I didn't expect the Spanish inquisition twisted
Fatrabbit
So you can pick the brains of the folks in open forums, then go back to closed ranks when it suits?
Like Smaug in The Hobbit, flying off around the towns, stealing gold, then taking it back to the mountain to sit on top of a huge hoard? Erm…no. In discussions I've had, this forum has never been thought of as being one for discussing the nitty gritty of forensics - I don't envisage it being used for questions like 'I found this file in a Limewire folder, has anyone seen it before?', it's more like for discussion of things that affect LE practitioners - managing the backlog, dishing out R v Oliver categorisations to OiCs, working with related units, meeting counterparts from overseas etc. Also there are a lot of people within police forces (and related bodies) who's role brings them into contact with HTCUs but who aren't computer forensics people - economic crime units, abusive images units, DTI, etc. It might be helpful for them to have a forum with a high-tech crime focus but that isn't restricted to computer forensics - note the name of the forum.
Sachin
Although I belongs to LE , I strongly disagree to have a seperate forum for LEs when there is forensicfocus.
Again, I'll emphasise that it isn't meant to be a replacement for forensicfocus or Digital Detective or any of the other great boards out there. I hope you will join up, as I think it'd be very interesting to talk to someone from India doing the same job as me. That's what I had in mind.
Matt I think the discussions you mention are best done by phone, as there is something a bit sneaky and distasteful about having a forum for character assassinations ? I know that a lot of defence folk we deal with provide a covering letter saying which forces they've worked with in the past, and it's perfectly acceptable imho to ring up those forces and ask about them. As you say, most practitioners in defence or prosecution are very capable, responsible professionals but there are always some that need watching.
trewmte You seem to have come up with an elaborate scenario that hasn't actually happened. I hope my answer to Matt ^ addresses it.
I think we need to remove our tinfoil hats and calm down a bit - it's just a forum for a certain branch of law enforcement. As I said, it's not a big deal.
BenUK, I would be happy to apologise to you if you thought for one moment my comments were meant personally. I see nothing professional in insulting people. None of my comments were intended to make you feel uncomfortable. My comments are scenarios…because there is no real evidence to deal with as to conduct. In this regard I was contributing to the discussion in this thread. I am not sure my scenarios are 'elaborate' though, for they are incomplete.
Yes, I agree with you ForensicFocus and Digital Detective are useful collaborations for open discussion between experts and forensic examiners regarding technologies and the acquisition of evidence.
trwmte, No need to apologise, unless you were being very subtle I don't think you insulted anyone in your post )
ForensicFocus and Digital Detective are useful collaborations for open discussion between experts and forensic examiners regarding technologies and the acquisition of evidence
You've hit the nail on the head - that's what this new forum isn't for. I'm not saying that forensics will never be discussed, but forensics most certainly aren't the raison d'etre for it.
I run a small forum in the US for LE CF & online investigations. I find most of my answers here at Forensic Focus and benefit from the vast knowledge of everyone from around the globle. I can give you the reasons the forums I host are for LE only, but I can't really speak for other sites.
1. We discuss alot of online investigations on the site. We do mention screen names of possible child predators and active investigations. As you can see, this information to the general public could jeopardize the investigation.
2. Cops are an odd breed. I can't really explain this well to non-LE and I apologize for that. I am hoping a better articulate LE person could clarify this a bit. I can best describe it as "trust issues". Cops are probably the most paranoid group of people and some only feel comfortable discussing job realated issues with other cops…. I know that didn't sound right, so I expect a few flames for it ) (edited here) This is part due to Defense Attorneys that research the LE examiner and use everything they can find against the officer on the stand. It's actually a crazy thought but it does happen, so private forums help with this issue.
3. Some departments have very strict policies on discussing anything to do with a case (even forensic procedure) with anyone outside LE. There are alot of resources for LE in this area and most departments prefer the examiner's use those sources (ie NW3C, HTCIA, etc) I am not really sure about some of the rules and I don't write them, I just have to follow them….
I personally like coming to FF because of the wealth of information and professionalism here. I think it would be unfair of me to live only in the LE world and come here only when I am "stuck" with an issue. I check the forums regularly and answer questions when I know the answer and give opinions when I have a strong one ) I try and return what I get from FF as I believe this is only fair. Although I don't consider my knowledge in the CF field to be as vast as alot of people here, I still contribute when I can.
I have become long winded (texted) on this issue, but I do honestly hope I haven't offended anyone with my explaination of certain LE sites, but I hope I have provided a little insight to why they are necessary.
(P.S.) how many posts are required here to get that "newbie" title from under my name? lol
I think we need to remove our tinfoil hats and calm down a bit - it's just a forum for a certain branch of law enforcement. As I said, it's not a big deal.
Actually it is a big deal. Whether you like it or not, and whether you intended it or not, some LE types seem to claim superiority for having investigative experience, seem to think it makes them a better forensics practitioner. You say there is a perceived need, from where, those same superior LE types? Either way, it's divisive.
It might be helpful for them to have a forum with a high-tech crime focus but that isn't restricted to computer forensics
People can read thread titles, you will only attract contributions from those people that want to participate in such conversations, you don't have to create a members only forum to control topics.
