±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 0 Overall: 34069
New Yesterday: 2 Visitors: 115

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

RSS Feed Widget

±Latest Webinars

ISO 17025 for Digital Forensics – Yay or Nay?

Computer forensics discussion. Please ensure that your post is not better suited to one of the forums below (if it is, please post it there instead!)
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next 

What do you support for the Digital Forensics Community?

6
9%

41
67%

5
8%

9
14%

 
Total Votes: 61

  

Re: ISO 17025 for Digital Forensics – Yay or Nay?

Post Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:44 am

Computer forensics is now mature enough to have expertise in different areas and, matching this, forensic experts who are not experts in certain areas. So its a complex issue re regulating individuals as experts.

Expertise in malware, phones, sat navs, verhicles etc etc and also backgrounds in different areas so they can work well within different legal and/or physical contexts.

I think we are way beyond the point where any one person can claim to be an expert on all areas of computer forensics.  

pbeardmore
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: ISO 17025 for Digital Forensics – Yay or Nay?

Post Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:51 pm

Only courts qualify experts.  

bshavers
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: ISO 17025 for Digital Forensics – Yay or Nay?

Post Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:03 am


garybrevans
Member
 
 
  

Re: ISO 17025 for Digital Forensics – Yay or Nay?

Post Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:07 am

- garybrevans


It looks like the Regulator isn't the primary problem at the end of the day. Public opinion may very well be the hammer that causes some to close up shop, enable the Regulator to obtain the enforcement powers she is vying for, or both. Those trying to make a difference in the accreditation debate and hopeful reform could have the rug pulled from underneath them and the Regulator didn't have to actually do anything.

I do not remember who specifically (may have been several), but this has been an unmitigated risk, a huge concern, shared by several for a while now. Accreditation or not, the behavior of some (right, wrong, or indifferent) would be what does the whole industry in (at least in the public/law enforcment sector). Hopefully this is just a hiccup and not the risk being irreparably exposed.

For those of us in the States, take heed.
_________________
Preston Coleman, MFS, GCFE, EnCE

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke 

pcstopper18
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: ISO 17025 for Digital Forensics – Yay or Nay?

Post Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:48 pm

With reference with the mentioned article the issue remains that the journalist (and the public) believe (and are led to believe) that accreditation means "better quality" (while in reality means only "same quality").

It is not like an accredited laboratory necessary and always makes a "good" or "better" investigation/report when compared to a non-accredited one, or - viceversa - that a non-accredited one necessary and always makes a "bad" or "worse" investigation/report.

There are only some - BTW high in theory, much lower in practice - additional guarantees that the devices are handled properly and data extracted following a pre-set procedure, but that won't do anything about the "cherry-picking" or the "failure to disclose", or the attempts to do "as little work as possible up-front".

This is more or less what happened with ISO 9001, and still today only few people understand that quality assurance means conformity to a set level, and has nothing to do with "good" or "bad" quality.

jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 

jaclaz
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: ISO 17025 for Digital Forensics – Yay or Nay?

Post Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:11 pm

- jaclaz
With reference with the mentioned article the issue remains that the journalist (and the public) believe (and are led to believe) that accreditation means "better quality" (while in reality means only "same quality").

It is not like an accredited laboratory necessary and always makes a "good" or "better" investigation/report when compared to a non-accredited one, or - viceversa - that a non-accredited one necessary and always makes a "bad" or "worse" investigation/report.

There are only some - BTW high in theory, much lower in practice - additional guarantees that the devices are handled properly and data extracted following a pre-set procedure, but that won't do anything about the "cherry-picking" or the "failure to disclose", or the attempts to do "as little work as possible up-front".

This is more or less what happened with ISO 9001, and still today only few people understand that quality assurance means conformity to a set level, and has nothing to do with "good" or "bad" quality.

jaclaz



I 100% agree. This is the factual truth. However, as you yourself noted, that is what the journalist (and ergo the public) seem to/could believe. When coupled with the televised meeting between the committee and the Regulator, it would appear to the layman law maker (logically so without additional information) that she was in fact correct. Even though the issue is far more complex, this type of news can be used as corroboration to her testimony before the committee. I was merely acknowledging the reality of the situation.
_________________
Preston Coleman, MFS, GCFE, EnCE

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke 

pcstopper18
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: ISO 17025 for Digital Forensics – Yay or Nay?

Post Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:02 pm

- pcstopper18
When coupled with the televised meeting between the committee and the Regulator, it would appear to the layman law maker (logically so without additional information) that she was in fact correct. Even though the issue is far more complex, this type of news can be used as corroboration to her testimony before the committee. I was merely acknowledging the reality of the situation.

Yep, the problem I was trying to underline is that if not even the law makers (and possibly the judges and other professionals involved in a criminal trial) can fully grasp the real situation, the real laymen (the jury) will - understandably - start their duty with the pre-conception that since laboratory has been certified then it is infallible and its results cannot be doubted, or - viceversa - that since laboratory is not fully accredited/certified then results are surely wrong and should be dismissed.

If you prefer the reliability of whatever comes out as the result of a digital forensics investigation by the Prosecution or the Police may be taken for granted if coming from an accredited laboratory (thus risking to increase the number of innocent wrongly convicted) or rejected if coming from a non-accredited laboratory (thus risking to increase the number of guilty people being acquitted).

jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 

jaclaz
Senior Member
 
 

Page 14 of 17
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next