There's a lot of useful info in this thread, not to mention food for thought, so I'm going to sticky it.
A warm welcome to the new members, too. We're not going to have an "Anne Robinson" moment here, are we? -)
Cheers,
Jamie
Dear Rubert (old bean)
The mist in the valleys clearly went up the wrong nasal passage when you wrote that lot.
Tongue & Cheek is clearly not a trait over your way.
Ok I bow down to your ultimate superiority because you have gave evidence at court, you protect the public, have a retired DCI (who knows a thing or two), you find evidence and you have said the feared phrase ‘mostly CID experience’.
That’s it, can’t get any better than that then.
Look at one forces job spec
Thats narrowed it down to 43 any particular one in mind?
Anyway….
Wiggers,
Mist in the valleys? I resemble that remark. I shall abstain from such unsavoury ethnocentrism. Never mind computer courses, apply for diversity training! That could stop you getting into REAL trouble. A comment of the inexperienced perhaps?
Relax, only kidding. Any way, I’m from Tiger Bay!
I think you are missing the point. Experience means presenting evidence in a clear way so that senior citizens that cannot work a video can understand and knowing when the wheel will fall off and never giving up.
For example, how can you put someone with a huge knowledge of computers et al with no investigative experience or practical experience in the hands of the judiciary and in the position of solely providing evidence that may result in a trial and prison sentence? I am hardened to it. But someone just out of university? Personally, I think it is unfair and wrong. It saddens me that we are living in a time of factory forensics due to the sheer volume of cases and that many are plonked in front of a monitor after a course or two.
This force has spent a considerable sum in outsourcing cases. The quality has left a lot to be desired. Basic paper work is not checked. Many are incomplete. Now you should know that you do a complete investigation because…..well it’s the law for one thing. (CPIA). When you challenge these companies you get ….well no other force gives us these “problemsâ€. Standards have obviously dropped dramatically. A bit of CID here would help
Then look at the statements. The authors have letters after their name. They have been on this course or that course. Then they cannot add up!! But they create exhibit after report after exhibit and so on. Rubbish. Try faxing that lot to CPS Direct for a decision to charge who will inevitably not make a decision because it’s too unnecessarily complicated. Then spend hours with lawyers trying to sort it out. The defendant just wants to plead guilty!
As a young detective I would try to get a file of evidence passed my supervisors over and over again. It would usually bounce with have you done this? Interviewed this witness, why not charge this offence? hearsay etc etc. Many were thrown in the bin in front of me. But when it came to court, it would be right. And I had the answers. I knew the evidence and I knew the law. That is what I mean by experience. Some would say you can turn a detective into a geek but you can’t turn a geek into a detective. But that’s another discussion.
I have no intention of being superior. I am learning all the time. There are many who know far more than me. But I do know the way we investigate Hi Tech Crime in the U.K. is going the wrong way. It has become self indulgent at the technical level and well below par at the basic level.
And I know B******T when I see it. And it is getting bigger and smellier all the time.
Rupert, a question if I may. I suspect we agree that it is difficult to train someone in university to be a capable examiner. I suspect we might even agree the profession needs to do some work to make itself more of a profession.
Thoughts?
What would you most like to see universities do? Where do graduates lack?
In what areas or skills does the "average" examiner fall short?
Ddow,
Yes the profession does need to professionalise itself. I think we have a case of the tail wagging the dog. Why is someone’s standard in forensics measured by their competence of using a commercial product that will give you letters after your name. Imagine the uproar if before a trial the judge would say “ladies and gentlemen, this arrest has been brought to you Starbucks “ But we are fairly close now. If the US military want an Aircraft carrier or the Royal Navy need a rowing boat (oops) do the contractors dictate the standards. Of course not. It is put out to tender, with strict guidelines etc. But more importantly it is the Government that is in control.
The commercial profit making companies are dictating standards and we have all fallen for it. So have job hunters and recruiters. So have law enforcement and the judiciary. We have all been on courses with the subliminal sales pitch, not for the product we have but for the next one/version we should have. I am due to go on a seminar in the U.K. Guess what, It’s a commercial product. More money. But I suppose I will become a CTU (Certified Thingymajig User). A whole industry is growing up that is now controlling standards within the forensic community. The relationship is seeping into law enforcement and it is becoming unhealthy. We need to back away from this and start professionalising ourselves. I think it is at the stage where Governments should take the lead and set up international standards in this specialism. It is also a case of integrity.
We are literally we are paying the price. The exception is the National White Collar crime centre who’s genuine raison d’etre is to expand knowledge and to remain unbiased and those who plug away such as the authors of some papers on this website to make our job easier.
