The Development of DNA Fingerprinting and Computer Forensics - Assignment Example

The Development of DNA Fingerprinting and Computer Forensics Few issues in our time have agitated the people of this country more than the rising crime rate. Statistics alone do not adequately describe the situation which seems to be worsening daily. Literally millions of individuals now have their movements restricted by the fear of physical violence. (Congressional Digest editorial, October, 1965) Forensic scientists use all the tools and technologies at their disposal to gather and analyze the evidence from criminal investigations. DNA profiling and computer forensics are two recent additions to the field of forensics, and much can be learned from examining the development of these two technologies. The question of civil liberties violations is long-standing, and both DNA profiling and computer forensics occupy a decidedly fuzzy area of investigation and require the utmost of care when scientists are gathering evidence. Courts ultimately decide the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence; the task of forensics is to ensure that evidence is effectively and reliably used during investigation into crimes. The Advent of DNA Fingerprinting In the 1880s, fingerprinting was brought to forensic science. As with all new crime fighting technologies, fingerprinting went through a probationary period before it was accepted as legitimate science, and is still one of the most reliable ways to determine responsibility for crimes. As time has gone on we have developed even more precise ways of gathering forensic evidence, and DNA fingerprinting has become the latest tool forensic scientists use. Initially, the technology was so rough that only the donor’s blood type and gender could be determined; forensic science has advanced well beyond those rudimentary determinations, but not without a certain amount of controversy over the reliability of DNA profiling. A strong breakthrough in DNA profiling came in October of 1984 when Sir Alec Jeffreys revealed the development of the autoradiograph which could be used to sequence DNA (Malcolm, 2008). Jeffreys termed the breakthrough DNA fingerprinting, a remarkably accurate phrasing for a somewhat confusing scientific process. Jeffreys and other scientists working on this new frontier determined that sufficient DNA to obtain an accurate profile existed in body fluids and hair, which were determined to have been “abandoned” by suspects at crime scenes (Johnson, Martin, and Williams, 2003, p. 28; c.f. Duster, 2006, p. 297). By the late 1980s, technology breakthroughs had refined DNA fingerprinting, speeded up the process, and made profiles far more accurate using sometimes contaminated samples from crime scenes. By the early 1990s, sequenced DNA evidence had already been allowed in hundreds of court cases even as the scientific community argued its reliability (Thompson, 1993). Initial scientific enthusiasm regarding DNA technology left defense attorneys with no one to disagree with the reliability of the tests; it was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that DNA profiling methodologies began to be seriously questioned, and courts began to throw out previously admissible evidence. When DNA fingerprinting was still in its infant stages, judges began to consider the tests too new—no reliable evidence yet existed that DNA fingerprints were conclusive. Police departments could not afford specialized labs and equipment, and most testing was done through the FBI or other large organizations. Thus scientific opinion began to turn away from the exciting new technology and questions of reliability arose. In 1990, the National Academy of Sciences assembled a panel to examine the reliability and effectiveness of DNA evidence, and the panel concluded it should continue to be used in forensic science even as improvements in technology were refined (Thompson, 1993). Prior to this study, DNA technology had only been in existence for about 15 years; as DNA profiling became more refined, scientists discovered that the tests could be regarded as almost 100 percent unique from individual to individual, giving forensic scientists the power to do more than identify blood types and distinguish if a suspect was male or female. While fingerprinting went through several decades of testing in the courts of the late 1800s before it was considered a reliable technology, DNA was used almost as soon as it became available, and long before scientists had mapped genomes and other breakthroughs which came in intervening years. The evidence was admissible as a “novel scientific technique” which judges determined could be helpful to juries (Thompson, 1993, p. 31). Since DNA technologies were so new, jurors had little understanding of its impacts and could easily be swayed by expert witnesses—either into accepting the evidence or into rejecting it out of hand. With the advent of advanced DNA profiling has come the DNA database, accessible to law enforcement and containing the DNA gathered during criminal investigations. There is, of course, controversy about this stored data; Sir Alec Jeffreys, a key player in the history of DNA fingerprinting, commented recently that either everyone should be included in the database or no one should be, and that an independent third party should host the database, not law enforcement (Malcolm, 2008). The database he is referencing in this comment, the UK National DNA Database (NDNAD), is currently owned by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales (Johnson, Martin, and Williams, 2003). As of 2006, the NDNAD contained 2.8 million identified fingerprints plus 280,000 unidentified samples, and the NDAND was expanding by 10,000 to 20,000 samples