Strategies for safeguarding examiner objectivity and evidence reliability during digital forensic investigations

Abstract

The paper investigates how digital forensic (DF) practitioners approach examiner objectivity and evidence reliability during DF investigations. Fifty-three DF practitioners responded to a questionnaire concerning these issues after first receiving a scenario, contextual information, and a task description and then examining an evidence file. The survey showed that hypotheses played an important role in how the DF practitioners handled contextual information before the analysis and safeguarding objectivity during the analysis. Dual tool verification was the most frequently referred measure for controlling evidence reliability. The analysis of responses revealed three significant causes of concern. First, 45% started the analysis without an innocence hypothesis in mind. Second, 34% applied no techniques to maintain their objectivity during the analysis. Third, 38% did not use any techniques to examine or control evidence reliability. The paper provides insights into how DF investigations are carried out in practice. These insights are essential for the DF community to guide the development of procedures that safeguard fair investigations and effective error mitigation strategies.