An interesting (and surprisingly emotive) topic. One of the interesting things is how personal experiences differ, in my case I think my experience of practitioners working in a law enforcement role has probably been the opposite of fatrabbit's, i.e. overwhelmingly positive. I don't think that says anything profound, nor is it a criticism of those who have voiced concerns, but I thought it worth mentioning.
Personally, if LE sees the need for a restricted forum (and I believe that's what Ben is saying) then I have very few qualms about it. If anything I'm surprised that there isn't already an established forum fulfilling exactly this role…
Jamie
This discussion is a prime example of why I like coming to FF. The debates are intelligent and respectful.
Also, if I gave anyone the ideo that LE thinks they are superior in CF, nothing (IMHO) could be farther from the truth. I do think LE has alot more experience in conducting investigations and how certain things will be viewed by the courts, but that is only because LE has alot more experience in this area.
The private sector really has alot more experience in CF, again IMHO. This is why I really believe that FF is a perfect blend of professionals.
trewmte No worries, I've never been a topic-nazi. Follow the conversation where it goes. I'm not sure how useful a discussion about the the trust issues between defence and prosecution is, really - I don't think either has an issue with respectable practitioners from the other side.
fatrabbit - it sounds as if you're talking about bad attitude from detectives rather than LE as a whole. I'm a civilian working for the Police and I have to say that I've never encountered anything like that, either in my own force or outside. I'd be interested to hear what sort of LE organisations you've worked for.
apologise for the aggression, but not my opinions
I'm not asking you to, but I do think that your experiences aren't common to most people in the field.
jamie thanks for the response. It's good to get a vote from the founder of such a respected forum ) It sounds as if there is an LE forum running in the US, but maybe they've never announced their presence in public forums like this.
Branerift I think that LE certainly gets the 'benefit' of a huge volume of work which gives you a lot of exposure to different sorts of cases. I doubt if any private firm has even a tenth of the backlog that most police force HTCUs have these days.
Isn't it everyones responsibility to provide accurate and concise data to the court, regardless of whether you're LE or not?
I see no reason why LE should be privy to technical information that non-LE aren't.
It seems to me that the court system in the US is to blame for all ingrained paranoia toward anyone that provides work for defense.
Anyone that presents shoddy work in court, regardless of whether they work for defense or prosecution, should be raked over the coals. We're all dealing with peoples lives here.
In Australia at least its good to see that LE, for the most part, are open with technical information and prefer to work along side corporate investigators then against them.
We all work for the court, not the parties and in the end, the results from both sides should always be the same.
I'm still not sure I understand the hostility to the idea of a closed LE forum and I wonder if we're in danger of blurring the principle of providing accurate information in court with the legitimate needs of one of the parties involved in the judicial system to discuss sensitive issues amongst their own? To be honest, I don't see how the latter necessarily precludes the former. If there is a degree of paranoia it seems to me that it's directed equally towards LE…
Jamie
Perhaps just the dilution of knowledge? I already regularly check the DD and EnCase boards, and here once in a while. All generally for the computer and law aspects, if involving phones, there are even more boards.
People may be wary that discussions which would provide useful info would be split somewhat between the boards the more that are created, and therefore lessen the knowledge available with some being inaccessible.
(As a side note - what defines LE only? - Pretty much all the cases i do are generally for LE - for all the different forces / govt agencies - however still being privatised govt, therefore private sector - this probably is considered non-LE?)
Rich
Rich,
What is normally considered LE is actual sworn officers. It's kind of an unique spot you occupy seeing that you do all the work of LE without the "sworn" part. I would stretch it as far a being employed by a LE organization, but others might have a different view on it.
Like it or not, the judicial system is adversarial in nature. I used to be LE so I understand the LE mindset and requirement to have privileged access and information. On the other hand, defense is as valid as prosecution. Without it we would live in a (pardon the phrase) police state. Thus, it is as valid to have Non-LE only websites and information, including LE excluded software.
Having said that, I am, as might be expected, sympathetic to the LE/good guy side of things. It might be interesting were someone to produce No-LE-Allowed forensic software to make up that competitive edge that defense is lacking at present.
The real question is whether LE would respect copyright and license mandates for No-LE-Allowed. Would they break the law in order to enforce the law? D Would persons and/or companies producing same be blackballed in the industry all the while LE is practicing the same exclusionary practice?
This is just food for thought… Please don't read any more into it than is really there!
L
The real question is whether LE would respect copyright and license mandates for No-LE-Allowed. Would they break the law in order to enforce the law? D Would persons and/or companies producing same be blackballed in the industry all the while LE is practicing the same exclusionary practice?
I don't think the concept of non-LE type software could ever exist in a practical sense. If LE officers needed to use a 'non-LE' licensed bit of software, they would just get some legal mandate or equivalent to obtain it, so they wouldn't actually be braking the law. Interesting thought though.
I'm not so sure you're right. Copyrights and Licensing agreements are legal contracts. I'm sure there would be platoons of defense attorneys who would be more than happy to prosecute such violations.
Law Enforcement is not totalitarian in their powers, at least not in a democratically governed society. They have to put their pants on one legal leg at a time, just like civilians. I don't have a right to violate copyright or licensing contracts and neither do they. Probable Cause would govern whether LE can violate your copyright protection or not, I would think. If there is no Probable Cause, they can't violate the law. If they do, you can accept cash or certified check.