Piper, et al.

Forensic Audio Standards

FORENSIC AUDIO STANDARDS

MICHAEL PIPER1, 2, DAVID HALLIMORE1,3, AND JOHN POWELL1, 4

1
Scientific Working Group for Digital Evidence, USA
audio@swgde.us
2
United States Secret Service, Washington, D.C., USA
michael.piper@usss.dhs.gov
3
Houston Police Department, Houston, TX, USA
forensicaudio@gmail.com
4
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, USA
jbpowell@lasd.org

In 2009 the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) released a report entitled “Strengthening Forensic Science in the
United States: A Path Forward” [1] (hereafter, “the Report”) to the Congress of the United States. It contained a broad
overview of the status of forensic science in the United States along with several recommendations for improvement.
The Report has generated significant discussion, and its recommendations, if adopted, would have broad reaching
effects within the forensic science community, including the forensic audio community. In September 2009, the
Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) published a position paper [2] on the Report, responding to
each of the recommendations made therein. An overview of the Report, its effects, SWGDE’s response, and the
SWGDE Audio Committee’s current projects will be presented.

AES to submit comments on all its documents so that

INTRODUCTION
The Report triggered a call to action for SWGDE to
strengthen the digital evidence discipline (which
includes forensic audio) through collaboration with
research institutions, accrediting bodies, standards
organizations, and forensic science organizations.
Additionally, an effort is underway to promote
minimum standards within the digital evidence
discipline. The SWGDE Audio Committee is drafting
comprehensive recommendations for training and
education in forensic audio and continues to develop a
discussion paper on the means to validate ENF analysis
as an authentication test method. One of our primary
concerns is that the methodologies employed in forensic
audio analysis be scientifically valid in order to be
relied upon.
In each of the topics presented (best practices, minimum
standards, accreditation, certification, training, ENF,
etc.), there will be many points suitable for audience
input and discussion. One of the key purposes of this
presentation is to solicit input from the forensic audio
community for the work we are undertaking at
SWGDE. All documents that SWGDE publishes are
made available for public comment at www.swgde.org,
and all comments are considered. SWGDE encourages
the participants of this conference and the members of
they may accurately reflect the views of the community.
1 THE NAS REPORT
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private,
non-profit body chartered by the U.S. government in
1863 to be an adviser on scientific and technological
matters, and more recently was tasked to study the
needs of the forensic science community. This action
was promoted by the Consortium of Forensic Science
Organizations to bring attention to the lack of proper
resources devoted to forensic science [3][4][5]. The
NAS created a Committee on Identifying the Needs of
the Forensic Sciences Community within the National
Research Council to fulfil its Congressional charter.
This Committee held several open meetings where they
heard presentations from forensic science organizations,
standards organizations, medical examiners,
government and private forensic science laboratories,
legal scholars, cognitive scientists, and other interested
parties [1].
In response to the Report, the U.S. National Science and
Technology Council chartered the Subcommittee on
Forensic Science to “advise and assist … the Executive
Office of the President on policies, procedures and
plans related to forensic science” with emphasis on
“enhancing the validity and reliability” of forensic
science, the adoption of best practices, and

