Oh, gosh no. It was not meant for you. I'm sorry you got the wrong impression.
I was making a general statement in reference to my critics, who seem to think that because I am not a "certified computer forensics expert," that I could not give expert testimony in court.
Well, that is not true.
First of all, I have never identified myself as a "forensics expert" on my Affidavits as there is no need to do so. There is no formal field known as "document image forensics," and therefore, no such thing as a "certified expert in document image forensics."
What I was saying by my comment is that "Forensics" is not synonymous with "CSI": it does not refer to a specialized field of study or an area of expertise. It pertains to using standardized procedures and methods for providing legal evidence. In other words, it is the application of scientific research to legal questions.
Someone made the comment in the intrade discussion that laypeople should not be tossing around the word, "expert," as if everyone knows what it means. I agree.
Thanks for all of your work ....
Thanks for clarifying that, Polarik.
First of all, I have never identified myself as a "forensics expert" on my Affidavits as there is no need to do so. There is no formal field known as "document image forensics," and therefore, no such thing as a "certified expert in document image forensics."
Are your affidavits being used in any of the pending litigation?
There's a well established field called Questionable Documents (or is it "questioned?"), for which there are a couple widely recognized certifications, but I believe its focus is still largely on hard copy, handwriting analysis, etc. The type of analysis at hand would probably be best described as a hybrid of QD and digital image forensics, which also has a lot of overlap with the forensic video field.
What I was saying by my comment is that "Forensics" is not synonymous with "CSI"...
Amen.
MM