Abstract
This paper explores three admissibility considerations for scientific evidence currently engaged in U.S. courts: reliability, peer review and acceptance within the relevant community. Any tool used in a computer forensic investigation may be compared against these considerations, and if found wanting, evidence derived using the tool may be restricted. The ability to demonstrate the reliability and validity of computer forensic tools based on scientific theory is an important requirement for digital evidence to be admissible. A trusted third party certification model is discussed as an approach for addressing this issue.
Chapter PDF
References
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, WebTrust (www.cpawebtrust.org).
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights (www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare).
A. Freier, P. Karlton and P. Kocher, The SSL 3.0 Protocol (wp.net scape.com/eng/ssl3/draft302.txt), 1996.
E. Kenneally, Gatekeeping out of the box: Open source software as a mechanism to assess reliability for digital evidence, Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 6(13), 2001.
O. Kerr, Computer crime and the coming revolution in criminal procedure, Proceedings of the Cyber Crime and Digital Law Enforcement Conference, 2004.
NIST, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules, FIPS PUB 140-2 (csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fipsl40-2/fipsl402.pdf), 2001.
NIST, National Software Reference Library and Computer Forensics Tool Testing Project (www.nsrl.nist.gov/Project), 2003.
Ohio Court of Appeals, State of Ohio v. Brian Cook, 777 NE 2d 882, 2002.
K. Poulsen, Microsoft: Closed source is more secure (www.securityfocus.com/news/191), 2001.
F. Smith and R. Bace, A Guide to Forensic Testimony: The Art and Practice of Presenting Testimony as an Expert Technical Witness, Addison-Wesley, Boston, Massachusetts, 2003.
Texas Appeals Court, Williford v. State of Texas, No. 11-02-00074-CR, 127 SW 3d 309, 312–313, 2004.
Underwriters Laboratories (www.ul.com).
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (DC Circuit), Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1923.
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (11th Circuit), Four Seasons v. Consorcio, 267 F. Supp. 2d, 70, 2004.
U.S. District Court (Alaska District), United States v. Saelee, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1105, 2001.
U.S. Government, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105–304, 112 Stat. 2860 (www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf), 1998.
U.S. Government, Federal Rules of Evidence (judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/printers/108th/evid2004.pdf), 2004.
U.S. Supreme Court, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, no. 92–102, 1993.
U.S. Supreme Court, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, no. 97–1709, 1999.
Washington Superior Court, State of Washington v. Leavell, Cause No. 00-1-0026-8, 1-17, 2000.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Meyers, M., Rogers, M. (2006). Digital Forensics: Meeting the Challenges of Scientific Evidence. In: Pollitt, M., Shenoi, S. (eds) Advances in Digital Forensics. DigitalForensics 2005. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, vol 194. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-31163-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-31163-7_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-30012-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-31163-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)