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

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.

[1]  Sophia Mã ¶ ller,et al.  Miscarriages Of Justice , 2016 .

[2]  Eoghan Casey,et al.  The Kodak Syndrome: Risks and Opportunities Created by Decentralization of Forensic Capabilities , 2018, Journal of forensic sciences.

[3]  Graeme Horsman,et al.  Framework for Reliable Experimental Design (FRED): A research framework to ensure the dependable interpretation of digital data for digital forensics , 2018, Comput. Secur..

[4]  C. Champod,et al.  ENFSI guIdElINE For EvaluatIvE rEportINg IN ForENSIc ScIENcE Strengthening the Evaluation of Forensic Results across Europe ( STEOFRAE , 2015 .

[5]  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.

[6]  Eoghan Casey,et al.  The chequered past and risky future of digital forensics , 2019, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences.

[7]  Tim Watson,et al.  Quality standards for digital forensics: Learning from experience in England & Wales , 2020, Digit. Investig..

[8]  Glenn Langenburg,et al.  “Cannot Decide”: The Fine Line Between Appropriate Inconclusive Determinations Versus Unjustifiably Deciding Not To Decide , 2018, Journal of forensic sciences.

[9]  Dustin J. Sleesman,et al.  Putting Escalation of Commitment in Context: A Multilevel Review and Analysis , 2017 .

[10]  Vince Thomson,et al.  A review of research on cost of quality models and best practices , 2006 .

[11]  Graeme Horsman,et al.  A case-based reasoning method for locating evidence during digital forensic device triage , 2014, Decis. Support Syst..

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

[13]  Graeme Horsman,et al.  Tool testing and reliability issues in the field of digital forensics , 2019, Digit. Investig..

[14]  Ankit Agarwal,et al.  Systematic Digital Forensic Investigation Model , 2011 .

[15]  Fakeeha Jafari,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Digital Forensic Models , .

[16]  Graeme Horsman,et al.  Part 1: The need for peer review in digital forensics , 2020, Digit. Investig..

[17]  Pietro Ortolani,et al.  What is arbitration? , 2019, Understanding International Arbitration.

[18]  Xiaoyu Du,et al.  Evaluation of Digital Forensic Process Models with Respect to Digital Forensics as a Service , 2017, ArXiv.

[19]  M. Petró‐Turza,et al.  The International Organization for Standardization. , 2003 .

[20]  Eugene H. Spafford,et al.  Getting Physical with the Digital Investigation Process , 2003, Int. J. Digit. EVid..

[21]  E. J. van Eijk,et al.  Digital forensics as a service: Stepping up the game , 2020, Digit. Investig..

[22]  Graeme Horsman,et al.  "I couldn't find it your honour, it mustn't be there!" - Tool errors, tool limitations and user error in digital forensics. , 2018, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[23]  I. Dror,et al.  The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  Sherry Nakhaeizadeh,et al.  Letter to the Editor — The Bias Snowball and the Bias Cascade Effects: Two Distinct Biases that May Impact Forensic Decision Making , 2017, Journal of forensic sciences.

[25]  Zainuddin Hassan,et al.  COMMON PHASES OF COMPUTER FORENSICS INVESTIGATION MODELS , 2011 .

[26]  Brian Cusack Extracting Benefits from Standardization of Digital Forensic Practices , 2019, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice.

[27]  Michael Welner,et al.  Peer-Reviewed Forensic Consultation: Safeguarding Expert Testimony and Protecting the Uninformed Court , 2012 .

[28]  E. J. van Eijk,et al.  Digital Forensics as a Service: A game changer , 2014, Digit. Investig..

[29]  Itiel E Dror,et al.  ISO Standards Addressing Issues of Bias and Impartiality in Forensic Work , 2019, Journal of forensic sciences.

[30]  J. Bohan Review of: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward , 2010 .

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

[32]  Jan H. P. Eloff,et al.  Framework for a Digital Forensic Investigation , 2006, ISSA.

[33]  Charles E H Berger,et al.  Cognitive biases in the peer review of bullet and cartridge case comparison casework: A field study. , 2020, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[34]  David Watson,et al.  Digital Forensics Processing and Procedures: Meeting the Requirements of ISO 17020, ISO 17025, ISO 27001 and Best Practice Requirements , 2013 .

[35]  Ivar Andre Fahsing,et al.  The making of an expert detective : Thinking and deciding in criminal investigations , 2016 .

[36]  Graeme Horsman,et al.  Formalising investigative decision making in digital forensics: Proposing the Digital Evidence Reporting and Decision Support (DERDS) framework , 2019, Digit. Investig..

[37]  B. M. Staw The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action , 1981 .

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

[39]  Ken Obenson,et al.  The value of 100% retrospective peer review in a forensic pathology practice. , 2013, Journal of forensic and legal medicine.

[40]  Jan H. P. Eloff,et al.  Integrated digital forensic process model , 2013, Comput. Secur..

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

[42]  Venansius Baryamureeba,et al.  The Enhanced Digital Investigation Process Model , 2004 .

[43]  Laetitia Heudt,et al.  The introduction of forensic advisors in Belgium and their role in the criminal justice system. , 2017, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[44]  Dusya Vera,et al.  Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning , 2004 .

[45]  E. J. van Eijk,et al.  Digital forensics as a service: Game on , 2015, Digit. Investig..

[46]  Tony Adams,et al.  Introducing Forensic and Criminal Investigation , 2013 .

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