Part 2: The Phase-oriented Advice and Review Structure (PARS) for digital forensic investigations

被引:0
作者
Sunde N. [1 ]
Horsman G. [2 ]
机构
[1] Norwegian Police University College, Pb. 2109 Vika, Oslo
[2] Teesside University, Middlesbrough, Tees Valley
关键词
Digital evidence; Digital forensics; Forensic science; Peer review; Quality assurance; Quality control;
D O I
10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.301074
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This work forms the second part of a two part series providing the necessary scaffolding for the digital forensic discipline to conduct effective peer review in their laboratories and units. The first part articulated the need for a structured approach to peer review in digital forensic investigations (Horsman and Sunde, 2020). Here in part two, the Phase-oriented Advice and Review Structure (PARS) for digital forensic investigations is offered. PARS is the first documented peer review methodology for the digital forensics field, a six staged approach designed to formally support organisations and their staff in their goal of facilitating effective peer review of DF work, from investigative tasks to forensic activities and forensic analysis processes (Pollitt et al., 2018). This article discusses how the PARS methodology can be implemented, and the available options and mechanisms available to ease the interpretation of this model into existing practices. Both the early ‘Advisor’ and later ‘Reviewer’ roles in PARS are discussed and their requirements and expectations are defined. Three template documents are provided and explained: The PARS Advisors template, the PARS Advisor Brief template and the PARS Peer Review Hierarchy template, for direct use by organisations seeking to adopt the PARS methodology. © 2020 The Authors
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]  
ACPO, Murder Investigation Manual, (2006)
[2]  
Advice C., Using mediation to help you separate, (2020)
[3]  
Agarwal A., Gupta M., Gupta S., Gupta S.C., Systematic digital forensic investigation model, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Secur., 5, 1, pp. 118-131, (2011)
[4]  
Ballantyne K.N., Edmond G., Found B., Peer review in forensic science, Forensic Sci. Int., 277, pp. 66-76, (2017)
[5]  
Baryamereeba V., Tushabe F., The enhanced digital investigation process model, Proceeding of Digital Forensic Research Workshop, Baltimore, MD, (2004)
[6]  
Bitzer S., Heudt L., Barret A., George L., Van Dijk K., Gason F., Renard B., The introduction of forensic advisors in Belgium and their role in the criminal justice system, Sci. Justice, 58, 3, pp. 177-184, (2018)
[7]  
British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, Difference between arbitration and mediation, (2020)
[8]  
Carrier B., Spafford E.H., Getting physical with the digital investigation process, Int. J. Digit. Evid., 2, 2, pp. 1-20, (2003)
[9]  
Casey E., Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet, (2011)
[10]  
Casey E., The chequered past and risky future of digital forensics, Aust. J. Forensic Sci., 51, 6, pp. 649-664, (2019)