Investigator testifies to downloading ex-officer's cell phone, computer data | Susana Morales case
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- The investigator said he pulled cell phone and computer data from the ex-officer's devices in his murder trial. ----
READ MORE: www.11alive.co...
11Alive believes that news shouldn’t be a one-way conversation, but a dialogue with you. Join in, share your thoughts and connect with new perspectives.
Subscribe to 11Alive for exclusive content: bit.ly/11AliveS...
Download our 11Alive News app: interactive.11...
Text "plus" to 404-885-7600 to download 11Alive+ and stream 24/7 on Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV.
Follow 11Alive on Social:
Facebook: / 11alive
Twitter (X): / 11alivenews
Instagram: / 11alive
![Warhammer 40k: Space Marine 2 | เพื่อจักรพรรดิ ! [ตอนเดียวจบ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4M0ckYMA4-U/mqdefault.jpg)
Most digital forensic "experts" in law enforcement have very little specialized training. Many go to a week or two week course and are then considered an "expert" by their agency. This is the reality across the United States. There are certainly exceptions. Some law enforcement agencies are moving to full-time civilian forensic examiners whom dedicate themselves full-time to their scientific field of study.
Many people in law enforcement doing digital forensics are sworn officers with no IT for scientific background of any kind. They have to dedicate a large chunk of their time to maintaining their sworn status (use-of-force, range, classes, etc.) and simply can't dedicate themselves full-time to the highly niche scientific field of digital forensics. This is not the fault of those assigned to do the work. This is the fault of a faulty system and leadership that either doesn't understand the field of digital forensics or simply doesn't make it a priority.
Would you want someone with very little knowledge or training to work on a homicide investigation? Is there evidence being missed? Is there evidence that isn't correlated properly? I'll let you answer this question.
Tides are turning, but it is slow. Eventually all of this work will be in the hands of highly training full-time civilian scientists. Most law enforcement entities can't afford or don't have the resources to operate a real forensics laboratory. This takes a lot of time and money, building of policies, procedures, processes, quality control, etc. Most agencies are not doing this stuff. Most agencies don't actually run laboratories, they are just taking a dump of phone data or examining hard drives with little formality around the process. Eventually most of this work will go to regional labs and those labs will need to be accredited. The writing is on the wall and for good reason. We really need to take this work seriously and that means having dedicated scientists doing the work and having them work in laboratories with sound forensic processes and procedures.
The true experts are the software engineers that wrote the softare that law enforcement uses.
Let's use accurate language. Forensic scientists / examiners "acquire" data in a forensically sound manner (most times / not always). This is generally not called "accessing" a device, although sometimes live analysis is required. I know, too technical for this conversation, but it really does matter when you are in court and trying to accurately explain what happens.
This guy has that "I don't have time for this" look and attitude.
So many burgers, so little time
Labeled "Brian's computer download" and no reference to the case number or evidence item number? Says a lot about how the internal workflows are handled at this agency. Not best practice.
what difference does it make. shut up.
@blunttalkwithmonib It's the "my surgeon didn't wash his hands" type of work.
@@blunttalkwithmonib As I said, it is not best practice and says a lot about how the agency operates. You should try to be nicer when having dialogue with strangers. Have a great day.
Is there at least one bright person in Georgia? Asking for a friend
Comment?