Is it time for a &q...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Is it time for a "code of ethics" for digital forensics?

8 Posts
6 Users
0 Likes
348 Views
(@cyberfetch)
Posts: 1
New Member
Topic starter
 

Dr. John Sloan (Prof. of Criminal Justice and Sociology at the U. of Alabama, Birmingham) wrote an article titled "There’s no code of ethics to govern digital forensics – and we need one" for TheConversation recently, where he makes the case that digital forensics is still in a "wild west" stage. He maintains that "part of the reason for this is that digital forensics is not science-driven; instead, it is driven by its practitioners".

The article was picked up by Time.com only 4 days later, and as of yesterday morning (9/21/15), the article had been read just under 27,000 times.

Feedback for the article has been positive, indicating general agreement with the basic idea, but the devil is always in the details. As part of the CyberFETCH interview series, we decided to approach Dr. Sloan directly and learn more about his efforts to establish a single code that can be adopted across the profession.

 
Posted : 22/09/2015 7:25 pm
MDCR
 MDCR
(@mdcr)
Posts: 376
Reputable Member
 

"There’s no code of ethics"

So, what is wrong with a PI License? D

On a more serious note, it would be hard to create a generic code "across the profession" - because it is not *A* profession, you have different objectives, restraints, measures to call on and different set of tools you are allowed to use.

I could do some things that a LEO never could dream of, but a LEO can get a search warrant to get cease equipment and media, and someone working with e-discovery have a total different objective.

Secondly how exactly is it not scientific? There may be an issue with quality control, but i do think that the field is scientific. There is some quite good science being done in the field and i have used some of it in my work.

 
Posted : 23/09/2015 1:38 am
(@athulin)
Posts: 1156
Noble Member
 

Secondly how exactly is it not scientific?

Because it doesn't show any signs of scientific methodology where is repeatable experiments, where is validation of results, where is peer-reviewed publication, and error and confidence estimates?

There are some indicastions of them here and there but the field as a whole does not go for that kind of results. Instead, say, a blog message is accepted (with no critical examination) to be the last word on time stamps. And a statement on some particular artifact is taken to be true also for wildly different platforms than that the research actually was performed and validated on.

This is par for the course other 'forensic sciences' do much the sme, and have come under increased scrutiny, like in the case of bite marks, shaken baby syndrome, hair comparison, and perhaps even fingerprint identification. (There was an article on Invalid Forensic Science Testimony in Virginia Law review some years back, in which the scientific testimony in a number of cases was examined, and in the same year, the 'Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States A Path Forward' report.)

The step to digital forensics is very small is there any reason to believe that DF isn't as poorly supported by scientific research as any of the other areas?

(Or drawn to the extreme what exactly *is* the scientific field with which digital forensic is concerned?)

A Code of Ethics will not address that particular concern directly, but it might – if expressed in such terms – put a very strong focus on the scientific basis of the work, and so influence future direction of the field.

 
Posted : 23/09/2015 8:20 pm
pcstopper18
(@pcstopper18)
Posts: 60
Trusted Member
 

Dr. John Sloan (Prof. of Criminal Justice and Sociology at the U. of Alabama, Birmingham) wrote an article titled "There’s no code of ethics to govern digital forensics – and we need one" for TheConversation recently, where he makes the case that digital forensics is still in a "wild west" stage. He maintains that "part of the reason for this is that digital forensics is not science-driven; instead, it is driven by its practitioners".

The article was picked up by Time.com only 4 days later, and as of yesterday morning (9/21/15), the article had been read just under 27,000 times.

Feedback for the article has been positive, indicating general agreement with the basic idea, but the devil is always in the details. As part of the CyberFETCH interview series, we decided to approach Dr. Sloan directly and learn more about his efforts to establish a single code that can be adopted across the profession.

As an FYI for all, CDFS responsed to Dr. Sloan's post. See here.

 
Posted : 24/09/2015 11:13 pm
MDCR
 MDCR
(@mdcr)
Posts: 376
Reputable Member
 

Because it doesn't show any signs of scientific methodology where is repeatable experiments, where is validation of results, where is peer-reviewed publication, and error and confidence estimates?

How about Advances in Digital Forensics from Springer?

Just because there currently is a lack of enough people doing scientific research on the subject, does not mean that it does not exist. The field will grow as a whole and reexamination of what we think are established facts, will happen (and we should encourage it).

Example One interesting reexamination i read was about write blockers, and learned that write blockers are not updated to new ATA specifications and may miss newer write commands.

There may be firmware updates to write blockers, but - show of hands - how many know about this?

 
Posted : 24/09/2015 11:53 pm
(@patrick4n6)
Posts: 650
Honorable Member
 

IACIS has had a code of ethics for well over a decade.

http//www.iacis.com/membership/overview

Thousands of DF people have signed it including me. So the question properly framed should be whether there should be broader acceptance of a code of ethics, not whether there should be one in the first place.

Also, this

"I am neither a digital forensics practitioner nor do I play one on television.

I am, however, a professor in, and former chair of, an academic department at a research university that houses a graduate program in computer (digital) forensics I helped design."

So many pure academics with no idea what happens in the field sticking their noses in. This explains the generally low quality of early graduates of these DF degrees. I had an intern who studied DF who had no idea how to gather evidence properly. Not really his fault, I absolutely blame the teaching staff, some of whom I knew and they had zero experience in the field.

 
Posted : 25/09/2015 7:53 pm
jhup
 jhup
(@jhup)
Posts: 1442
Noble Member
 

As I have asked this before, what non-vendor specific digital forensics group does not have a code of ethics?

Problem with this is that many (if not most) of our experts are self taught, instead of coming through formal education.

Me thinks someone is upset that the proper tithing has not been made at the Altar of Academia.

 
Posted : 25/09/2015 11:59 pm
pcstopper18
(@pcstopper18)
Posts: 60
Trusted Member
 

So the question becomes, why is there this continuing divide between practitioners and research/academia? Why is it that both sides are at odds when the truth is the field needs both? Not a middle ground position…both are needed. Regardless of skill, method, or mode, practitioners need foundation (research/academia) and research/academia need real-world feedback and understanding (practitioners).

Its always…

- professional groups with codes of ethics vs overarching code of ethics (not possible without legislation)
- accreditation vs. non-accreditation
- research base vs. practical application
- science vs. non-science

It seems these are the kinds of positions being always being debated when both sides know (I believe) they can't invalidate the need for the other for digital forensics (all) and digital/multimedia evidence (legal) to move forward.

 
Posted : 28/09/2015 6:47 pm
Share: