Digital Forensic Science: A Manifesto

Abstract

<jats:p>Forensic examination of evidence holds the promise of making claims about the truth of certain propositions with the inherent accuracy&#x0D; and reliability that characterises scientific endeavours. The propositions may relate to the artefacts examined or related artefacts. The&#x0D; nature of propositions about which claims can be made depend on the extent to which given propositions fall within the ambit of scientific&#x0D; knowledge and on the extent to which the examined evidence is suitable for the application of established science. A continuing series&#x0D; of incidents illustrate that in many forensic disciplines that promise is not met — often because some branch of forensic science happen&#x0D; to not being scientific at all. In fact, serious assessments of forensic science have shown that many (if not most) branches of forensic&#x0D; science are not scientifically valid.&#x0D; Digital forensic science is one of the newest members of the family of forensic sciences. A number of reasons for concern exist that&#x0D; it is following in the footsteps of its more established footsteps and repeating many of the mistakes of those other branches of forensic&#x0D; science.&#x0D; This viewpoint is written in the form of a manifesto that is situated in the current discourse about digital forensic science and practice.&#x0D; If challenges the current developments in digital forensic science by positing a number of demands that digital forensic science have to&#x0D; meet to be deemed scientific. The demands are posited as necessary, but not sufficient to ensure that digital forensic science uses science&#x0D; to contribute to justice. Appropriate responses to the manifesto is a change in digital forensic developments or an informed debate about&#x0D; the issues raised in the manifesto.</jats:p>

Digital behavioral-fingerprint for user attribution in digital forensics: Are we there yet?

“…Biometric modalities, either physiological or behavioral, have been applied in the science of forensics for user identification 1,2 for decades. While physiological attributes involve the usage of human physiological composition, behavioral attributes, on the other hand, involve the usage of invariant behavior-based features associated with a human in interaction with the device or environment.…”

“…The Daubert and Frye Standards are the two fundamental standards (a legal truth which is decided by the court. Such a legal truth is often deemed as the final authority unless changed in such an explicit manner 2 ) employed for admissibility and reliability of evidence. As highlighted in 3 , the Fryer standard can be defined within this five basis: "(1) Testing: Has the scientific procedure been independently tested?…”

“…As highlighted in 3 , the Fryer standard can be defined within this five basis: "(1) Testing: Has the scientific procedure been independently tested? (2) Peer Review: Has the scientific procedure been published and subjected to peer review? (3).…”