Cognitive and human factors in digital forensics: Problems, challenges, and the way forward

Abstract Digital forensics is an important and growing forensic domain. Research on miscarriages of justice and misleading evidence, as well as various inquires in the UK and the US, have highlighted human error as an issue within forensic science. This has led to increased attention to the sources of cognitive bias and potential countermeasures within many forensic disciplines. However, the area of digital forensics has yet to pay sufficient attention to this issue. The main goal of this article is to contribute to a more scientifically sound digital forensics domain by addressing the issues of cognitive bias as a source of error. In this paper we present an analysis of seven sources of cognitive and human error specifically within the digital forensics process, and discuss relevant countermeasures. We conclude that although some cognitive and bias issues are very similar across forensic domains, others are different and dependent on the specific characteristic of the domain in question, such as digital forensics. There is a need for new directions in research with regard to cognitive and human factors in digital forensics.

[1]  I. Dror.  Human expert performance in forensic decision making: Seven different sources of bias† , 2017 .

[2]  L. Ross,et al.  The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others , 2002 .

[3]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  Minimizing Contextual Bias in Forensic Casework , 2015 .

[4]  I. Dror,et al.  The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. , 2013 .

[5]  Katharina Wagner,et al.  Digital Evidence And Computer Crime Forensic Science Computers And The Internet , 2016 .

[6]  Eoghan Casey,et al.  Digital Evidence and Computer Crime , 2000 .

[7]  Mark Pollitt,et al.  A Framework for Harmonizing Forensic Science Practices and Digital/Multimedia Evidence , 2018 .

[8]  Nina Sunde.  Non-technical sources of errors when handling digital evidence within a criminal investigation , 2017 .

[9]  Sarah V Stevenage,et al.  A biased opinion: Demonstration of cognitive bias on a fingerprint matching task through knowledge of DNA test results. , 2017, Forensic science international.

[10]  Rodney McKemmish,et al.  When is Digital Evidence Forensically Sound? , 2008, IFIP Int. Conf. Digital Forensics.

[11]  Peter Neufeld,et al.  Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions , 2009 .

[12]  David Charlton,et al.  Why Experts Make Errors , 2006 .

[13]  Sherry Nakhaeizadeh,et al.  Cascading Bias of Initial Exposure to Information at the Crime Scene to the Subsequent Evaluation of Skeletal Remains , , 2018, Journal of forensic sciences.

[14]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  A Hierarchy of Expert Performance , 2016 .

[15]  P A Barrio,et al.  GHEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mixture profiles (GHEP-MIX06). Reporting conclusions: Results and evaluation. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[16]  E. Rassin,et al.  Reducing tunnel vision with a pen‐and‐paper tool for the weighting of criminal evidence , 2018 .

[17]  Samuel R. Gross,et al.  Convicting the Innocent , 2008 .

[18]  Emily Balcetis,et al.  See what you want to see: motivational influences on visual perception. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  W. Oliver,et al.  Effect of History and Context on Forensic Pathologist Interpretation of Photographs of Patterned Injury of the Skin , 2017, Journal of forensic sciences.

[20]  Eoghan Casey.  Error, Uncertainty and Loss in Digital Evidence , 2002, Int. J. Digit. EVid..

[21]  R. Nickerson.  Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[22]  I. Dror,et al.  Understanding and Mitigating Bias in Forensic Evaluation: Lessons from Forensic Science , 2017 .

[23]  Graeme Horsman,et al.  A review of quality procedures in the UK forensic sciences: What can the field of digital forensics learn? , 2019, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[24]  Rachel Dioso-Villa.  Without Legal Obligation: Compensating the Wrongfully Convicted in Australia , 2012 .

[25]  Eric Van Buskirk,et al.  Digital Evidence: Challenging the Presumption of Reliability , 2006, J. Digit. Forensic Pract..

[26]  R. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads , 1998 .

[27]  Anders O. Flaglien.  The Digital Forensics Process , 2017 .

[28]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners , 2012, PloS one.

