I don’t think it’s particularly beneficial to use FFD9’s thread to try and have a go at me or my impartiality.
You sell the product and therefore how likely are you, having a vested interested in the product, to be in the position to independently and objectively define and illustrate its failings and weakpoints, in addition to any limitation on radio evidence it doesn't collect?
This is completely wrong. I do not sell the product, 3gforensics do (but you knew that already). If someone is interested in CSurv M-Tek then I refer them to 3gforensics. It is up to them to decide which equipment is right for their application and budget having considered all options. I have other kit so I can contrast it independently. We also offer non vendor specific training.
I notice you have an ad for Nemo in the classified section, would this mean you have a vested interest ?
you do not define your training course and what people will learn on it. People will naturally want to know upfront what you are going to teach them and where you got the materials for that course??
I simply sought to address FFD9’s original question as Sam has also regarding the skill set and qualifications that a trainer should possess to provide value for money. If anyone wants this then they can simply request this from me. I guess the original thought here is that if the trainer can display relevant academic qualifications and experience then it would follow that the subsequent training would be of a high standard.
Your statement implies that it would account for almost everyone conducting cell site analysis today, including the Police forces and perhaps, maybe your clients having this qualification? What if they do not have it?
The original question was what qualifications/background would make an ideal choice in determining expertise for delivering CSA training. The basic principle of training is that the trainer has more experience/qualifications directly related to the subject matter than the student. It is up to the individual to assess themselves (or their company) whether they have the right skills and training to perform CSA. As Sam rightly points out an individual’s reputation can be badly tarnished if they are not indeed deemed to be of an expert standard. It is of course up to the court to assess competency in a forensic discipline not me.
FFD9, you must have some thoughts yourself as to what constitutes relevant qualifications/expertise to provide solid, effective training. Would be interested to hear more of your thoughts.
To summarise, in my opinion a good trainer should possess most if not all of the following
Telecomms experience (someone who has extensive knowledge of network elements and systems)
Relevant Academic qualification – For example a degree in an Electronic Engineering discipline
Experience of conducting cell site surveys - with the appropriate forensic quality controls etc
Forensic experience – ideally have worked in forensic lab and skilled in other digital forensic disciplines
Court Skills - Ideally trained in court skills and submitted a range of reports etc
I don’t think it’s particularly beneficial to use FFD9’s thread to try and have a go at me or my impartiality.
Stephen, I am not hitting at impartiality that is your emotional response to the situation. I asked you fair questions as to how you would cope with topics naturally arising from what you wrote. When I raised the points to you I did so because I was genuinely not sure what you were doing and that came about because you did say very recently in other posts that you didn't train and run courses and then in the next breathe admitted you did. It just wasn't clear from your responses where you coming from.
This is completely wrong. I do not sell the product, 3gforensics do (but you knew that already). If someone is interested in CSurv M-Tek then I refer them to 3gforensics. It is up to them to decide which equipment is right for their application and budget having considered all options. I have other kit so I can contrast it independently. We also offer non vendor specific training. I notice you have an ad for Nemo in the classified section, would this mean you have a vested interest?
No I didn't know that you didn't sell CSurv M-TEK. From your posts it wasn't clear whether you were selling or not along side training. But fair enough, if you say you are not, then I accept your word. I am happy to apologise to you for misunderstanding your post.
I also accept your questioning on the point about Nemo and I do not feel you are suggesting anything about my impartiality. To answer your question. Absolutely, yes. I had a vested interest to sell ONE tool; no different to anyone else selling a version of encase etc they no longer required. But I do not advertise training about or train users for Nemo or sell their product as a reseller.
I simply sought to address FFD9’s original question as Sam has also regarding the skill set and qualifications that a trainer should possess to provide value for money. If anyone wants this then they can simply request this from me. I guess the original thought here is that if the trainer can display relevant academic qualifications and experience then it would follow that the subsequent training would be of a high standard.
Out of interest, Sam and I have both been willing to post our course details. I suggested this to you to allow inclusion rather than segregation. If You look at FFD9's original post this is exactly one of the elements being alluded to. This was a golden opportunity to demonstrate how you were going to introduce people to the concepts you say are needed. But if you don't want to, I accept this is your choice.
