Is Digital Forensics Science an independent science?
Monday, March 16, 2009 (15:23:57)

Posted by msve

Recently, again, in some forums was opened the debate on how different groups access to the activities of Digital Forensics. Specifically, the main grouse is heard that the LE is in some way “separative”, many of their Digital Forensic activities are closed.

First, it is necessary to clarify my basic standpoint:
Digital Forensic Science is forensic science. Its position in the sciences is irreplaceable. It is an open and independent science. The only aim is to provide objective knowledge of the digital world in such a way that corresponds to the basic principles of all other forensic sciences.
From this perspective it is nonsense to divide Digital Forensic in the “public” and “LE only”. Digital Forensic is a matter of public. Without any discussion.

Why, therefore, certain groups of LE tried to be or closed?

I see, in particular, two basic reasons:

1. The negative view of everything that comes from the private (or other than LE) area, the suspicion that anything private is inherently biased, dependent, unreliable and potentially corruptible.

I think that this observation is valid not only for us in Central and Eastern Europe. By contrast, just look at the conditions of membership in a variety of Digital Forensic associations. Just look how many of them is openly (and how many in hidden way!) intended only for “the good forensic experts”, i.e. only for those who are on the LE site.

2. Historical inertia in thinking, the constant impression that all what LE does is concealed or must be discreet.

Here should be little explanation. You should not confuse the two terms. One is the “investigation” and the other is a “forensic analysis”. I can well imagine that the investigative methods may be sensitive and inappropriate for publication. But not the methods of forensic analysis!
However, because of constant missinterpretation of these terms is, we must not be surprised that often everything is putting into one bag and thus LE activities are “closed” to the public in many cases where it has no reason.

I know that now arises the question: "Why is at the upcoming conference DFF Arabia 2009 allocated a special "LE only" section? The reasons are as follows:

1. We offer the opportunity for LE to discuss applications of special investigative methods so that they will be in accordance with the principles of the forensic work in the field of Digital Forensic.

2. It makes no sense to force the LE community use the public section, if they do not internally believe that Digital Forensic Science is the only one open science. The process of transformation is the long term process and by the creation of a "closed section" we are trying to operate on this group so that it gradually moved purely Digital Forensic matters to open discussion and "closed section" left really only for the special and specific LE problms.

3. Each region has its own specifics and sensitive adaptation to these conditions is one of the methodes of the DFF work.

Perhaps it just only one point at the end - anyone who is separated somehow, finally lost. I understand this as a detriment in the common pursuit of the development of Digital Forensic. Therefore I would like to appeal to the LE offices: differentiate carefully what have to be closed, secret, and what is public and benefit for the further development of Digital Forensic Science.