What do the Germans have to do with it? lol
I agree with most of what has been said above. I am of the opinion that most of these certifications are only a way for different entities to make $$$.
I believe it is too early to tell at this point. As is the case with other certs, its real value will be determined by its acceptance and reputation within the community. The DFCB does have an advantage in that the common points of contention applicable to other certifications can be examined and dealt with during the founders process, but its biggest strength, granted the board follows through, will be its submission to a higher, recognized and reputable, certification authority.
The DFCB will eventually be applying for recognition by the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board (FSAB). which is currently recognized by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
According to an
Perhaps, but the process puts the cart before the horse.
Certification boards in law and medicine did not exist until many years after these professions existed and they were created by a consensus of the practitioners, not handed down by a single, designated entity.
I agree that something like this is valuable. But it should come from within the computer forensics community, not be imposed upon it.
Hence my lack of comfort with the relatively poor emphasis on experience required for the founders program.
Perhaps, but the process puts the cart before the horse.
Certification boards in law and medicine did not exist until many years after these professions existed and they were created by a consensus of the practitioners, not handed down by a single, designated entity.
I agree that something like this is valuable. But it should come from within the computer forensics community, not be imposed upon it.
Hence my lack of comfort with the relatively poor emphasis on experience required for the founders program.
First.. I think that computer forensics is NOT the Cutting edge field it was 15 years ago.. People have been doing it that long… So Like the med boards and such… they can Create testing based on the consensus of practitioners.. I think the initial members are creating a test.. And the Folks on the boar, Like Warren Kruse and Kevin Manson ARE practitioners and within the forensic community.
Secondly the emphasis is PUT on the experience (at least the ability to put it on paper and have it verified) of the examiner.. I mean look at a previous posting who complained that it was too hard to get this.
I agree that Certs are about as valuable as something you put on a business card, but you need something on a Resume and something to give employers a Baseline.. This one was created out of frustration with the community not having a solid, vendor neutral certification for both Non Law Enforcement and LE personnel alike…
And I'm sure Harlan Carvey would make it in just fine.. maybe even write a book about it.. (in fact in the application there is alot of points for Publications/articles written etc..)
Secondly the emphasis is PUT on the experience (at least the ability to put it on paper and have it verified) of the examiner. I mean look at a previous posting who complained that it was too hard to get this.
Have you looked at the actual spreadsheet to qualify as a founding member? On what basis do you make that claim?
Let me put a different spin on this.
In 1910 the Carnegie Foundation issued a report written by Abraham Flexner on the state of medical education in the US. Organized medicine has long lauded this study as being the driver for the modernization of medical education in the US and to an extent, this is correct. But what it also served to do was to eliminate competition as well as diversity and drive up costs and mean that only those with money could become doctors.
Prior to that report most medical practitioners in the US were educated through apprenticeships. Experience was the teacher and science was not always at the forefront of the educational process. Academic medical schools competed with these apprenticeship programs and because their costs were higher, not always successfully.
Most importantly, there is no sign that the American public was particularly dissatisfied with this system.
The American Medical Association, whose members were predominantly academically trained, wanted a system which could restrict the entry of professionals in the field. The academic medical colleges were happy to comply as this meant that they had a monopoly on education.
Whether or not the ultimate outcome was for the betterment of the US population has been debated. What has not been debated is that the system which resulted was, essentially, a government sanctioned monopoly.
For academics to lead in establishment of a professional guild, it must not only teach, it must contribute new knowledge to the field. I would argue that we are not there, yet, because most of our knowledge comes from the experience of other investigators, not from academic research. Thus, whether we are ready to establish a single credential for all professionals, especially when that credential favors formal education, is an issue for me.
I'm not saying that we aren't. But I haven't yet been impressed that we are.
Secondly the emphasis is PUT on the experience (at least the ability to put it on paper and have it verified) of the examiner. I mean look at a previous posting who complained that it was too hard to get this.
Have you looked at the actual spreadsheet to qualify as a founding member? On what basis do you make that claim?
I have looked at it..and Filled it out..and submitted it… So yes… and my 9 years in the field is getting me through… They neutered the Educational credits down..and don't count other Certifications heavily.. And I don't have a published Book… so I had to rely on my work experience…
As for further insight into the organization and why it was founded.. go here http//
Again..it's a stepping stone.. Maybe not the end all, be all.. but it's a Start for many..
Whether or not the ultimate outcome was for the betterment of the US population has been debated. What has not been debated is that the system which resulted was, essentially, a government sanctioned monopoly.
For academics to lead in establishment of a professional guild, it must not only teach, it must contribute new knowledge to the field. I would argue that we are not there, yet, because most of our knowledge comes from the experience of other investigators, not from academic research. Thus, whether we are ready to establish a single credential for all professionals, especially when that credential favors formal education, is an issue for me.
I'm not saying that we aren't. But I haven't yet been impressed that we are.
Your point in this article is taken.. and I flash to the similarities with the Legal field..and the Bar exam. I have dealt with many attorney's in the past who have little experience in a specific type incident, yet take the case on full force based on the credential of BAR approved "Lawyer". I find it interesting that the courts can uphold this monopoly based on a piece of paper and the testing.. (I mean at least you can see the Medical angle.. Life and death thing.. But Legal? A former cop can probably give you a better defense at a quarter of the cost.).
As for the Acedemic field..I agree that the University sytem is doing a CRAPPY job in general in the field of Computer Forensics. I work out of a State University and they have so many rigid rules and regulations on getting a program started or a class created that it is hindering any progress on brining the field to this level. I have co-workers that would not be able to teach at this level (Based on a Lack of a Masters or Higher Degree) but who have been doing the work for 10 years. They teach at community colleges and I know that they are giving the students a better education based on their experience and training etc..then what many of the Comp Sci turned Forensic folks can do. No offense to Comp Sci folks.. but your are correct that Experience does matter..
It is my understanding that the certs are neither a requirement imposed on the CF community from the outside nor meant as a single credential for all professionals who practice in this field. As is implied by the results of the poll and the subtext of the question, nothing–from the DFCB's very relevance to its actual acceptance–has even been decided on by the community yet, much less given any credence.
But even if it were, I think the problem isn't so much with the certifications as it is with what they are taken to mean. Deconstructed, all that any certification can really attest to is that a person has met the minimum requirements set by its drafters. In some cases, that could be as simple as passing a 50 question multiple-choice test or as involved as years of education, internships, an exam, and swearing an oath.
Furthermore, while experience is arguably the best singular measure of one's ability in any given field, it isn't perfect. While it may not always be obvious, more practice does not necessarily imply good practice.
As an indicator of specialized knowledge, any level of verifiable expertise is better than none. This is where the question of the DFCB's impact comes into discussion. Taking it beyond its face not only betrays the asker's intent, but asks an entirely different question regarding the objectivity and intrinsic value of any measure of ability. It is pointless to judge the quality of a certification on anything more than the legitimacy of the governing board and its requirements because, in reality, that's all it can ever claim to represent.
The value of any certification, on the other hand, is largely a result of its acceptance within the applicable field of practice. As far as that goes for the DFCB's certs, just as I've said before, only time will tell.
The value of any certification, on the other hand, is largely a result of its acceptance within the applicable field of practice. As far as that goes for the DFCB's certs, just as I've said before, only time will tell.
VERY TRUE!