±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 0 Overall: 36783
New Yesterday: 0 Visitors: 1361

±Follow Forensic Focus

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

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

±Latest Videos

±Latest Jobs

NPCC guidelines?

Computer forensics training and education issues. If you are looking for topic suggestions for your project, thesis or dissertation please post here rather than the general discussion forum.
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Page Previous  1, 2 
  

JimC
Senior Member
 

Re: NPCC guidelines?

Post Posted: Dec 16, 19 21:58

ACPO was replaced by the NPCC in 2015. In late 2016, I used the FoI to ask the NPCC about the ACPO guidelines. The key questions/responses were as follows:

1. Are you currently responsible for the "Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence" document. This was previously published by ACPO.

RESPONSE: The NPCC is responsible for the ‘Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence’.

2. If you are responsible for this document, are you currently planning any revisions to this document?

RESPONSE: The NPCC holds information to suggest this document will be updated.

As far as I am aware, the above situation has not changed since 2016 and the NPCC have not published any updated guidelines. As part of the same exercise, I asked The College of Policing the same questions. They replied that they were not responsible for this area.

Jim

www.binarymarkup.com  
 
  

trewmte
Senior Member
 

Re: NPCC guidelines?

Post Posted: Dec 17, 19 13:04

- GumStickStorage



- trewmte
NPCC, I would suggest, wont saddle themselves with creating a new best practice guide because there are numerous divisions/department/forces within the police doing something (but I could be wrong). NPCC aim is to transform forensics; there is then the forensic capability network (FCN); Police Scotland are doing something else; and so on.


I'm a little upset by that because just by reading ACPO, it was a well-written guideline and still gets praise today despite its progressively obsolete state (implying people are moving to up-to-date guidelines which makes more sense). However as stated earlier, it can generate a form of inspiration. Perhaps I can attempt to make proposed amendments to the guidelines so it satisfies the upcoming decade too.


Historically, when people travelled by horse and trap the de facto controller device was a 'buggy-whip'. Everyone needed one. When the automobile turned up where was the need for, or relevance of, the buggy-whip? Things change. The principles of safe travel by horse and trap continued to be considered relevant to automobile but only as principles of limited safety value but had to be updated to reflect reality. That reality relevant to today's technology comes in the form of Guidance

ISO has developed a set of global digital forensics standards:
■ ISO/IEC 27037:2012: Guide for collecting, identifying, and preserving electronic evidence
■ ISO/IEC 27041:2015: Guide for incident investigations
■ ISO/IEC 27042: 2015: Guide for digital evidence analysis
■ ISO/IEC 27043:2015: Incident investigation principles and processes
■ ISO/IEC 27050-1:2016: Overview and principles for eDiscovery

The principles in these standards are 'neutral' of other guidelines (e.g. ACPO, NIST, SWGDE, etc). This approach is not new.


So just tweaking ACPO Guidelines ("Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence") might not be enough.
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 
 

Page 2 of 2
Page Previous  1, 2