field is hindering procedures to incriminate the offenders of cyber crime. The study has been financially supported by the European Commission in the Framework Program AGIS. The main objectives of the initiative were to understand the current regulatory situation and the practice and how could they be improved. Other goals were to identify the gaps found in the different regulations on the admissibility of e-evidence and create a European network for cooperation in proceedings and practices related to the admissibility. It is a novel and ambitious project that has been carried out by a team of multidisciplinary investigators: policemen, lawyers, sociologists, technicians, businessmen, academics, solicitors, and computer forensic experts.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15567280701418049
As early as 1984, the FBI Laboratory and other law enforcement agencies began developing programs to examine computer evidence. To properly address the growing demands of investigators and prosecutors in a structured and programmatic manner, the FBI established the Computer Analysis and Response Team (CART). Although CART is unique in the FBI, its functions and general organization are duplicated in many other law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries (Noblett, Pollitt, & Presley, 2000).
https://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/articles/9C4E695B-0B78-1059-3432402909E27BB4.pdf
An early problem addressed by law enforcement was identifying resources within the organization that could be used to examine computer evidence. These resources were often scattered throughout the agency. Today, there appears to be a trend toward moving these examinations to a laboratory environment.
NOT SURE TO KEEP?
Until the late 1990s, what became known as digital forensics was commonly termed ‘computer forensics’. The first computer forensic technicians were law enforcement officers who were also computer hobbyists. In the USA in 1984 work began in the FBI Computer Analysis and Response Team (CART). One year later, in the UK, the Metropolitan Police set up a computer crime unit under John Austen within what was then called the Fraud Squad.
A major change took place at the beginning of the 1990s. Investigators and technical support operatives within the UK law enforcement agencies, along with outside specialists, realised that digital forensics (as with other fields) required standard techniques, protocols and procedures. Apart from informal guidelines, these formalisms did not exist but urgently needed to be developed. A series of conferences, initially convened by the Serious Fraud Office and the Inland Revenue, took place at the Police Staff College at Bramshill in 1994 and 1995, during which the modern British digital forensic methodology was established.
Refreences
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/digital-forensics/content-section-4.2
"The collapse of a series of rape cases has shaken public confidence. The Commons justice select committee is to hold an inquiry into disclosure problems which according to its chair, the Conservative MP Bob Neill, have led to “inappropriate charges, unnecessary delays in court proceedings and potential miscarriages of justice”.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/feb/12/justice-system-at-breaking-point-over-digital-evidence
Ectronic evidence has been used in most states in Europe for several years, although the obtaining, seizure, analysis, and presentation of electronic evidence before an adjudicator is carried out in different ways in each member state. In November 2005, a group of European multidisciplinary experts started to set out the different methods by which electronic evidence is adduced in the courts of sixteen member states 1 1. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.View all notesunder the Admissibility of the Electronic Evidence (A.E.E.C.) project. Previous research on the electronic evidence in Europe is not well known and very fragmentary in nature because none were comparative studies. And none dealt with the topic “admissibility.” The A.E.E.C. project has been designed to provide a response to the current situation since the lack of knowledge in this field is hindering procedures to incriminate the offenders of cyber crime. The study has been financially supported by the European Commission in the Framework Program AGIS. The main objectives of the initiative were to understand the current regulatory situation and the practice and how could they be improved. Other goals were to identify the gaps found in the different regulations on the admissibility of e-evidence and create a European network for cooperation in proceedings and practices related to the admissibility. It is a novel and ambitious project that has been carried out by a team of multidisciplinary investigators: policemen, lawyers, sociologists, technicians, businessmen, academics, solicitors, and computer forensic experts.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15567280701418049
As early as 1984, the FBI Laboratory and other law enforcement agencies began developing programs to examine computer evidence. To properly address the growing demands of investigators and prosecutors in a structured and programmatic manner, the FBI established the Computer Analysis and Response Team (CART). Although CART is unique in the FBI, its functions and general organization are duplicated in many other law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries (Noblett, Pollitt, & Presley, 2000).
https://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/articles/9C4E695B-0B78-1059-3432402909E27BB4.pdf
An early problem addressed by law enforcement was identifying resources within the organization that could be used to examine computer evidence. These resources were often scattered throughout the agency. Today, there appears to be a trend toward moving these examinations to a laboratory environment.
NOT SURE TO KEEP?
Until the late 1990s, what became known as digital forensics was commonly termed ‘computer forensics’. The first computer forensic technicians were law enforcement officers who were also computer hobbyists. In the USA in 1984 work began in the FBI Computer Analysis and Response Team (CART). One year later, in the UK, the Metropolitan Police set up a computer crime unit under John Austen within what was then called the Fraud Squad.
A major change took place at the beginning of the 1990s. Investigators and technical support operatives within the UK law enforcement agencies, along with outside specialists, realised that digital forensics (as with other fields) required standard techniques, protocols and procedures. Apart from informal guidelines, these formalisms did not exist but urgently needed to be developed. A series of conferences, initially convened by the Serious Fraud Office and the Inland Revenue, took place at the Police Staff College at Bramshill in 1994 and 1995, during which the modern British digital forensic methodology was established.
Refreences
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/digital-forensics/content-section-4.2
Comments
Post a Comment