1. We discuss alot of online investigations on the site. We do mention screen names of possible child predators and active investigations. As you can see, this information to the general public could jeopardize the investigation.
That kind of information should never be on a public facing server, whether or not it's restricted to members only.
(P.S.) how many posts are required here to get that "newbie" title from under my name? lol
Another twelve and you'll be a member.
As I work with both prosecution and defence, my step-father is ex-force, my cousin is currently a Barrister, and historically one uncle was a Judge and another was a QC, I believe I am taking a balanced view on this matter by believing a broad church of experts/forensic examiners is better than having sides - this is why I respect the ground breaking approach of ForensicFocus and Digital Detective have achieved.
I have no wish to cause offence, but perhaps I can play devil's advocate here by saying that defence experts may have a mistrust of law enforcement officers involved with forensic examination believing they can't be objective and impartial because they are too busy trying to win the case for the prosecution whether they are right or wrong? To forensic examiners in law enforcement it would be understandable if they took offence at that (being judged on those merits). But it is as equally offensive to the majority of defence experts who come to the matter with clean hands, have been professional and shown considerable integrity in their work to be judged on the basis of guilt by association because of a few bad guys. I do believe discussions like these should be brought out into the open to break the barriers of fear and mistrust.
In saying the above I do understand where BenUK and BraneRift are coming from and the scope of the topics they want to discuss in an LE only forum.
fatrabbit
some LE types seem to claim superiority for having investigative experience, seem to think it makes them a better forensics practitioner. You say there is a perceived need, from where, those same superior LE types? Either way, it's divisive.
You've obviously got a pretty sizeable chip on your shoulder about the prosecution. If you can't see that your last post is by far the most aggressive and partisan one in this thread then you need to read it again carefully from the start.
People can read thread titles, you will only attract contributions from those people that want to participate in such conversations, you don't have to create a members only forum to control topics.
I beg to differ, and a lot of people I speak to are also broadly in favour of having another forum where things can be discussed with a measure of privacy and understanding. Your rant only serves to drive that home. If you choose to take offence at my setting up this forum then that's your decision. No offence to anyone is meant by setting up this forum, and I'm very surprised at even the handful of negative responses it's got on here.
trewmte
defence experts may have a mistrust of law enforcement officers involved with forensic examination believing they can't be objective and impartial because they are too busy trying to win the case for the prosecution whether they are right or wrong?
Playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, I've equally seen defence people going way, way too far in their attempts to win a case - one case of a colleague's springs to mind where if anyone from our office had gone as far we'd have probably got a 'WTF?' note to our DS from CPS. But that's not what this thread is about and it's not helpful to bring it up, imho, as it's only a tiny minority doing this. Equally, I've never seen anyone in my office trying to get a case home right or wrong. I'm a dribbly-liberal Guardian-reading, vegetarian, hemp-sandal-wearing type, been with the Police for nearly 3 years and I have nothing but pride in the work that me and my colleagues are doing. I know you were playing devil's advocate, I just wanted to set the record straight on that one )
I do believe discussions like these should be brought out into the open to break the barriers of fear and mistrust.
I agree entirely, which is why it's good to have boards like this and the DD, although even there the subject never seems to get aired except in very brief, mumbled skirmishes. Maybe that's for the best, as the discussion would amount to little more than each side trotting out the worst examples of the other and treating them as being representative. The good folk in this business, as far as I can see, far outnumber the bad.
But we're talking about computer forensics and experts again, and that's not what this is about.
BenUK, I am not in disagreement for you wanting a forum. You have stated your point that the forum is about other matters, not experts or computer forensics. OK, understood, no worries.
I was dealing with another issue, which is that of 'trust', generally, and perceptions about that, which arose from commments in this thread discussion. I wasn't intending to hijack your thread, it just seemed a good idea to raise the point in this thread discussion rather than starting a new thread and keep referring back to this thread.
I'm a bit confused with these posts as they seem to have gotten a bit personal and the comments voiced IMO will just provide positive evidence for the need and justification of the proposed new forum.
The freedom to setup a forum and invite people from your own background sounds to me fairly reasonable, but I can also understand people being suspicious of the need for closed rank communications.
If people find it that annoying, then start your own forum where LE aren't invited. D.
You've obviously got a pretty sizeable chip on your shoulder about the prosecution.
I apologise if I came over aggressive, but I won’t apologise for my opinions. I have had experience of working for both LE and various other government agencies, and I've had this superiority thrown at me time and again, and I suppose 'members only' comes over as a slap in the face for those of us working on the same side. Ultimately though you are free to do as you choose, but I do think it is divisive. Also, I have nothing against the prosecution, I've worked for the government for the last nine years, so that is the perspective I come from. For me, the issue of prosecution and defence is irrelevant in this discussion.
If you can't see that your last post is by far the most aggressive and partisan one in this thread then you need to read it again carefully from the start.
Do I need to go and sit in the corner and think about what I said? Seriously, I apologise for the aggression, but not my opinions, which ultimately have been forged by experience.