11 minute read
Plenary Presentations
30 May
Abstract no: PS001
Advertisement
Christophe Champod1 Didier Meuwly2
1 School of Criminal Justice University of Lausanne- UNIL, Switzerland 2 Netherlands Forensic Institute – NFI and University of Twente, the Netherlands | PLENARY
Forensic biometrics: Let's face it
Biometric traits are distinctive characteristics of the human body, such as the fingerprint and iris patterns or the face and voice features. They are personal and sensitive data per nature, and their use is governed by privacy and data protection regulation. Biometric data are at the core of many forensic applications, originally to infer who is the source of the probes or traces and more and more to reconstruct activities of persons of interest. Biometric probes are used for the identification and the identity verification of persons of interest along the justice identity chain. Biometric traces collected on crime scenes help establish links between cases, allow to generate shortlist of candidates from very large databases of biometric references and to provide evaluative evidence in court. This plenary session will focus on the case of facial recognition to describe and discuss the challenges (development, validation, implementation and combination with other biometric traits) of the human-based and computerassisted (or artificial intelligence – AI) methods. Some of the questions that will be debated are: What should be the forensic scope of facial recognition? How to validate these techniques while maintaining accountability and transparency? What are the acceptable error rates associated with the technique? What will be the role of human experts in a field dominated by AI methods? Should the community aim at a specific regulation framework for forensic usage?
31 May
Abstract no: PS002
Claude Roux
Centre for Forensic Science, University of Technology Sydney Australia International Association of Forensic Sciences | PLENARY
The Role and Value of the Forensic Science Laboratory in an Ever-Changing World
We live in a rapidly ever-changing world where technology not only takes an increasingly important part in our lives but also drives societal changes. These changes have an impact on the criminal and security landscape itself. They also provide new ways to abate and even prevent crime. For example, the digital transformation of society facilitates the traceability of people and behaviours. Further, technology, including field-portable instrumentation, enables quicker, remote and more connected exploitation of traces that take more diverse shapes and forms than ever. This situation offers vast opportunities but also presents significant challenges, including data management and potential ethical issues. Further, today, there is an increased demand for formalised quality assurance and reliability from forensic science services. However, there is also an increased demand for forensic science’s more proactive role in the investigation, intelligence and contribution to non-judicial pathways (e.g. harm minimisation and prevention). This overall situation is challenging the role of the traditional forensic science laboratory. We ought to ask the questions:
Is there a risk that the traditional forensic science laboratory may quickly become less relevant or irrelevant?
Should we grasp this challenge as an opportunity to re-imagine the forensic science laboratory?
What is the value proposition of the forensic science laboratory, and, more broadly, forensic science, in 2022 and beyond? Answering these questions forces us to re-think the purpose of forensic science and better develop its fundamental underpinnings. These interrogations and this debate are crucial for forensic science, practitioners, and stakeholders. How can we be effective in our everyday work if we do not have a clear view of the purpose of what we are doing and if we poorly understand where we come from and where we are heading to? This presentation will discuss all these questions, along with some supporting case studies.
31 May
Gillian Tully
Kings College London, UK Abstract no: PS003 | PLENARY
Forensic science is above all a scientific endeavour in the service of justice. Is there, then, a role for the concept of the ‘customer’? A simple definition of a customer is a person who buys goods or services. If we applied this definition directly, it would identify the organisation procuring (or funding) forensic science services as our customer. The funder has a legitimate interest in the service provided, but as forensic scientists, we operate in a wider context. In the early stages of a case, police investigators may request assistance with understanding whether a crime has been committed and providing investigative leads. If a case proceeds towards prosecution, an investigator will need to assemble a case, part of which may include evaluation of scientific evidence. A prosecutor will need to satisfy themselves that the case is reliable and credible, and then a court will need to understand the evidence and be assured that it is reliable and balanced. A victim/complainant and/or their supporters may want every possible avenue to identifying a suspect and building a case to be explored. A suspect/defendant will want to know that the science has not been applied in a restricted manner that favours the prosecution. There are consequently widely differing requirements on forensic scientists from participants across the justice system, added to which are systematic requirements for building rigour into our discipline and innovating to meet future requirements. This presentation will explore the competing demands on forensic science in the context of our over-riding obligation to serve justice and consider whether the concept of a ‘customer’ for forensic science is helpful or should be discarded.
1 June
Abstract no: PS004
Niamh Nic Daeid | PLENARY
University of Dundee, UK and The Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science (LRCFS)
"I’m not sure that you understood what I think it was that I just said" – the critical importance of communication
The communication, whether in writing or orally, of the validity, relevance and case contextualised evaluation of scientific evidence is a critical aspect of the work of the forensic scientist. And yet, most forensic scientists are not trained in science communication or public engagement. When we speak with other colleagues, at crime scenes, during an investigation or when we give evidence in court to an audience of legal practitioners or the public, we often do not know how well we are understood. This plenary presentation will explore the importance of science communication, the critical role that communication plays in understanding about data, evidence and science, why it matters to forensic science and and why we should be worried about it.