per month (Duster, 2006, p. 297). Databases of this sort have cropped up around the world as DNA evidence is gathered from victims and convicted and acquitted criminals alike and stored for later use. The CODIS system is used in the United States. In fact, the DNA from “likely suspects” who are later ruled out at perpetrators of crimes is also stored in DNA databases (Duster, 2006, p. 296). This evidence is retained and has sometimes led to future convictions if there is a “cold hit” which leads to the arrest of a suspect in a subsequent crime. That person may have been ruled out earlier, but the DNA is readily accessible through the database. As with all types of technologies, a DNA database can be used as an effective tool or it can be used to violate civil liberties. Law enforcement officials gather DNA as only one part of an overall investigation, and there should be no question that evidence is both vital and necessary to obtaining convictions. Once the trial is over, vast amounts of evidence can be stored, including DNA as one small part. It is when that DNA is used for other purposes, such as profiling a whole population or to support vague notions of crime prevention (a perversion of individual scientific evidence) that a DNA database is no longer simply information, it is transformed into something far beyond its original scope. Several states support the collection of DNA for those who are arrested for certain crimes, even if charges are not brought against those individuals. DNA profiling has stood the test of time and become more reliable as technology has improved, making it a key evidence-gathering tool. That does not stop some detractors from continuing to argue the reliability of DNA fingerprinting, or turning the tables on law enforcement integrity by suggesting that DNA evidence might be planted (Duster, 2006). When DNA is the key evidence upon which a case is built, some questioning by defense attorneys is legitimate and to be expected. But, “if DNA is the only evidence against the accused…we can see how some will fear the considerable abuse potential by rogue police officers doggedly committed to obtaining convictions” (Duster, 2006, p. 294). Such criticisms have their place; however, the vast preponderance of DNA evidence is legitimately gathered and supported by other evidence, so there is no need to throw out a whole technology because of a certain political paranoia. Computer Forensics: Cutting Edge Evidence Computer forensics had its beginnings in other technologies as well. Before computers (and methods to hack them) existed, the technology of telephones was an excellent way for criminals to communicate and for forensic scientists to gather evidence against them. Without delving into a full discussion of First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights, law enforcement does walk a fine line between the rights of individuals and the power to fully investigate crimes. An editorial from a 1960 edition of the Saturday Evening Post explores the issue of criminal law and civil liberties regarding telephone wire tapping. Wire tap evidence was frequently being thrown out because of a 1934 law which vaguely defined what was admissible and inadmissible for wire taps; defense attorneys could often sway the judge that this evidence was illegally obtained. The Post editor argues that dropped charges were tantamount to “legal jailbreak” and that wiretap laws needed to be more clearly defined so the evidence could stand up in court (Saturday Evening Post, 1960, p. 10). One has to wonder if this editor’s opinion would remain the same if he considered the multiple technologies at our disposal in today’s era. Wire tapping is still a controversial issue to this day, but with the advent of computer technologies the idea of wire tapping takes on a whole new meaning. Law enforcement can stray over into dangerous civil-liberties-violations territory if wire tapping and computer forensics are used inappropriately for investigation of suspects based on suspicious behavior and little else (Duster, 2006). The acronyms BRAP and CAM have recently surfaced in computer forensics. BRAP is shorthand for BRowser APplications, and can be used forensically to recover data, access stored data, and to profile the user’s behavior. Cookies and cache images are prime examples of what BRAP forensics explores. CAM stands for computer activity mining and can produce extensive knowledge about activities such as keystroke capture, timeline analysis, and log analysis (Berghel, 2008). Computer forensics can leverage the power of software to trace the history of a document, to pinpoint an Internet user’s path, and to create timelines leading to the commission of crimes. Even files which have been deleted by the user can often be recovered by applying other software to the search. It is extremely difficult for criminals to completely erase their tracks; files are chopped up and stored all over hard drives, and browsers store an incredible amount of information which could become evidence. Cybercrime and computer forensics go hand in hand. With the vast amounts of information which can be gathered from forensically examined computers, civil liberties must be honored at the same time that law enforcement is allowed to gather sufficient evidence to support convictions. In the interest of helping the everyday computer user, software developers build redundancies into the systems that 99 percent of users simply find helpful; the small handful of people accused of using technology in the commission of a crime find that their footsteps can be accurately—and easily—traced, even though they tried to cover their tracks. Berghel comments, “To the typical user, learning of these developer excesses retroactively