I'd like to get other people's perspectives on the usefulness of cyberpsychology in computer forensic investigations. I see that an upcoming international conference features a keynote speaker, (Dr. Marcus Rogers of Purdue University) whose research interests include "psychological digital crime scene analysis". I'm very interested in this aspect of CFI, and I have been fascinated with the
I'd like to know more though, about the potential use of cyberpsychology in computer forensics investigations, from the perspective of those who have years of experience in CFI. I'm thinking that such an interdisciplinary approach could benefit in investigations as diverse as cyberbullying to cyberterrorism. However, I'm just beginning my journey into CFI, I have big aspirations, but no real experience. I anticipate studying for the next 10 years (from undergrad to PhD) to achieve what I have in mind, and the computing landscape will no doubt look very different by the time I graduate.
Does anyone here have experience with applying cyberpsychology principles in digital crime scene analysis? What are your thoughts on this as a career goal? I know it seems very narrowly focused, and real-world application seems scarce, but looking into your crystal ball, could this become a valuable tool in the future?
I certainly think there is some mileage in this, particularly where cyberpsychology interfaces with the psychology of criminal behaviour and in particular, sex crimes (which is where most police forensic activity is focused). I don't see the psychological aspects changing dramatically in the next ten years, just the technology.
Paul
I second that there is mileage to your plans.
Although digital forensics are often presumed to be a lot of bit swapping and massaging, in my opinion there is quite a lot of psychology & sociology involved when we are called to draw some conclusions.
Social network behaviors, personals sites, employment sites, and similar from the web are a treasure trove of psychological and sociological research opportunities as it relates to malfeasance.
On the other hand, I think technology does change psychology. Maybe that could be study in itself.
Marc's talk should be interesting. I know him from when he was member of the Winnipeg City Police. His phd is actually in psychology so he knows whereof he speaks.
Thanks a lot for the feedback so far. Yes, the question of how technology affects psychology is very interesting. Close observation of the discussions about the recent privacy changes on Facebook is enough to give an example of this effect.
I won't be able to attend the conference in Abu Dhabi in October, but I'll certainly be keeping my eyes open for the proceedings and any journal articles published that relate to the psychological side of computer forensics.
One perspective that really interests me, which goes to motivation for some cyber crimes, is the possible correlation between the mentality of taggers (those who use spraypaint to deface public buildings) and those who code and distribute malware on computers. Is it possible that malware proliferators are the taggers of the 21st century? Have spraycans given way to bits and bytes? Are malware proliferators motivated by the same need for exposure and reputation that taggers are? I personally think there are a lot of similarities between these. I've tried searching at my University library but cannot find any studies on this. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
I guess that in any criminal investigation, whether digital or IRL, as soon as you start looking at motive, you are considering things from a psychological perspective, aren't you? Means, motive, and opportunity, the Holy Trinity of getting convictions.
Thanks a lot for the feedback so far. Yes, the question of how technology affects psychology is very interesting. Close observation of the discussions about the recent privacy changes on Facebook is enough to give an example of this effect.
I won't be able to attend the conference in Abu Dhabi in October, but I'll certainly be keeping my eyes open for the proceedings and any journal articles published that relate to the psychological side of computer forensics.
One perspective that really interests me, which goes to motivation for some cyber crimes, is the possible correlation between the mentality of taggers (those who use spraypaint to deface public buildings) and those who code and distribute malware on computers. Is it possible that malware proliferators are the taggers of the 21st century? Have spraycans given way to bits and bytes? Are malware proliferators motivated by the same need for exposure and reputation that taggers are? I personally think there are a lot of similarities between these. I've tried searching at my University library but cannot find any studies on this. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
I guess that in any criminal investigation, whether digital or IRL, as soon as you start looking at motive, you are considering things from a psychological perspective, aren't you? Means, motive, and opportunity, the Holy Trinity of getting convictions.
You have missed the most important element, which is mens rea, the guilty mind.
I'm currently halfway through my MSc Forensic InfTech and a fellow student is looking into the field of offender psychological profiling from a suspect's forensically investigated computer for her MSc research project
Thanks for the links @Frittmann
mmm good news for us! Thank you
its in GULF
Let me offer an alternative view - I have been a detective for 28 out of 30 years as a police officer and I have never seen psychology have any useful benefit in any investigation I have been involved in during that period. The only more useless thing that springs to mind is parapsychology.
The principle component that detects crime is evidence.
H
Let me offer an alternative view - I have been a detective for 28 out of 30 years as a police officer and I have never seen psychology have any useful benefit in any investigation I have been involved in during that period. The only more useless thing that springs to mind is parapsychology.
The principle component that detects crime is evidence.
H
I agree, it's always about money unless it's GBH or murder.