The original question was what qualifications/background would make an ideal choice in determining expertise for delivering CSA training. The basic principle of training is that the trainer has more experience/qualifications directly related to the subject matter than the student. It is up to the individual to assess themselves (or their company) whether they have the right skills and training to perform CSA. As Sam rightly points out an individual’s reputation can be badly tarnished if they are not indeed deemed to be of an expert standard. It is of course up to the court to assess competency in a forensic discipline not me.
An academic qualification doesn't give you an expert standard. With respect, the linking of academic qualification might lead to a self-defeating argument because you immediately create segregation and stigmatism. To follow your line of reasoning it can put across an MSc is less expert that someone with a PhD but more expert than a BSc. Yet a person with a BSc may have considerably more skill and experience than the MSc and PhD put together. Comparisons are odious at the best of times and the award status of an expert is best left to the Court on the day and/or whether your peer group think you are or not.
I believe academic qualification can be shown to part of someone's knowledge base, but that doesn't make them suitable for CSA or expertise. For instance, if you take a computer forensics graduate, would that mean the graduate is less suitable for conducting CSA because they do not have an electronics engineering degree? Moreover, student's who believe their tutor has academic qualification so they must be an expert find out really quickly in this profession how lack of skills and experience can get them into difficult waters.
As there are no academic qualifications in our area and the reason why I have pushing for them is so that mobile telephone evidence can have its own academic standards rather than using extraneous academic qualifications to fill a gap - because it simply causes confusion. I welcome mobile telephone evidence academic qualifications and have informed Universities that I am happy to help them.
Out of interest, Sam and I have both been willing to post our course details. I suggested this to you to allow inclusion rather than segregation. If You look at FFD9's original post this is exactly one of the elements being alluded to.
This to my knowledge is not what FFD9 asked for. I wanted to address specifically what was being asked. Jamie posted a link to details on Sam’s experience and background and I have added what I feel is the best fit for a CSA trainer.
I could simply cut and paste your or Sam’s course details and say this is mine, so in this respect listing a course outline does not give the full picture. FFD9’s question about qualifications/experience about the trainer gets to the heart of the matter and helps evaluate a course more effectively.
Now of course you could have all the qualifications you like but you are not a skilled at delivering complex information at the right level for the audience then this would not represent value for money. So in addition to these questions should be a poll of people who have recently completed training and how they would rate it. I will communicate directly with anyone who wants details of my courses and happily refer them to those who have recently been in attendance.
With respect, the linking of academic qualification might lead to a self-defeating argument because you immediately create segregation and stigmatism. To follow your line of reasoning it can put across an MSc is less expert that someone with a PhD but more expert than a BSc. Yet a person with a BSc may have considerably more skill and experience than the MSc and PhD put together.
As there are no academic qualifications in our area and the reason why I have pushing for them is so that mobile telephone evidence can have its own academic standards rather than using extraneous academic qualifications to fill a gap
On one hand you are saying that academic qualification causes segregation and stigmatism, yet you see a need for your academic qualification in mobile telephone evidence. Can you see how this might sound confusing? Personally speaking I welcome all training on CSA and attracting high calibre people into this arena from the corporate sector etc. The more people who have or intend to gain relevant qualifications is to be welcomed.
The vast majority of modules you listed for your course are of an electronic engineering/telecoms discipline. So I’m not sure how you can state that a formal degree in this area is extraneous (irrelevant) to CSA.
So to get back to the initial question. What would be the most appropriate qualification for CSA training in my opinion it is electronic engineering. As FFD9 points out the MET and indeed other forces and private firms employ ex network engineers as their specialists.
The other area for the assessment is of course competency of experts. In some respects I would assume (and from FFD9’s question it appears relevant) that a person teaching an expert subject should indeed be an expert themselves. Unfortunately, since the demise of CRFP there are no longer external options for this (I was quite sad as I was an assessor in CDR evaluation when the register did close). The new forensic regulations are likely to include onus on companies to provide competency assessments for their employees.
I personally believe this is important. When working with someone experienced in cell site analysis, over time the competency of the individual can be assessed within the area and a structured training program can be used for that individual. I believe most good forensic company’s already implement such a systems for their staff and it is likely to be the future within the forensic areas.
