On the Forensic Focus forum, tootypeg recently posted a call for collaborators on a project about standardisation in digital forensics; specifically, standardisation of witness statements / reports.
Tootypeg is looking to identify and define a panel of members to debate and develop the terminology.
The full text of the forum post follows below; if you are interested in collaborating, feel free to add to the thread or PM tootypeg for more information.
Just wanted to gather your thoughts on a few things and particularly a piece of work I am currently looking into. Basically it’s looking at standardisation but from a report and evidence description point of view. It’s interesting that this was sort of mentioned in the ‘New digital forensics textbook – soliciting suggestions’ thread, but from an evidence misunderstanding point of view.I was wondering if it is possible as a field to develop a standard set of technical language / definitions which can be globally used in all reports. In addition to develop a set of criteria which must be met in order to be able to use such a definition in a court report.
For example, as a field we might define and explain an internet history record as ‘A, B & C’. And in order to be able to use that definition, conditions ‘X, Y & Z’ must be present in the case. I am thinking that this could lead to greater consistency across all cases if every practitioner used it and provide courts with a consistent and known precedent description of different types of evidence which they could become familiar with and get a handle on the conditions surrounding it. It would also potentially stop the potential for misinterpretation of content from inconsistent descriptions.
I dont know if I’m talking rubbish here, but in my head on the way to work, it seemed to make sense. Would be interested to hear thoughts on this, particularly on feasibility and the need for it, and whether anyone might be interested collaborating /working on it if it’s useful?
Read the full thread here.