is akin to learning that all of the world’s typewriters had been secretly producing invisible carbon copies for Interpol” (2008, p. 20). BRAP and CAM forensics could easily be used to invade the privacy of individuals. Those who worry about law enforcement using private data to convict criminals would like to see less redundancy in technology, and complete erasure of deleted data—should they choose to delete erase it. Just as with the controversy originally surrounding DNA profiling/technology issues, computer forensics is a powerful tool which could be abused. For the time being, forensic scientists and law enforcement will use technology to create user profiles, and the courts will decide if that data is admissible under the Constitution. Future Directions in DNA Profiling and Computer Forensics In a 1980 article, Tishler comments that advancements in understanding genetics had up to that point outstripped applications in forensic science, but he concludes, “We must make a greater effort to exploit the knowledge contributed by the few good laboratories in the field, and we must support effective forensic science research” (p. 25). In the intervening 30 years, forensic science has come to rely upon DNA evidence just as it did with fingerprinting more than 130 years ago. In 1993, DNA was still a rough and new tool for forensic scientists, and very few labs in the United States even had the technology for DNA testing. That, of course, has changed in the intervening years as technology has become cheaper and faster. Thompson comments, “The current DNA tests are the first spin-offs of the molecular revolution in genetics to reach the courtroom, but they will not be the last” (1993, p. 25). Indeed, as each new breakthrough in forensic science has come, been tested (scientifically and in the courtroom) and finally been approved, law enforcement has had to walk the fine line between civil liberties and obtaining solid convictions. The controversy surrounding the admissibility of DNA evidence teaches forensic scientists and law enforcement officials an important lesson: scientific applications must be applied appropriately, and judges and juries must understand the science in order to be convinced by it. Enthusiasm for new technologies is good from a scientific viewpoint; courts, on the other hand, are most often conservative when it comes to accepting new methods of gathering evidence. One positive note with the initial DNA controversy is that forensics labs found themselves under intense scrutiny, which caused them to refine reliability and methodology until profiling has become standard. The initial scrutiny led to unassailable scientific evidence and refined technologies. Cyber forensics is still an incredibly new field but the lessons learned through the DNA controversy apply. Forensic scientists must be careful how they gather information to ensure that the evidence will eventually be admissible in court. The tools and technologies of computer forensics have kept good pace with cybercriminals; however, since cybercrimes account for $11.9 billion per year in organization losses, the need for identifying and convicting criminals is acute (Nishi, 2007, p. 13). Multiple layers of evidence are always important to obtaining a conviction. One key piece of evidence—a strand of hair with a skin tag attached, or a reconstructed computer file—can make or break a case. It is important for forensic scientists to gather as much evidence as possible using scientifically proven methodologies, and it is important for jurors, who are after all ordinary citizens, to understand the evidence they are viewing and not be swayed by contradictory expert testimony. Outside the forensics lab lies the world of politics and jurisprudence, and what should be simple facts can be transmuted into something entirely unintended. The future of forensics must carefully balance scientific inquiry, the desire to convict criminals, and the basic civil liberties of the victims and the accused. Works Cited Berghel, H. (2008, June). BRAP forensics. Communications of the ACM 51(6), 15-20. Accessed 23 August 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Congressional Digest editorial (1965, October). Moves to strengthen law enforcement. Congressional Digest 44(10), 255. Accessed 23 August 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Duster, T. (2006, Summer). Explaining differential trust of DNA forensic technology: grounded assessment or inexplicable paranoia: Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34(2), 293-300. Accessed 23 August 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Johnson, P., Martin, P., and Williams, R. (2003). Genetics and forensics: Making the national DNA database. Science Studies, 16(2), 22-37. Accessed 23 August 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Malcolm, A. (2008, February). A brief history of DNA fingerprinting. Biologist 55(1), 43-43. Accessed 23 August 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Nishi, D. (2007, October). Protect the digital frontier. Career World, 36(2), 12-15. Accessed 23 August 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Saturday Evening Post editorial (1960, July 2). Is tapping telephones more heinous than searching houses? Saturday Evening Post. Accessed 23 August 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Thompson, W. (1993, Spring). Evaluating the admissibility of new genetic identification tests: lessons from the DNA war. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 84(1), 22-104. Accessed 23 August 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Tishler, P. (1980, January). The telltale gene. Sciences, 20(1), 22-26. Accessed 23 August 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Read More