Evincing Offence: How Digital Forensics Turns Big Data into Evidence for Policing Sexual Abuse
A reader can expect the abstract, paper and keywords to discuss descriptions of evidence, classification schema, seizure rules and more generally the data frictions, constraints and limitations associated with the processing of digital forensic evidence involving children in England.
The widespread availability and use of digital devices both enables criminal acts and helps to detect them. The production and circulation of indecent images of children has been one area of crime that has transformed in recent years because of developments in modern communication technologies. Through in-depth ethnographic observations and qualitative interviews with four police forces in England, this article examines the resources and labor required to turn digital footprints into evidence for the possession of indecent images. In doing so, our aim is twofold. One, we detail the formal and informal processes whereby large sets of data become discrete pieces of judicial evidence. A notable feature of these administrative and technical processes is that while criminal justice agencies often strive for linear investigations, such aspirations fail to acknowledge the messy interrelation of expertise and roles that underpin the transformation of digital devices into evidence. As a second aim, we seek to identify similarities and differences in the practices whereby evidence is constructed between digital and other areas of forensics. In particular, this analysis raises questions around the descriptive and normative adequacies of prevalent theories of objectivity for digital forensics.
Almaslukh, Bandar. 2019. “Forensic Analysis using Text Clustering in the Age of Large Volume Data: A Review.” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 10(6): 71–76.
Amoore, Louise. 2020. Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). 2011. Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence. Version 5, October 2011. Accessed May 31, 2018.
Beaulieu, Anne, and Sabina Leonelli. 2021. Data and Society: A Critical Introduction. London: SAGE.
Bechky, Beth A. 2021. Blood, Powder, and Residue: How Crime Labs Translate Evidence into Proof. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.
Casey, Eoghan, Gary Katz, and Joe Lewthwaite. 2013. “Honing Digital Forensic Processes.” Digital Investigation 10(2): 138–147.
Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cole, Simon A. 2001. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cox, Geoffrey. 2019. Evidence to House of Commons Justice Select Committee January 23, 2019. United Kingdom.
Criminal Procedure Rules. 2015. UK Statutory Instruments No. 1490 (L. 18). Senior Courts Of England And Wales. Magistrates’ Courts, England And Wales. October 5, 2015.
Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. 1992. “The Image of Objectivity.” Representations, 40: 81–128.
Danaher, John, M. J. Hogan, C. Noone, R. Kennedy, et al. 2017. “Algorithmic Governance: Developing a Research Agenda through the Power of Collective Intelligence.” Big Data & Society 4(2).
Derksen, Linda. 2010. “Micro/macro Translations: The Production of New Social Structures in the Case of DNA Profiling.” Sociological Inquiry 80(2): 214–240.
Dodge, Alexa. 2018. “The Digital Witness: The Role of Digital Evidence in Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Violence.” Feminist Theory 19(3): 303–321.
Edwards, Paul N., Matthew Mayernik, Archer L. Batcheller, Geoffrey C. Bowker, et al. 2011. “Science Friction: Data, Metadata, and Collaboration.” Social Studies of Science 41(5): 667–690.
Galison, Peter. 2000. “Objectivity is Romantic.” In The Humanities and The Sciences, edited by Jerome Friedman, Peter Galison, and Susan Haack, 15–43. American Council of Learned Societies Occasional Paper No. 47.
Garfinkel, Simson L. 2010. “Digital Forensics Research: The Next 10 Years.” Digital Investigation 7(Supplement): S64–S73.
Hitchcock, Alexander, Ruby Holmes, and Emilie Sundorph. 2017. “Bobbies on the Net: A Police Force for the Digital Age.” Reform. Bold Ideas, Big Conversations. Non-Party, Think Tank Report. August 22, 2017.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2017. Forensic Science Strategy: Fourth Report of Session 2016–17 (September 17, 2016). 8–12. Accessed May 19, 2018. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/501/501.pdf.
Henseler, Hans, and Sophie van Loenhout. 2018. “Educating Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers in the Use of Digital Forensic Experts.” Digital Investigation 24(Supplement): S76–S82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2018.01.010.
Hoeyer, Klaus, Susanne Bauer, and Martyn Pickersgill. 2019. “Datafication and Accountability in Public Health: Introduction to a Special Issue.” Social Studies of Science 49(4): 459–475.
Home Office. 2016. Forensic Science Strategy: A National Approach to Forensic Science Delivery in the Criminal Justice System. CM 9217. London: HMSO.
Horsman, Graeme, and Nina Sunde. 2020. “Part 1: The Need for Peer Review in Digital Forensics.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 35: 301062.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). 2020. “The Internet: Investigation Report.” A Report of the Inquiry Panel. CCS0220119414. March, 2020. London: APS Group.
James, Joshua I., and Pavel Gladyshev. 2013. “Challenges with Automation in Digital Forensic Investigations.” arXiv Computers and Society. Ithaca, NYC: Cornell University.
Julian, Roberta, and Sally F. Kelty. 2015. “Forensic Science as ‘Risky Business’: Identifying Key Risk Factors in the Forensic Process from Crime Scene to Court.” Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice 1(4): 195–206.
Kitchin, Rob. 2014. The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and Their Consequences. London: Sage Publications.
Kloess, Juliane A., Jessica Woodhams, Helen Whittle, Tim Grant, et al. 2019. “The Challenges of Identifying and Classifying Child Sexual Abuse Material.” Sexual Abuse 31(2): 173–196.
Kruse, Corinna. 2015. The Social Life of Forensic Evidence. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Lawless, Christopher J. 2011. “Policing markets: The Contested Shaping of Neo-Liberal Forensic Science.” The British Journal of Criminology 51(4): 671–689.
Lawless, Christopher J., and Robin Williams. 2010. “Helping with Inquiries or Helping with Profits? The Trials and Tribulations of a Technology of Forensic Reasoning.” Social Studies of Science 40(5): 731–755.
Leonelli, Sabina, and Niccolò Tempini, eds. 2020 Data Journeys in the Sciences. New York: Springer.
Lim, Swee Kiat. 2021. “Apple’s NeuralHash—How It Works and How It May Be Compromised.” Towards Data Science, 21 August 2021.
Lutui, Raymond. 2016. “A Multidisciplinary Digital Forensic Investigation Process Model.” Business Horizons 59(6): 593–604.
Lynch, Michael, Simon A. Cole, Ruth McNally, and Kathleen Jordan. 2008. Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Machado, Helena, and Rafaela Granja. 2020. Forensic Genetics in the Governance of Crime. Singapore: Palgrave Pivot.
Mayernik, Matthew S. 2021. “Credibility via Coupling: Institutions and Infrastructures in Climate Model Intercomparisons.” Engaging Science, Technology and Society, 7(2): 10–32.
M’charek, Amade. 2008. “Silent Witness, Articulate Collective: DNA Evidence and the Inference of Visible Traits.” Bioethics 22(9): 519–528.
McNally, Ruth, and Michael Lynch. 2005. “Chains of Custody: Visualization, Representation and Accountability in the Processing of Forensic DNA Evidence.” Communication and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly Journal 38 (3–4): 297–318.
National Crime Agency. 2018. National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime. London: NCA.
National Science Foundation. 2016. Realizing the Potential of Data Science. Final Report from the National Science Foundation Computer and Information Science and Engineering Advisory Committee Data Science Working Group. December 2016. Co-chaired by Francine Berman and Rob Rutenbar. CISEAC Data Science Report. Washington, DC: NSF.
O’Neil, Cathy. 2017. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: NY: Crown Publishing Group.
O’Neil, Cathy, and Rachel Schutt. 2013. Doing Data Science: Straight Talk from the Frontline. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Rappert, Brian, Hannah Wheat, and Dana Wilson-Kovacs. 2020. “Rationing Bytes: Managing Demand for Digital Forensic Examinations.” Policing & Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy 31(1): 52–65.
Richmond, Karen. 2018. “Streamlined Forensic Reporting: ‘Swift and Sure Justice’?” The Journal of Criminal Law 82(2): 156–177.
Sentencing Guidelines Council. Ministry of Justice. 2013. Sexual Offences Guideline. Section Six: Indecent Images of Children. Consultation Document.
Sims, Benjamin. 2005. “Safe Science: Material and Social Order in Laboratory Work.” Social Studies of Science 35(3): 333–366.
Tully, Gillian. 2020. “Annual Report. 17 November 2018–16 November 2019.” Forensic Science Regulator. February 25, 2020. Birmingham: The Forensic Science Regulator.
Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, Ijsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, et al. 2016. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3: 160018.
Wilson-Kovacs, Dana. 2020. “Effective Resource Management in Digital Forensics: An Exploratory Analysis of Triage Practices in Four English Constabularies.” Policing: An International Journal 43(1): 77–90.
Wilson-Kovacs, Dana, Brian Rappert, and Lauren Redfern 2022. “Dirty Work? Policing Online Indecency in Digital Forensics.” The British Journal of Criminology 62(1): 106–123.
Woolgar, Steve, and Daniel Neyland. 2014. Mundane Governance: Ontology and Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wortley, Richard, and Stephen Smallbone, eds. 2006. Situational Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse. NCJ No. 215297. US Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs. Criminal Justice Press/Willow Tree Press.
Copyright (c) 2022 Brian Rappert, Dana Wilson-Kovacs, Hannah Wheat , Sabina Leonelli
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors of all content published in ESTS retain the copyright to their work, and agree to license them under one of the following Creative Commons licenses CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, CC BY 4.0, CC BY-SA 4.0, and refer to the individual article footer for specific licensing data. Please read our open access policy for more information.