As most of you know by now, I’m currently training to be a psychotherapist, because I don’t have enough strings to my bow already. I know I want to practise existential psychotherapy but I’m not yet clear on whether there’s a particular group of clients I’d like to work with. I’ve recently been thinking, however, about working with law enforcement officers, particularly those who are engaged in investigating cases of child exploitation, human trafficking and counter terror. I have the advantage of understanding these industries from the inside, and hopefully with the benefit of psychotherapy training I’ll be able to make a difference to the field by helping people to deal with some of the things they’re seeing. Read more
Those of you who know about my work in digital forensics will probably be aware that I got into the field because I’m very passionate about child protection, so anyone who champions that cause is someone I’m probably going to like. Magnet Forensics has been doing this for years, but recently I became aware of Griffeye, whom I somehow hadn’t heard of before.
An article on ABC News reports a new law in Victoria, Australia, which shifts the burden of proof from abuse victims to the institutions in which the abuse took place.
This is a Very Very Good Thing. At the moment, when a child is abused and it’s covered up (or otherwise not addressed) by an institution, the burden of proof is on the child to demonstrate that the abuse took place, and that the organisation knew and did nothing.
This new law means that it’s no longer the victim’s responsibility to prove that they were abused – instead, it’s the organisation’s responsibility to demonstrate that they had enough safeguards in place to prevent abuse from happening, or that there’s a reason why they couldn’t have known it was taking place.
Just a quick note to say I’m back now, and normal scheduling will return this week. It’s been a weird couple of weeks in the UK, hasn’t it?
A nice cheerful topic to start us off on a Monday morning.
I wrote a thing for Forensic Focus about how it’s quite difficult to investigate the live streaming of child sexual abuse online, but how we should do it anyway.
Tomorrow, the 1st of March 2016, marks my five-year anniversary as an investigator. I set up my first investigation business when I was still working at my old job (with their permission), and I’ve been through several iterations since.
Now, five years in, I’ve settled into my investigative identity. Here are some of the things I’ve learned along the way.
I would like to change the world.
I feel like it needs changing, you know? There are things that definitely aren’t working, things that aren’t going very well, and sometimes it feels like it’s all sort of coming to a head.
I only read three books last week, because I was busy. And yes, when I say “busy” I mean “watching Buffy”. How had I never seen Buffy before?! I’m now nearly at the end of season three. No spoilers please!
It’s one of the oldest questions known to humankind. It’s pervaded every discipline, from philosophy and psychology to astrophysics and agriculture. It’s stumped people at confusing hurdles and encouraged dialogue between diverse groups.
How should I live?
I know I spent most of it working. In the early part of the week I designed a survey which is going to be sent out to digital forensic investigators. It includes a couple of questions that relate to some research I’d eventually like to do on the psychological effects of working full-time (or part-time, or at all) in a role that requires you to see some of the most awful things humans do to each other.
My job’s a bit of a conversation stopper. When I say “forensic investigation”, people generally think it’s incredibly cool. When I specify “computer forensics” they make reference to Garcia from Criminal Minds, or (if they know me well enough) to Lisbeth Salander.