In my opinion, the only thing that really matters is an academic qualification, preferably a relevant Masters degree. Certainly in the U.K. it gives a judge the option of making you an expert of the court together with all the other advantages. But it should also come with other experience. This should become part of the learning process.
For those contemplating career in Computer Forensics with the qualification I wish you good luck. But I would get back to basics. Become a special constable or just try to get some internship and learn the process and how to properly investigate. The odd nasty crime scene might also prepare you for some of the material you may encounter. This should not be taken lightly. From the execution of a search warrant, the arrest of a suspect, the power to seize, the power to examine, the interview, the paperwork, the law, the lawyer’s conferences and what they look for and the pressures they are under. The last thing they want is self indulgent technical crap when they have to get though twenty other files before lunch. My reports contain a technical explanation and a non technical explanation. After some time, it may take years, but you can give your opinion with authority. Remember, a lawyer knows a lot about all the law. But you should know more of a little of the law. Wow. Did I say that? Look upon your legal knowledge regarding computers as a matter of pride. But always KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. And never, never try to impress anyone, whether a Police officer, lawyer or member of the public with your technical snobbery because they are the normal ones!! However, keep up to date with your technical knowledge. Keep reading academic journals that tend to be product neutral.
It’s a great job, but the computer evidence is just one piece of the jigsaw. My simple piece of advice. Get involved in all aspects of the case. If you then move on to civil litigation the transformation should be easier.
Oh well. The rugby season is over. The soccer season is almost finished. It hasn’t stopped raining in the UK. It could be a long summer. Perhaps I’ll think about politics next weekend. No. global warming, very in vogue.
Rupert, I thank you for your time, significant effort, and well thought out answer. A couple of follow-up questions if you're between sports seasons. ) You certainly identified issues with product vendors setting standards and suggest government involvement to help establish professionalism. What would you see as the advantages and disadvantages of government, vs private sector such as ISFCE to establish and maintain standards? How do you see the role of CRFP?
I'll look for the National White Colar Crime Centre to see what they have.
Thanks,
Hi Dennis,
As far as the ISFC is concerned, I must admit that it is the first time I have seen this organisation. My first reaction was, well I have put my foot in it again are there is some international standard after all. Then I saw the cost. Then I saw the criteria. Then I saw the warning of non certified centres etc. Then I saw the tick box about convictions.
You must put your own credibility test.
Surely a Government department should exist should to test standards in this field. What stops me forming the Forensic And Retired Techies Society (FARTS). Not profit making mind you but I pay myself £100 for each member. More hot air perhaps. But if I sold hot dogs to the public, certain standards would have to be reached.
As far as the CRFP is concerned on the computer forensics side lots happened apparently. Not a place here to comment. I seem to remember that our police force was approached in the area of fingerprint officers/ scientific support to get “accreditedâ€. There seemed to be credibility/cost issue and it never got off the ground. Certainly from my personal knowledge of the assessors, one could argue that I am more qualified than some. Others have greater experience/ knowledge. Who assesses the assessors by the way?
Forensic computing is a combination of the technical, legal and investigative. Not just the one area.
I think the common thread is the vested interest in these organisations and we all love letters after our name. But if everyone has them they loose their attractiveness. You cannot get away from a Government taking the lead.
If we think we are near becoming a profession comparable with medicine, law then we have a long way to go. But a clue may be how you become a member of a State Bar association or how can you practice medicine anywhere in the world. Not by joining an association that is for sure. Look at the by the sheer numbers of such forensic organisations/accreditations. In fact my next task will be to count them. See you in time for the London Olympics.
As a digital forensics wannabee, I appreciate Rupert's comments. He has described the tension between the "technicals" and the "practicals" much like the symphony, where the Techies are the cellists, the detectives the conductors, and the jury the audience. It pays to play to the audience.
One other thing, why do you guys use the letter s instead of z in words like organize, and characterize? heh heh
One other thing, why do you guys use the letter s instead of z in words like organize, and characterize? heh heh
Because that is the correct way to spell them???
As a digital forensics wannabee, I appreciate Rupert's comments. He has described the tension between the "technicals" and the "practicals" much like the symphony, where the Techies are the cellists, the detectives the conductors, and the jury the audience. It pays to play to the audience.
One other thing, why do you guys use the letter s instead of z in words like organize, and characterize? heh heh
You speak "English", a language which has existed far longer than the USA, so instead of answering, a question in return… Why do you change the spellings in our language? 😉