Suppr超能文献

数字证据例外论?对数字证据转型中概念障碍的回顾与探讨

Digital evidence exceptionalism? A review and discussion of conceptual hurdles in digital evidence transformation.

作者信息

Biedermann Alex, Kotsoglou Kyriakos N

机构信息

University of Lausanne, School of Criminal Justice, 1015, Lausanne, Dorigny, Switzerland.

Northumbria University, School of Law, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2020 Aug 28;2:262-274. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.004. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Forensic science is currently undergoing a transformation and expansion to include modern types of evidence, such as evidence generated by digital investigations. This development is said to raise a series of challenges, both in operational and conceptual dimensions. This paper reviews and discusses a series of convoluted conceptual hurdles that are encountered in connection with the use of digital evidence as part of evidence and proof processes at trial, in contradistinction to investigative uses of such types of evidence. As a recent example raising such hurdles, we analyse and discuss assertions and proposals made in the article "Digital Evidence Certainty Descriptors (DECDs)" by Graeme Horsman (32 Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation (2020) 200896).

摘要

法医学目前正在经历变革与扩展,以纳入现代类型的证据,比如数字调查所产生的证据。据说这一发展在操作和概念层面都带来了一系列挑战。本文回顾并讨论了一系列错综复杂的概念障碍,这些障碍在将数字证据用作审判中证据和证明过程的一部分时会遇到,这与这类证据在调查中的使用形成对比。作为引发此类障碍的一个近期例子,我们分析并讨论了格雷姆·霍斯曼在《数字证据确定性描述符(DECDs)》一文中提出的主张和建议(《法医学国际:数字调查》第32卷(2020年)200896号)。

相似文献

1
Digital evidence exceptionalism? A review and discussion of conceptual hurdles in digital evidence transformation.
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2020 Aug 28;2:262-274. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.004. eCollection 2020.
4
Unboxing the digital forensic investigation process.
Sci Justice. 2022 Mar;62(2):171-180. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2022.01.002. Epub 2022 Jan 20.
5
The different types of reports produced in digital forensic investigations.
Sci Justice. 2021 Sep;61(5):627-634. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2021.06.009. Epub 2021 Jun 27.
6
What does a digital forensics opinion look like? A comparative study of digital forensics and forensic science reporting practices.
Sci Justice. 2021 Sep;61(5):586-596. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2021.06.010. Epub 2021 Jul 1.
7
Digital transformation risk management in forensic science laboratories.
Forensic Sci Int. 2020 Nov;316:110486. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110486. Epub 2020 Sep 3.
8
Advanced framework for digital forensic technologies and procedures.
J Forensic Sci. 2010 Nov;55(6):1471-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01528.x. Epub 2010 Aug 23.
9
Quantitative evaluation of the results of digital forensic investigations: a review of progress.
Forensic Sci Res. 2021 Feb 8;6(1):13-18. doi: 10.1080/20961790.2020.1837429.
10
Taxonomy of Challenges for Digital Forensics.
J Forensic Sci. 2015 Jul;60(4):885-93. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12809. Epub 2015 Jul 14.

引用本文的文献

1
Crowdsourcing forensics: Creating a curated catalog of digital forensic artifacts.
J Forensic Sci. 2022 Sep;67(5):1846-1857. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15053. Epub 2022 Jul 11.
2
A Multi-Layer Semantic Approach for Digital Forensics Automation for Online Social Networks.
Sensors (Basel). 2022 Feb 1;22(3):1115. doi: 10.3390/s22031115.

本文引用的文献

1
Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Closer Look.
J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol. 2017 Oct 12;122:1-32. doi: 10.6028/jres.122.027. eCollection 2017.
3
Cell site analysis: Roles and interpretation.
Sci Justice. 2019 Sep;59(5):558-564. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.06.005. Epub 2019 Jun 6.
4
Commentary: Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Closer Look.
Front Genet. 2018 Jun 22;9:224. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00224. eCollection 2018.
5
A response to "Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: A closer look" by Lund and Iyer.
Forensic Sci Int. 2018 Jul;288:e15-e19. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025. Epub 2018 May 22.
6
The meaning of justified subjectivism and its role in the reconciliation of recent disagreements over forensic probabilism.
Sci Justice. 2017 Nov;57(6):477-483. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.08.005. Epub 2017 Sep 22.
7
The consequences of understanding expert probability reporting as a decision.
Sci Justice. 2017 Jan;57(1):80-85. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.10.005. Epub 2016 Dec 12.
8
9
Drawbacks in the scientification of forensic science.
Forensic Sci Int. 2014 Dec;245:e38-40. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.10.012. Epub 2014 Oct 14.
10
On the value of probability for evaluating results of comparative pattern analyses.
Forensic Sci Int. 2013 Oct 10;232(1-3):e44-5. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.08.010. Epub 2013 Aug 23.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验