In these times of trendy LPU1 papers, you may consider this as two papers in one. If you like controversial positions and observations, then I suggest you focus on the second part of this paper (sections V and VI). If you like history, institutional knowledge, definitions, and the wisdom of senior scientist-practitioners, then I suggest you focus on the first part of this paper (sections II through IV). I wrote both as parts of an integrated whole in the hope that you will like that as well.In the first part of this paper (sections II through IV), I attempt to give an adequate working definition of the term ȁC;high assuranceȁD; for use in the context of ȁC;high assurance digital forensics,ȁD; with assistance by many luminaries in the field.In the second part of this paper (sections V and VI), I give my observations and reactions to my panelist experience for the ȁC;High Assurance Digital ForensicsȁD; panel for the Fourth International IEEE Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering2 (SADFE). I also examine my overall workshop experiences. In particular, I examine how the computer science paradigm does not compose very well with the legal paradigm and the truly massive problems and dangers that this causes. I sum up with a list of questions that we must answer if we truly wish high assurance digital forensics used properly.
展开▼