[29]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[30]  Min-Shiang Hwang,et al.  A Survey of Digital Evidences Forensic and Cybercrime Investigation Procedure , 2015, Int. J. Netw. Secur..

[31]  I. Dror,et al.  Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. , 2011, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[32]  P. H. Lindsay,et al.  Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology , 1972 .

[33]  Itiel Dror,et al.  Letter to the Editor—Combating Bias: The Next Step in Fighting Cognitive and Psychological Contamination , 2012, Journal of forensic sciences.

[34]  Paul Hunton,et al.  A rigorous approach to formalising the technical investigation stages of cybercrime and criminality within a UK law enforcement environment , 2011, Digit. Investig..

[35]  Rachel Dioso-Villa,et al.  A Repository of Wrongful Convictions in Australia: First Steps Toward Estimating Prevalence and Causal Contributing Factors , 2015 .

[36]  I. Dror.  Biases in forensic experts , 2018, Science.

[37]  Stefan Axelsson,et al.  Case Study: A New Method for Investigating Crimes Against Children , 2017 .

[38]  N. McGlynn.  Thinking fast and slow. , 2014, Australian veterinary journal.

[39]  Seamus O. Ciardhuáin,et al.  An Extended Model of Cybercrime Investigations , 2004, Int. J. Digit. EVid..

[40]  Nadine M. Smit,et al.  A systematic analysis of misleading evidence in unsafe rulings in England and Wales. , 2017, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[41]  I. Evett,et al.  A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .

[42]  Christianne J de Poot,et al.  Forensic expectations: Investigating a crime scene with prior information. , 2016, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[43]  Rüdiger F. Pohl.  Cognitive Illusions : Intriguing Phenomena in Judgement, Thinking and Memory , 2016 .

[44]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[45]  Nancy K. Steblay,et al.  Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Police Showup and Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison , 2003, Law and human behavior.

[46]  Lawrence Kobilinsky,et al.  Epistemics for Forensics , 2008, Episteme.

[47]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Meta‐analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts , 2008, Journal of forensic sciences.

[48]  John M Butler,et al.  NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation observed and lessons learned. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[49]  I. Dror,et al.  Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[50]  Glynn Owens,et al.  The Reliability of Pattern Classification in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, Part 1: Bloodstain Patterns on Rigid Non‐absorbent Surfaces , 2016, Journal of forensic sciences.

[51]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  The Paradoxical Brain: The paradox of human expertise: why experts get it wrong , 2011 .

[52]  Dan Krane,et al.  Letter to the Editor— Context Management Toolbox: A Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) Approach for Minimizing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decision Making , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.

[53]  R. S. Morris.  Convicting the Innocent , 1947 .

[54]  G. Edmond,et al.  Peer review in forensic science. , 2017, Forensic science international.

[55]  Marcus T. Boccaccini,et al.  Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? , 2009 .

[56]  P. Granhag,et al.  Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: the need for cognitive closure , 2005 .

[57]  I. Dror,et al.  Cognitive Bias and Blindness: A Global Survey of Forensic Science Examiners , 2017 .

[58]  T. Neal,et al.  Are Forensic Experts Already Biased before Adversarial Legal Parties Hire Them? , 2016, PloS one.

[59]  Laura Smalarz,et al.  The perfect match: Do criminal stereotypes bias forensic evidence analysis? , 2016, Law and human behavior.

[60]  I. Dror.  Practical Solutions to Cognitive and Human Factor Challenges in Forensic Science , 2013 .

[61]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  Strengthening forensic DNA decision making through a better understanding of the influence of cognitive bias. , 2017, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[62]  Sherry Nakhaeizadeh,et al.  Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[63]  Jonas Ekfeldt.  Om informationstekniskt bevis , 2016 .

[64]  Anna Leppänen,et al.  Cybercrime investigation in Finland , 2017 .

[65]  Simson L. Garfinkel,et al.  Digital forensics research: The next 10 years , 2010, Digit. Investig..