OSAC Scientific Area Committee Public Reporting and Feedback – Digital EvidenceIncident Response and Advanced Forensics

Begin Learning Cyber Security for FREE Now!

FREE REGISTRATION
Already a Member Login Here

Home Forums Courses Incident Response and Advanced Forensics OSAC Scientific Area Committee Public Reporting and Feedback – Digital Evidence

This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  cybermo 3 years ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #79303

    Ludgenstein
    Participant

    Within the digital and multimedia area committee, we have five Subcommittees, the digital evidence subcommittees, the facial identification subcommittee, speaker recognition subcommittee and the video imaging technology and mind reading technology subcommittee. You’ll be hearing from representatives from all of the subcommittees.

    I want to start by saying within the digital and multimedia scientific area committee we start from a very sound foundation of information developed throughout multiple working groups across all of these disciplines. If you go the OSAC website you will see there is a OSAC library, where existing documents relating to standards and guidelines has been published. Those documents are not yet on the OSAC for the most part. They do represent a sound foundation of best practice and standards that were developed over many years of efforts, so we’re not starting from Ground Zero. Some of those documents, have actually been through a standards development organization, and that is a critical piece of the OSAC process. Making sure the consensus standards and best practices we develop have been through the rigorous standards development practice that a SDO is required to have. I wil note that two such documents that of been through the ASTM standards, the standard terminology for digital multimedia determinations and the standard guide for digital image processing, are on the cusp of having been –of being entered to the register.

    There is currently only one standard on the registry. I am anxious for us to be the first SAC that has two documents on the registry. Note that there is a competition. I should note that the only thing that this point is that we have had our resource committee provide feedback. That feedback is currently in the adjudication stage through the subcommittees that proposed the documents. Once the concerns and feedback has been adjudicated, to our satisfaction, and the satisfaction of the SAC. It will be presented to the science standards Board for a vote for entry on the registry. There are foundational concepts that I set when we started out last year. We have made a lot of progress. Working with members of my scientific area committee. You will see the foundational concepts.

    Important that we define the discipline within each of our scientific area committees and within each of our subcommittees. Terminology is a critical component. Likewise, qualifications, areas that we need research, procedures for collecting samples, validating our methods, tools, and validating that the people who are doing the processes are doing a good job. It is important for us also to have standard conclusions scales. Having standardized conclusion scales is an important for us to an address across the entire community. One of the criticisms of the national Academy of Science has had in their strengthening friendship –forensic science of 2009 was that there was a lack of consistency in terminology and in what particular conclusions may mean. This is an issue of high priority not just for us in the digital and multimission –multi-mudial SAC but across the entire OSAC. In the role of automated systems also have an important place –piece to play in our efforts. So among the key challenges we face in the digital and multimedia SAC is just what is the scientific paradigm for digital and multimedia forensic pick last year when we stood before you at this meeting in Orlando, the question was raised where is science in digital and multimedia sciences. And digital evidence. We have been working hard on addressing the issue and we continued on that issue. We have developed a paradigm we think will be useful not just for our disciplines but for the OSAC as a whole.

    Another area I am particularly interesed in and pushing hard on is the fact that a lot of the areas that we work on in forensic science, are not going to have a mechanism in place for automated tools to come up with an answer all the time. Human beings are a necessary part of forensic science and human beings will be up important part of forensic sciences for the years to come. Probably for as long as any of us will be in the field professionally even the youngest people in the room here. And so it is vitally important for us to understand as a community how good are the human beings at making the decissions that we are making when we are reaching conclusions and making interpretations. If we can document how well human beings do, then we will have one of the criteria error rates. And so having error rates validation studies for testing examiners is something that is a critical issue for us to face right now. I proad to say within the area of mind reading identification with I hold near and dear to my heart, we are conducting blackbox testing for that.

    As I mentioned earlier, conclusion scales is an important issue for us. I will leave it to Austin Flynn in the pattern evidence SAC to discuss that further. I will not, that the digital and multimedia SAC is working clearly with the pattern evidence SAC. Finally, terminology. This is critical issue for us to address across the board. As one person in the room has said, we don’t want to be boiling the ocean.

    And so one of the things that we are taking and I have taken in as a personal challenge is to identify what are the most critical terms that have the most issues related with them across the board. I know that there are certain parts and groups on the OSAC that are likewise interesed in seeing the specific terms need to be dealt with, and we will do that. I would close my comments on saying that as it says right here on the board, this is not a one, two, or five years project. We have a lot of work to do. Science adapts, it evolves; the standards that we have today may be looked at in 20 years as laughable. As science advances our standards will change. This is not something we will wrap up and close down shop in five years and say that is that we are done. This is an ongoing process. To those of you who are in the room, those of you who are online, you need to make this process a part of your regular workday. This is not something you can just go and do for two weeks every year and say that is good I am done. You have to incorporate this entire process into your professional process. That is how we will become a better industry, and better serve the customers that we serve.

    #79305

    Ludgenstein
    Participant

    Erratum: SAC multimission –multi-modal SAC

    https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/osac-home

    #92281

    cybermo
    Participant

    ?

    #92332

    Ludgenstein
    Participant

    #97395

    cybermo
    Participant

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Our Revolution

We believe Cyber Security training should accessible for everyone, everywhere. Everyone deserves the OPPORTUNITY to learn, begin and grow a career in this fascinating field. Therefore, Cybrary is the world's largest community where people, companies and training come together to give everyone the ability to collaborate in an open source way that is revolutionizing the cyber security educational experience.

We recommend always using caution when following any link

Are you sure you want to continue?

Continue
Cancel