1 June
Abstract no: PS005
Eoghan Casey | PLENARY
Digital Forensic Science and Investigation Ecole des Sciences Criminelles (ESC) Université de Lausanne
Crowdsourcing Digital Forensic Science
Utilization of data for forensic purposes is being undermined by multiple problems of isolation, including conflicting interpretations of digital traces, differing conceptions of domain knowledge, growing disconnects between lab and field, and inconsistent practices across cyber domains. While the global pandemic increased physical isolation, it fueled computerassisted collaboration and innovation that can strengthen digital forensic science. Crowdsourcing can overcome the problems of isolation in digital forensic science by consolidating diverse community inputs to amplify knowledge sharing, general acceptance, standard data format, and common practices across criminal justice, military, and cybersecurity contexts. Crowdsourcing amplifies human capacities, typically using technology such as: 1) Artifact Catalog for curating knowledge about digital traces and their meaning in a structured form for ease of reference by humans and automation; 2) CASE (Cyber-investigation Analysis Standard Expression) ontology for representing information to enable interoperability; 3) DFaaS (Digital Forensics as a Service) for codifying digital forensic methods and bridging between lab and field; and 4) KIEP (Knowledge & Information Exchange Platform) for exchanging expertise between practitioners and researchers. Technical aspects of these initiatives are in place and just require resources to develop fully. The greater challenge is to engage and educate individuals in order to cultivate a culture of common comprehension and collaborative problem solving. Success of these crowdsourcing solutions depends on a unified understanding of the Trace, digital artifact, virtual identity, and scientific inference.
2 June
Fredrik Heintz
Linköping University (LiU), Sweden Abstract no: PS006 | PLENARY
A European Perspective on Artificial Intelligence in Law Enforcement
Europe has taken a clear stand that we want AI, but we do not want just any AI. We want AI that we can trust. It is important to keep in mind that AI is not something in a distant future, but something already here and influencing all aspects of our modern society. This talk will give an overview of the European perspective on AI and its relation to law enforcement. The starting point is the Ethical Guidelines on Trustworthy AI published in 2018 which is now being followed up by the AI Act for regulating the use of AI. The regulating in the AI Act will also influence law enforcement, as a ban on remote biometrical identification may be included. Then I will present some of the main European initiatives and what they can provide. A special focus will be placed on the TAILOR network of AI research excellence centers that is developing the scientific foundations for Trustworthy AI through the integration of learning, optimisation and reasoning. I will present some of the major research themes and give some concrete examples related to law enforcement. The talk will conclude with opportunities and challenges related to AI in law enforcement.
2 June
Abstract no: PS007
Peter M. Schneider | PLENARY
Institute of Legal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Germany,
Recent advances in forensic DNA phenotyping: the VISAGE Enhanced Tool offering new methods and markers for predicting appearance, ancestry and age
The VISible Attributes Through GEnomics – VISAGE – Consortium has been funded 2017-2021 by the EU under the Horizon 2020 Security Program. It has aimed to overcome the general limitation of current forensic DNA analysis by broadening forensic DNA evidence towards constructing composite sketches of unknown perpetrators from biological traces, working within current legal frameworks and ethical guidelines.
The VISAGE Project has developed and validated prototype tools for DNA analysis and biostatistical interpretation to predict a person’s appearance, biogeographic ancestry and age from DNA traces. The data obtained can help to identify unknown perpetrators of crime not recognised from standard DNA profiling via focussed police investigation, as well as contribute to the identification of unknown human remains. The enhanced toolkit consists of two separate library kits for MPS platforms, one for genotyping to analyse SNP markers for appearance and ancestry, and the other for bisulfite sequencing of epigenetic CpG markers suitable for age prediction.
Based on an improved set of SNPs for the currently used markers for eye, hair and skin colour, additional externally visible characteristics that include freckles, eyebrow colour, hair structure, and male pattern baldness. Ancestry prediction covers seven geographic regions for bi-parental ancestry based on autosomal SNPs and in addition, paternal ancestry based on Y-SNPs. Age prediction is designed for analysing blood, saliva, semen and bone samples. The results of the genotyping and bisulfite sequencing analyses are processed using the VISAGE Software Tool that generates probabilities or linear predictions for the targeted traits, respectively, that the software enables based on the legal framework in a given country.
Acknowledgement: The VISAGE Project & Consortium has received funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Secure Societies Challenge under grant agreement 740580.
2 June
Abstract no: PS008
Justice Tettey | PLENARY
Laboratory and Scientific Section, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
Trust me? I am a forensic scientist
Forensic science, the interface between science and the law, continues to play a vital role in drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice systems. The quality of forensic science findings may have profound implications on human rights and the development of evidence-based policies, for example in response to emerging drug threats. Like most scientific disciplines, forensic science is not immune to ethical dilemmas associated with issues such as professional competence, objective testimony, independence and resource constraints. The presentation looks at some of the challenges faced by forensic scientists today from a global perspective which affects the basic assumptions of ethics and trust in preserving human rights and administering justice. It concludes with an outlook of how forensic science practice at a global level, can overcome some of its ethical dilemmas.
3 June
John M. Butler
U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology Abstract no: PS009 | PLENARY
Are We On the Right Side of the Equation? Becoming Outcome-Focused Versus Process-Driven
Involvement of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in forensic science spans almost a century beginning with Wilmer Souder’s efforts in the 1920s involving handwriting, typewriting, and ballistics analysis. NIST increased its involvement in the field after a 2009 National Academy of Sciences study identified areas for improvement in forensic science. Today, NIST conducts collaborative research, partners with the community to strengthen policies and practices, convenes meetings to examine issues, and explores scientific foundations of forensic methods and practices (see https://www.nist.gov/forensic-science). Perspectives gained in the past few years from conducting scientific foundations of multiple forensic methods and practices will be discussed. For example, do we understand principles behind how things work and why things are done? Do we spend sufficient time to understand important findings published in the scientific literature? Have our approaches in forensic science become too task- or processdriven compared to outcome-focused? As researchers or practitioners, do we regularly step back and critically consider our performance with those activities in which we are involved? What data demonstrate what we think we know about the performance of a particular methodology or interpretation approach? Who should have access to validation data? How might validation studies and data sharing differ if performance criteria were emphasized to understand method limitations versus simply meeting accreditation requirements? Are reports clear enough to end users? Simply put, are we on the right side of the equation?
