MPs warn of chaotic...
 
Notifications
Clear all

MPs warn of chaotic forensic landscape

19 Posts
4 Users
0 Likes
1,331 Views
(@trewmte)
Posts: 1877
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

The BBC website identifies a report by MPs that presents findings that many see as the chaotic forensic landscape in Britain today - http//www.trewmte.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/forensic-erosion.html

 
Posted : 29/07/2013 10:16 am
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

The BBC website identifies a report by MPs that presents findings that many see as the chaotic forensic landscape in Britain today - http//www.trewmte.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/forensic-erosion.html

If I may, the BBC article is about general "forensics" and not particularly about Digital forensics, particularly, from what I can understand the FSS activities in the "digital" field
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_Science_Service
http//web.archive.org/web/20111102060909/http//www.forensic.gov.uk/html/services/
were just one among the many. ?

jaclaz

 
Posted : 29/07/2013 4:55 pm
(@trewmte)
Posts: 1877
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

Forensics generally and the demise of the FSS are covered in the article; you right on that Jaclaz.

I am only in a position though to argue the corner of the area in which I work. I didn't have anything to say on other forensic areas as I would be in difficulty in discussing DNA, pathology etc etc.

The article doesn't, though, expressly or otherwise exclude computer forensics or mobile forensics etc nor did the article exempt/preclude them from having been unaffected by the current state of the forensics generally.

 
Posted : 29/07/2013 10:34 pm
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

I am only in a position though to argue the corner of the area in which I work. I didn't have anything to say on other forensic areas as I would be in difficulty in discussing DNA, pathology etc etc.

Sure, I understand that. )

The article doesn't, though, expressly or otherwise exclude computer forensics or mobile forensics etc nor did the article exempt/preclude them from having been unaffected by the current state of the forensics generally.

Of course, but what I am completely missing is the "connection" or "the point" with (need for) academic (or non academic) qualifications.

Call me a "hairy reasoner" as much as you want, but it is not like the people that worked at the FSS were vapourized by some death rays, if (fictional numbers) the FSS employed a total of 1,000 scientists/examiners/qualified personnel, of which (say) 100 dedicated to "digital forensics", at the time of the shutting down of the FSS it has probably happened the same things that happen everywhere and in any field whenever a largish firm/institution closes down, the most qualified/capable/expert/etc. (let's assume 75 to 90%) were soon employed by competitors (in this case most likely local Police forces or private firms or universities/research labs) or started their own activities, those less qualified ( the remaining 10 to 25%) changed their job into something similar (or very different) but this should not have altered significantly the market (in the sense of volume of cases that can be globally taken into exam) nor the actual opening (or closing) of the job marketplace.

It seems to me like the whole issue, as always, revolves about money (and in this sense it can be extended to many more fields that forensics or just "digital forensics").

The FSS was closed substantially because it costed too much.

The current preoccupations of the MP's are about Police spending (bit by bit, and peripherally, i.e. without centralized control) too much (and while doing this, being less effective).

In the meantime the Universities have put together courses on the wave of the popularity that forensics got through the media (direct CSI effect), courses that seemingly do very little to actually "deliver" qualified graduates (at least in the specific "digital forensics" field).

But we have seen on the other thread about the rates of pay and on several other threads that there are very little chances for a freshly graduated chap to get a "first time job" in the field, let alone decently payed.

All or most the job vacancies posted on the forum seem like being related to middle to vastly experienced professionals, which should be - AFAICU - a "finite" number.

The new and inexperienced (no matter if properly qualified at the UNI of not) seem to me like having only a few choices

  • find a job as "generic IT"
  • do some underpaid internship as long as they(or their families) can afford it
  • become part of what you call "push button forensics" still underpaid and with little chances of ever "evolving"

So it seems to me that while there may be a lack of "appropriate qualification" for the "newcomers" there is anyway not (or not enough) "qualified work/jobs" for them.

This sounds (from the quoted BBC article) caused by a "general contraction of the field" (which I read as "less money available"), and this is independent from the actual availability of qualified personnel.

jaclaz

 
Posted : 29/07/2013 11:43 pm
jhup
 jhup
(@jhup)
Posts: 1442
Noble Member
 

I read the article.

I call this "the airline magazine syndrome". mrgreen

Your boss flies back from her favorite vacation spot. During the return flight she reads an article from a "magazine" about a small company in a very distant land with totally different business model, product and services. This fascinating specimen of organization of mom and pop implemented the magic technology beans. These magic technology beans not just increased network speed on their 300baud modem, did their banking, but separated laundry and made a lovely casserole for dinner.

The article is highly questionable, mostly fluff, no references, lots of conjectures, and jumping to conclusions.

This of course does not bother the boss, and promptly requires the implementation of said magic technology beans.

This BBC article is such. Maybe not magic technology beans, but such broad brush that it makes no difference if discussing psychic support hotline forensics or digital forensics - they are forensics, ergo must be a mess.

Worse, by the time this gets picked up across the pond, the whole thing will be just a vague mess. Politicians with technology IQ of 4 will be salivating to show the constituents how savvy they are, and harumph on the horrible state of forensics - including digital forensics.

Now, I go and make a nice casserole for dinner. |

 
Posted : 30/07/2013 1:25 am
Adam10541
(@adam10541)
Posts: 550
Honorable Member
 

hear, hear )

 
Posted : 30/07/2013 5:32 am
(@trewmte)
Posts: 1877
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

I have no problem with any of the comments above and can well see from an outsiders point of view why the article may seem speculative. However, here the Britain the article represents a bubble of thought as to what is going on, but at this time it is well received as reflecting some observations.

