Design Thinking Method to Develop a Digital Evidence Handling Management Application

Erika Ramadhani, Amrullah Sidiq

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23917/khif.v8i1.12760

Abstract

Handling digital evidence in forensics is a very crucial task. Incorrect handling can cause the evidence to become invalid as proof of a crime in court. The procedure of handling digital evidence, starting from its collection, usage, and storage, affects its acceptability in the judicial process. Therefore, a digital evidence management system becomes imperative for police researchers and investigators. This study aims at designing such a system using the design thinking method, which goes through five stages: empathy, definition, idea, prototype, and test. The result of the study is a web-based system prototype. The prototype user testing attains a system usability scale (SUS) value of 60. The SUS value means that the prototype is in the category of marginal low and indicates that the prototype does not meet the feasibility and needs improvement.

Keywords

digital forensics; digital evidence; digital evidence handling; design thinking

Full Text:

PDF

References

A. Antwi-Boasiako and H. Venter, “A model for digital evidence admissibility assessment,” in IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 2017, vol. 511, pp. 23–38, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-67208-3_2.

Y. Prayudi and A. SN, “Digital Chain of Custody: State of The Art,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 114, no. 5, pp. 1–9, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.5120/19971-1856

Matthew Braid, “Collecting Electronic Evidence After a System Compromise,” 2001. https://www.auscert.org.au/publications/2017-09-11-collecting-electronic-evidence-after-sy (accessed Feb. 23, 2021).

B. Schatz, “Digital Evidence: Representation and Assurance,” 2007

T. Y. S. Rikke Friis Dam, “What is Design Thinking and Why Is It So Popular? | Interaction Design Foundation (IxDF),” 2020. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-design-thinking-and-why-is-it-so-popular (accessed Mar. 04, 2021).

N. Lizarti, B. Sugiantoro, and Y. Prayudi, “PENERAPAN COMPOSITE LOGIC DALAM MENGKOLABORASIKAN FRAMEWORK TERKAIT MULTIMEDIA FORENSIK,” JISKa, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 26–33, 2017

C. Müller-roterberg, “Handbook of Design Thinking,” no. January, 2019

Brooke, John. (2013). SUS: a retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies. 8. 29-40.

Y. Prayudi, A. Ashari, and T. K. Priyambodo, “Digital Evidence Cabinets: A Proposed Framework for Handling Digital Chain of Custody,” 2014. Accessed: Aug. 28, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.dynotech.com/articles/digitalevidence.shtml.

J. Richter, N. Kuntze, and C. Rudolph, “Securing digital evidence,” in 5th International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering, SADFE 2010, 2010, pp. 119–130, doi: 10.1109/SADFE.2010.31.

K. Rhee, “Framework of multimedia forensic system,” in 2012 7th International Conference on Computing and Convergence Technology (ICCCT), 2012, pp. 1084–1087, Accessed: Aug. 28, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6530496.

N. Lizarti et al., “PENERAPAN COMPOSITE LOGIC DALAM MENGKOLABORASIKAN FRAMEWORK TERKAIT MULTIMEDIA FORENSIK,” 2017

Ledesma, S. Aguila, and M.S., “A proposed framework for forensic image enhancement,” University of Colorado at Denver, 2015.

A. AlShaikh and M. Sedky, “Post Incident Analysis Framework for Automated Video Forensic Investigation,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 129, no. 17, pp. 38–44, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.5120/ijca2015907187.

SWDGE, “SWGDE Minimum Requirements for Quality Assurance in the Processing of Digital and Multimedia Evidence,” 2010. https://www.swgde.org/documents/published (accessed Aug. 30, 2020).

Y. Prayudi, A. Ashari, and T. K Priyambodo, “Digital Evidence Cabinets: A Proposed Framework for Handling Digital Chain of Custody,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 107, no. 9, pp. 30–36, 2014, doi: 10.5120/18781-0106.

Article Metrics

Abstract view(s): 72 time(s)
PDF: 60 time(s)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.