Freely subscribe to our NEWSLETTER

Defining digital forensics as “the application of investigation and analysis
techniques to gather and preserve evidence from a digital device suitable for
presentation in a court of law”, she invited the audience to consider how popular
presentation of the techniques, for example in TV and film drama, had influenced
perception.

Drawing attention to the universal availability and use of digital devices in the
commission of crime, she went on to identify the myths about digital forensics as
follows:
– It is more difficult to conduct a crime online
– Finding the evidence is easy
– It is quicker to find what you’re looking for
– All relevant evidence can be recovered
– Investigators can simply conduct fishing expeditions to find evidence.

Elizabeth reminded the audience of the extraordinary range of cyber crime now being
committed, including theft from online accounts; denial of service attacks; hacking;
identity theft; child abuse; cyber stalking and bullying; terrorism; phishing and
scams. At the outset, she effectively set aside the misconception about online
crime being difficult to conduct, pointing out that with anonymity and the
opportunity to attack multiple victims simultaneously, often across international
borders, that for many criminals it was less dangerous and offered instant results.

In a graphic example, she then underlined the magnitude of the task, comparing the
capacity of digital devices to a ‘paper equivalent’.

Using a simple, step-by-step progression she showed how one ITb HDD contains enough
data to fill over 200 average size articulated lorries – which would form a queue
two miles long!

Returning to her theme about how popular entertainment channels misrepresent the
tasks and processes involved in digital forensics, Elizabeth compared the real-life
challenges to the images of smart investigators simply accessing devices without
challenge, and casually scrolling through a device often courtesy of an
inspirational guess at passwords.

She reviewed practical issues such as the sheer volume of material, often running
into millions of images and the need to identify, retrieve and preserve data. “No
current software tools nor critical thinking can guarantee the complete recovery of
evidence or data, and of course not every bit of data accessed during a digital
forensic examination is relevant to the case. What’s more, we are governed by the
law of the land; in the UK, for example, the police cannot simply go fishing, they
need to have an idea of what they are looking for and a warrant to cover all devices
found”, she commented.

Elizabeth Sheldon concludes that for the digital forensics community of providers
and users, greater understanding of both the powers and practicalities of the
techniques involved are necessary. “Digital forensics as a science needs its
exponents and those they report to, to be as well educated as possible so that we
share our common goals based on informed understanding of its capabilities. Used
well, we have at our disposal a powerful set of weapons to fight terrorism, crime,
child abuse and fraud.”