Freiling F, Böhme R, Gloe T, Kirchner M (2009)
Publication Language: English
Publication Type: Conference contribution, Original article
Publication year: 2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Edited Volumes: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
City/Town: The Hague, Netherlands
Pages Range: 90-103
Conference Proceedings Title: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computational Forensics
Event location: The Hague
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-03521-0_9
The recent popularity of research on topics of multimedia forensics justifies reflections on the definition of the field. This paper devises an ontology that structures forensic disciplines by their primary domain of evidence. In this sense, both multimedia forensics and computer forensics belong to the class of digital forensics, but they differ notably in the underlying observer model that defines the forensic investigator's view on (parts of) reality, which itself is not fully cognizable. Important consequences on the reliability of probative facts emerge with regard to available counter-forensic techniques: while perfect concealment of traces is possible for computer forensics, this level of certainty cannot be expected for manipulations of sensor data. We cite concrete examples and refer to established techniques to support our arguments. © 2009 Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
APA:
Freiling, F., Böhme, R., Gloe, T., & Kirchner, M. (2009). Multimedia Forensics is not Computer Forensics. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computational Forensics (pp. 90-103). The Hague: The Hague, Netherlands: Springer-Verlag.
MLA:
Freiling, Felix, et al. "Multimedia Forensics is not Computer Forensics." Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computational Forensics, The Hague The Hague, Netherlands: Springer-Verlag, 2009. 90-103.
BibTeX: Download