Prior to the BBC article Professor Peter Sommer made a presentation to Parliament in January of this year raising observations about forensic landscape and the problematical situation with quick changing technology, attempts to introduce a one-size-fits-all standards model and costs implications

http//www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/610/610vw03.htm

Peter's is just one of many views, like my views, see problems and proffer solutions.

Mobile forensics qualifications are unavoidable and thus inescapable where SSE (as per my article) is concerned and distinguishes between the subject matter experienced versus the jack of all trades, master of none.

I am curious why people wouldn't want mobile forensic qualifications, because it starts to pose the question why then have computer forensic qualifications(?), as an example. Moreover, we could go further and maybe have blood sampling, DNA and fingerprint forensics downgraded to a consultancy services, too(?).

 
Posted : 30/07/2013 10:57 am
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

I am curious why people wouldn't want mobile forensic qualifications, because it starts to pose the question why then have computer forensic qualifications(?), as an example. Moreover, we could go further and maybe have blood sampling, DNA and fingerprint forensics downgraded to a consultancy services, too(?).

I don't think that "mobile forensic qualifications" are not "needed".
I am saying that I see no connection between them and the apparently chaotic "forensic landscape".

In the "rates of pay" thread
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6562502/#6562502
it was stated how there are contractors (and evidently clients/Police forces) that examine a phone for anything between £25 and £160 apiece.
This cannot but lead to "press buttton" digital forensics, and I would be curious to know how much actually gets in the pockets of those that carry the examination (by pushing the button).

Now, as I see it, as long as there will be people willing to pay only that amount (and people willing to accept it) for that kind of work (and consider the results "acceptable"), the added "need" for specific qualification will NOT improve quality of the result, it will raise the "hidden cost" that the "button pushers" will have to carry in order to get the qualification, but still it will remain "push button forensics", with the added "benefit" that the kids doing the actual work will end with less "net money" for the same work.

If someone is budgeted £10,000 for 100 phones, he/she will outsource the work for £90 apiece (to show his/her boss how smart and capable and what not he/she is).
If in the market there are people willing to take the job for £9,000, that's it.
Consider how these people NEED to get that job, even at £9,000, in order to "survive".

The issue is IMHO with the market (and with money) NOT with qualifications, and BTW applies in most fields, not only "forensics" or "digital forensics".

@jhup
I like the concept of "airline magazine" ) , the good thing is with the advent of low cost companies the number of airline magazines (and their fluff) is going to become less and less.
I have a special image for this

http//www.exploratorium.edu/brain_explorer/images/jumping2.gif

jaclaz

 
Posted : 30/07/2013 2:00 pm
jhup
 jhup
(@jhup)
Posts: 1442
Noble Member
 

Mr. S. I respect your work in the mobile forensic science. I have learned plenty more from you than any certification currently available.

I am not sure I grasp how you see the government creating or assisting with the certification. I do not understand your description of it - "Parliament to create qualifications directly linked to a Prize Degree coming from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee enabling citizens of this country to re-connect with Parliament" from your blog. What is a "Prize Degree"? What do you mean by "enabling" - as in granting?

I have yet to see a stable, fair, cost-effective, incorrupt Government implementation of any certification or accreditation.

I believe, if the lawyers (judges, magistrates, prosecutors, defenders, etc.) do not collude, the best forensic scientists would emerge and the associated industry certifications would prevail.

We, as industry experts discuss which certifications are worth gold, and worth less than the cost of paper that is printed on.

Take that a step further, we also can tell almost immediately who is or is not qualified to do digital forensics when we look at their work.

If a digital forensic scientist constantly ends up on the losing side of the court, provides sloppy reports, incomprehensible notes, and irreproducible work, how long will they be able to continue their practice? Do we not howl and scream when we see an "expert" flub up cases, and blog about it for hours? Or the opposite, do we not shower the experts with accolades?

I believe if the market is not manipulated by the arbitrary and undereducated hand of the Government or those that control all sides (i.e. colluding lawyers), then natural selection works in any industry - certification or not.

I will even take one more step - certification is nothing more than a short circuit the background research on the expert. It simply implies, right or wrong that the certified individual has both the knowledge and practical expertise to perform the work which is certified. Ergo, we can (and do) have experts that lack any certification yet are more qualified than one who is certified in many many things.

To be blunt, I see no use of certifications other than for "lazy" organizations avoiding research of the candidate's background… yet I myself hold several. It is clearly much faster to imply expertise through "CCE, CHFI, CISSP, CRISC, A+, CTT+" than reading then verifying my autobiography.

 
Posted : 30/07/2013 5:28 pm
(@trewmte)
Posts: 1877
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

Jaclaz and Jhup apologies for the delay in coming back. I did respond yesterday, rather hurriedly, and didn't have time to finish off with some questions I was going to ask you about your posts. So sorry, it was just my mistake.

The chaotic landscape is as has been mentioned. The BBC article merely glossed over the top of more fundamental problems underneath which the Parliamentary Committee had considered following representation to them from many sources.

Peter Sommers commented to a Parliamentary Committee prior to the BBC article of known problems he has observed.

My comments offer a suggestion based upon enabling a person to support or challenge a proposition having recognised and depth of knowledge, skillsets and experience to do so. Currently mobile forensics are being practised but is held back because it is not properly recognised in its own right.

Trying to sustain digital forensics and force it to follow a forensic standard without all the elements being properly recognised is a chaotic state of affairs when dealing with such an important subject that involves obtaining evidence using "forensic" methodology and consequences that may arise from the use of evidence.

I have read both your second posts, as well, and will note points I want to make to both of you and will respond later tonight or tomorrow as I am somewhat in a hurry this morning.

 
Posted : 31/07/2013 11:03 am
Page 1 / 2
Share: