The use of forensic software for criminal investigations harbors both advantages and disadvantages. Among the most notable benefit achieved through this approach is that important evidence, data and information for a particular case which could have been damaged, deleted or lost could be retrieved. Furthermore, it is easy to search for a specific issue, or evidence in a forensic report using key words. This certainly makes the work of a litigant or lawyer easy. On the other hand, reports generated by forensic software tools may as well pose a number of demerits. The first of this setback is the easy modification of such data by unscrupulous beings. In other words, it needs strong proof that the data and information presented in the report had not been tampered with.
Current events article
The current events article I read this week is in this link http://www.forensicfocus.com/.
The article authored by Patzakis (2016), discuss the likely implication of the amendment to US Federal Rule of Evidence 902 on the computer forensic software. According to the author, the stipulation of this amendment in the form of a new subsection (14) would make it hard for the evidence generated from computer forensic tools to be admissible in court. For instance, the subsection states that such a report and data have to be self-authenticating, and thus eliminating the necessity of a technical expert or trial testimony, irrespective of whether the best practices were utilized. Consequently, this requirement will pose a negative implication in the field of forensic science the value of “forensic and technical experts” will not be recognized. Furthermore, the validity of the data and report generated from forensic tools will be underrated.
Patzakis, J.(2016). New Federal rule of evidence directly impact computer forensics and