I don’t think CSA is any different to any other area in that respect. You couldn’t go to university, attend some training courses and come out of it a DNA/fibres/blood pattern analysis specialist. Those skills are acquired by working and training within a forensic company, gaining and growing with casework experience. Competency assessments can thus take many years before that person is signed off by the company.
I personally initially trained under someone in CSA (an ex-university engineering lecturer who specialised in electronics engineering – I was very fortunate) and worked with others with strong physics and data mining knowledge. I know other telecoms forensic companies have similar systems where staff undergo work shadowing, research and training prior to undertaking their own casework loads. However, training is a never ending life process.
Like Stephen I believe there are a number of things that go into providing a good trainer (and in some respects a competent expert). To Stephen’s list I would add that since data analysis can be a large part of the CSA process (depending on how you conduct your analysis) computer science knowledge can also be relevant and useful as well as perhaps physics also being a relevant subject area. However, as Greg states none are fully directly related to the actual CSA process.
The main thing I would add to the list is CSA casework experience. I personally think that beyond the initial research and training, the main learning experience in the area is hands-on on the job training and past case experience.
Additionally, as Stephen points out – it is also my personal view that it is essentially that the person can actually teach. It’s great being a competent expert but if you are unable to lecture well, you are not going to provide good training. Hence, perhaps the other relevant part of this is past teaching experience and training in training too.
Quite a combination of skills…..
Kind regards
Sam Raincock
You will note that I have not disagreed with everything you have mentioned where you have a personal view on a particular matter that is neither here nor there as it would have no impact on training, CSA or creating standards for CSA.
The points I approached you about was to understand the foundation on which you make your comments. It is those matters you raised that I said what about the other side of the coin. Some points you didn't feel you wanted to reply. OK this is your choice.
CSA has many levels, this is true.
As for the academic point. I have no problem with academia at all. You started out with electronics engineering degree linking expert to it was relevant, so I merely pointed out how that would fit with
- computer forensics graduate performing CSA
- how you give weight and value to the various degree levels
Whilst I will continue to push for degrees I do so because there is an alternative Diploma that can be undertaken if peope want to, but I do not wish to be bias to one partiuclar path of learning, skills and experience. I like choice in life as I am sure other people do too.
Electronics and telecommunications engineering and so on are extraneous because they are each separate entities when dealing in context with the discussion in this thread about CSA. Some are natural sciences some are not. I do not exclude them, but point out Mobile Telephone Evidence is a composite of many parts of knowledge from each of the natrual and non-natural sciences and other areas. One could for example say a qualification in EM or RF is what is needed for CSA training, or electrical, mathematics degrees etc etc etc…this list goes on. But it doesn't make it so. Therefore a broad church approach is what is needed.
So posting your course details could help to demonstrate how your electronics engineering degree is to be outlined in your CSA course.
My comments do have a basis to be asked in context with FFD9's orginal question.
….essentially that the person can actually teach. It’s great being a competent expert but if you are unable to lecture well, you are not going to provide good training. Hence, perhaps the other relevant part of this is past teaching experience and training in training too.
Quite a combination of skills…..
This is another area I didnt mention, teaching/lecturing. Actually, I do have a Teacher Trainer Certificate for teaching in Cell Site Analysis, SIM Cards and Mobile Telephones and Mobile Telephone Evidence. They are all well and good but I have to say my experience of training largely depends on whether the person on the course wants to learn. Also when I have been on training courses where the presenter's oration has been excellent and the presentation of skills presented in a logical and concise format appears second to none, if the person next to you doesn't want to learn then it can be difficult.
Handbags at dawn ladies.
gh05teh there is some useful information that is arising out of this debate but your comments imply you simply cannot see it.
1) If you do not like the thread discussion, don't read it as no one is forcing you
2) If you cannot contribute in the thread in a professional manner then don't post
oh dear… sorry greg… just injecting some humour into another slanging match between you two about csa, but sorry again fill your boots..
Here is an article (which was posted in another forum) written by a Law Professor on a US case about Daubert Test and Cell Site Analysis. Interesting to note that the expert in this case has a BSc and works for the manufacturer supplying network/base station equipment to the operator. There are a number of implications behind the technical evidence and omissions that can be useful to training. Quite apt really for this thread
http//