Questions design

As discussed earlier, creating surveys consist of several interconnected steps which include: defining the objectives, selecting a survey frame, determining the sample design, designing the questionnaire, collecting and processing the data, analysing and disseminating the data and documenting the survey. The life of a questionnaire design can be broken down into several phases. The first is the determining the questions to be asked in the planning phase, which is followed by selecting the question type for each question and specifying the wording. The final step consists of designing the question sequence and overall questionnaire layout.

Boddington (2008) stated in his review, “validating digital evidence for legal arguments” is now common in legal cases, but the understanding in the legal fraternity as to how far conventional ideas of evidence can be extended to the digital domain lags

130

behind. Evidence determines the truth of an issue but its weight is subject to examination and verification through existing forms of legal arguments. There is a need for a practical ‘roadmap’ that can guide the legal practitioner in identifying digital evidence which is relevant in supporting a case and assessing its weight. A vital but sometimes underestimated stage is that of validating the evidence before evaluating its weight (Boddington R, 2008). For the legal practitioner, research has attempted to enhance analysis of the weight of evidence as part of structuring legal arguments, but with limited adoptions to such processes (Tillers, 2005). Computer and network security and digital forensics research provides documentation about the properties of digital evidence but it does not explain it in a legal context which is helpful to the legal practitioner (Spenceley, 2003). The validation and acceptance of the evidence, however, is largely differing from one culture to another. Validation and acceptance of the evidence depends on four main factors:

1. Professional education and certification in the field of digital forensics, 2. Roadmap and policy,

3. Understanding legal issues and the members of the court to understand digital forensic issues,

4. Good practice and attitudes during the investigation process.

These four factors could be used as the main dimensions to understand and answer the research questions which are as following:

1. In what way and to what extent do culture and religion affect the status of digital evidence in the legal process?

2. What principles do the practitioners have to observe in the way they treat digital evidence in the legal process?

3. How do Islamic laws stand in respect to the admissibility of various kinds of digital data as evidence?

131

4. What are the principles that the practitioners have to observe in the way they treat digital evidence in the legal process for law enforcement practices and public prosecutors in Saudi Arabia?

Consequently, four dimensions and a total of twenty-eight different questions were designed.

Current situation and personal skill dimension:

Developing legal arguments can be frustrating if unskilled use is made of digital evidence, with unanticipated and often detrimental outcomes. For example, when presenting a legal case based on what appears to be convincing digital evidence, the case can collapse if the defence can show that the security integrity of the network is defective and shows contamination or alteration of the digital evidence it is supposed to protect. Therefore, if the validity of the evidence can be established, its weight in legal argument is enhanced. However, if its validity is uncertain or invalidated, then the weight of the evidence is diminished or negated (Boddington R, 2008). The aim of this dimension is to determine the current situation within the field of digital forensics and to find out experts’ attitudes toward the skills of digital forensic.

Education and certification dimension:

Few legal practitioners have the sufficient technical expertise to analyse digital evidence in case preparation and it is difficult for them to present it in simple comprehensible terms to judges and juries; what may seem a potentially successful case based on straightforward legal argument can turn into a needless failure (Yasinsac et al, 2003). The aim of this dimension is to find out if there exist certifications for computer forensic experts and organizations with regards to training and education in the field of digital forensics.

132 Policy and organization dimension:

All governments and organizations should have standards, policies and procedures in place that can assist in an investigation. These governments and organizations should also have legislative measures that support organizations attempting to prosecute digital crimes. In 2001, The Digital Forensic Research Workshop (DFRWS) identified a seven step process namely, identification, preservation, collection, examination, analysis, presentation, and decision. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released ‘Forensic Examination of Digital Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement’. In 2012, the ‘Good Practice Guide for Computer-Based Electronic Evidence’ was provided by the ACPO, which is the UK standard that provides the procedure that should be followed by practitioners and focuses on the collection of evidence. The aim of this dimension is to find out Saudi Arabian national interaction between digital forensics and security organizations, and to determine if digital readiness is a popular policy for government organizations or private companies.

Law dimension:

Judges decide what evidence will or will not be allowed in their courtrooms. As a consequence, in evaluating scientific and technical evidence, judges must make informed decisions about the admissibility of such evidence at trial (Wegman, 2005). In addition, judges must determine the acceptability of expert witnesses who might testify about scientific and technical issues (Ball, 2008). The aim of this dimension is to understand how members of the court consider digital forensics and legal issues.