An auditor or criminal defense would argue the validity of the data and information proposed to be evidence in the scientific sense and purposeful use.
Data experts use a completely different set of rules when acquiring or provenance DOES NOT often replicate the 3rd party application where the inputs process in a function to produce a result in cases of financial transactions the output must be validated by a different user group and person in a role must be "true" with fine grain access rather than using a group access feature.
Innovation - threats caused by the unknown or unethical people in roles without the wisdom, knowledge, information people can use data in ways that were never intended. Innovation has taken a turn down the wrong path with various technology solutions introduced without the basic features required to manage and ensure secure and audit worthy events are captured in the form of raw data. In fact, an impossibility is being suggested where data at rest is implied to not be structured in Big Data. The ability to store data in any device whether physical or virtual requires structure and the structure provides the means for replication and processing of data.
First question-Did the evidence collected meet the source system (provenance) rule?
Did the criteria of the source meet the industry standard?
Use case; If an employer uses monitoring of employee telephone or any device formats like audio or video logs(at rest) and streaming (in motion);
Use case; A retail or bank uses video and audio to record the customers and the associated transactions.
Have these two situations met the standards criteria for sound quality and recognition?
Page 4 of the Santa Clara County Management Audit performed by the FBI related to CODIS managed at the local level
(1) 2 profiles uploaded that were not attributable to a putative perpetrator;
(2)10 profiles that were obtained from the suspect’s person or residence,
(3)11 profiles that pertained to an item that was not connected to a crime, and
(4) 9 profiles related to case files that lacked sufficient information to determine eligibility for NDIS.
The Laboratory also removed an additional 17 unallowable profiles that were not in our original sample, but were also uploaded in association with the case files of unallowable profiles in our sample.
Before our draft report was issued, the Laboratory removed 42 profiles and we recommended that the FBI work with the Laboratory to determine NDIS eligibility for the remaining 7 profiles.
In addition, we recommend the FBI work with the Laboratory to strengthen the Laboratory’s profile eligibility review process and ensure the Laboratory’s forensic DNA profiles uploaded to NDIS from January 2006 through April 2012 are reviewed to determine if they meet the eligibility requirements for NDIS.
Test and Verify conclusions-how can you be certain you have facts to support the provenance or source system without external manipulation or alternate source
The difference between database to database source system constraints fail, as far too often the database wasn't modeled to specification of a source application.