How long will Computer Forensic Standards Last?

How long will Computer Forensic Standards Last?

A police officer switching ON a device that is already switched OFF at a potental crime scene should be an absolute no-no, according to Forensic bibles, case law etc. Indeed, even the Police's official release version of ACPO Guidelines categorically states for Crime Scenes Page 8/66:

"• Do not, in any circumstances, switch the computer on."

Why does this matter? It is a flagrant breach of that principle when we see on "Cops on Camera" ITV 3 Saturday 8pm 4th July 2010 patrol car police stopping a car in Lewisham, questioning the driver about drug related matters (ok, to this point) and then the officer opens the boot of the car and in it he sees a laptop. Did the officer put the laptop in an evidence bag? Oh no, he switches ON the laptop.

The programme clearly demonstrated a major pyschological flaw in the thinking of those who are generating evidential rules vis-a-vis evidential standards. The actions of the Police officer, who I do not think is to blame, actually, because you see the way he went about the task displaying little regard for the rules - which probably means he doesn't know them or they are not enforced properly.

Moreover, it certainly highlights the redundancy of ACPO Guidelines, because what is the point of promoting good practice principles and expect them to be followed in the Lab and at Scene of Crime, yet when it comes to devices in cars or people walking along the street with devices then a wild-west approach of anything goes to deal with the evidence occurs.

Furthermore, it undermines s129 Criminal Justice Act 2003 reliability to seek overt declarations of change to data by ignoring the use of this wild-west approach and reduces the reliability of evidence to nothing more that speculative assumptions. This certainly reveals the slippery slope Lord Steyn raised when as Steyn HHJ R v Minors [1989] 1 WLR 441 he said “if computer evidence cannot be used, much crime would be immune to prosecution also”? For computer evidence to be used it has to be as reliable as possible, at first instance, and reflect the behaviour of the defendant, not the world and his wife who have also had a go at the computer.

ACPO Managers Guide

ACPO Managers Guide

.
Good Practice and Advice Guide for Managers of e-Crime Investigations
.
I telephoned and spoke with a personable Stephen Clarke today of the Police Central e-crime Unit (PCeU). PCeU is the department apparently responsible for the proper and appropriate dissemination of factual information to Managers (Clients and Stakeholders) for the Police. I contacted Stephen as I was disappointed with the inaccuracy promoted in the Guide that information about my organisation was wrong and was known to be wrong long before the Guide was published in July 2009.
.
The information which I am referring to as inaccurate is on page 87 Appendix C details of Training Courses:
.
Some examples of product based training are:
PhoneBase – Trew MTE offer a range of continuous professional development certificate and accredited courses.
.
Industry and in the mobile telephone examination sections in the Police know that to be inaccurate for 2009 and comments I had back were they were surprised that statement was made as Phonebase training had ceased for a number of years.
.
Stephen Clarke, who is the person mentioned as being responsible for the Guide being in the market place (being named as its 'Author'), actually isn't the Author in the true sense of the word. In fairness to Stephen his job is to compile the parts to formulate one package for delivery. He was unaware about the errors in the Guide apparently because others behind the scenes who have their hand in preparing the data assemble the 'researched' material compiled and send it to him.
.
It becomes even more concerning when all the information promoted about the other people and companies is accurate; clearly any manager seeing my information will have noticed that the system attributed to me is not used anymore, there is no training for it now and hasn't been for some while. Was that deliberate by those who researched the material first before passing it to ACPO HQ?
.
You see this type of inaccuracy published like this gives the impression that ACPO doesn't know what it is doing or talking about inspite of the fact Quality and Accuracy checking are two components lauded as fundamentally underpinning ACPO Guidelines. The impact of that is:
.
- Firstly, ACPO Guidelines are quoted in our criminal courts of law informing the Judges and Jurors these are the standards the Police work too. That in itself is unfair to every officer or police staff who make reference to ACPO in their defence as why they followed certain procedures when the basis to the document is inaccurate;
.
- Secondly, managers are likely to make public sector spending decisions based upon this public sector document; those managers were not given the public sector opportunity to know whether they were paying too much for training and the skillsets in the training to bring value to the money they were paying.
.
- Thirdly, managers are still none the wiser as to the highly experienced training provided by TrewMTE and therefore the ACPO Managers Guide does not educate managers to the vital information they need to know in oder to take decisions.
.