AES 39th International Conference, Hillerød, Denmark, 2010 June 17–19

Piper, et al.
“improv[ing] research, training and education,
accreditation and certification, protocol testing, methods
development, scientific validation, uncertainty
measurement, standards, uniformity of forensic science
terminology and reporting” [6].
1.1 SWGDE’s Response
SWGDE is one of many Scientific Working Groups
(SWGs) established by the FBI Laboratory [7] whose
members are comprised primarily of U.S. law
enforcement laboratories. The mission of SWGDE is to
bring together organizations actively engaged in the
field of digital and multimedia evidence to ensure
quality and consistency throughout the digital forensic
community [8].
In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
[9], Judge Harry Edwards, co-chair of the NRC
Committee that assembled the Report, specifically
criticised the Scientific Working Groups as a whole for
producing guidelines that are too vague to be of
practical use, for their standards not being enforced by
any law or regulation, failing to measure the impact of
their guidelines on or endorsement by the community.
The Report identified three holdover challenges for
“digital and multimedia evidence:” [1]
1. The community does not have an agreed
certification program or list of qualifications for
digital forensic examiners.
2. Some agencies still treat the examination of
digital evidence as an investigative rather than a
forensic activity,
3. There is wide variability in and uncertainty about
the education, experience, and training of those
practicing this discipline.
At this time it is not clear whether policy action will
take place first within the executive branch or legislative
branch of government, but action is likely coming
[10][11]. Already, the Report has been cited within the
judiciary [12]. Regardless, SWGDE took this less as a
criticism, but more as a call to action.
After the Report was released, SWGDE created an ad
hoc committee to discuss and formulate a position on
each recommendation that reflected both the current
state of the digital and multimedia evidence discipline
and what could be done to improve the discipline as a
whole [2]. Subsequent to forming this position,
SWGDE is reviewing all aspects of the discipline to
determine where minimum community standards should
be established and where best practices can be defined.
These minimum requirements will be proposed as
standards to be adopted by forensic laboratory
accrediting bodies. The Audio Committee within
SWGDE has already published best practices [13] for
general forensic audio laboratory operations (presented
AES 39th International Conference, Hillerød, Denmark, 2010 June 17–19
Forensic Audio Standards
at the previous AES forensic audio conference [14]) and
continuously seeks comments for their improvement.
2 THE RECOMMENDATIONS
Readers are encouraged to read the whole Report
wherein detailed justifications for its thirteen
recommendations are presented. Those most directly
impacting forensic audio are summarized below along
with our ideas to address each issue from an audio
community perspective. These topics are intended to
seed an open discussion at this conference.
2.1 New Federal Oversight Agency
The primary recommendation is to form an independent
federal level organization to establish and enforce best
practices; establish standards for mandatory
accreditation of laboratories and mandatory certification
of forensic scientists; promote scholarly, competitive
peer-reviewed research; oversee education standards
and the accreditation of forensic science programs in
colleges and universities to advance the credibility and
reliability of the discipline; improve understanding of
the discipline and its limitations within legal systems;
and assess the development and introduction of new
technologies in forensic investigations, including a
comparison of new technologies with former ones.
While this may be specific to the U.S., SWGDE would
be interested to learn the pros and cons of the different
oversight structures in other countries, for example, the
role of ENFSI in Europe and the role of NIFS in
Australia, and how they apply to government and
private laboratories.
2.2 Standardized Terminology and Reporting
The Report states, “[D]espite the lack of a statistical
foundation, examiners make probabilistic claims based
on their experience. A statistical framework that allows
quantification of these claims is greatly needed. These
disciplines also critically need to standardize and clarify
the terminology used in reporting and testifying about
the results and in providing more information.” It also
calls for “rigorous protocols for performing subjective
interpretations.” Judge Edwards testified to the
misleading uses of the word “match” in forensic science
testimony. To standardize this terminology, the Report
recommends that model reports specifying the
minimum information to be included be established and
standardized for each discipline and that their use be a
requirement for laboratory accreditation.
Terminology used in forensic audio derives from
physical acoustics, audio engineering, signal
processing, general forensic science, and testing
laboratories. Published dictionaries and glossaries can
be found within AES [15], SWGDE [16], IEEE
Piper, et al.
[17][18], ANSI [19], and ASTM [20]. A common
vernacular among forensic audio practitioners would
likely draw upon all of these sources. Convergence of
terms toward those commonly accepted in industry
could make forensic audio problems more readily
accessible to the general research community. What
would be required of a standardized framework for
interpreting and reporting the results of authentication
testing and the opinions developed there from? Would
standard descriptions of signal quality and intelligibility
levels, such as the speech intelligibility index [21] be
useful for customers to evaluate enhancement exams?
2.3 Validation
The Report insists upon research to establish “the
scientific bases demonstrating the validity of forensic
methods” and to establish quantifiable measures and
limits of accuracy, reliability, and uncertainty and the
conditions under which those measures and limits apply.
The Report notes a “noticeable dearth” of such peer-
reviewed research studies. As others have noted [22],
these methods are not necessarily unreliable, but the
reliability has not been verified either by statistical
models or by consistent data on error rates. The Report
devotes all of Chapter 4 (“The Principles of Science”) to
describing proper scientific validation studies. It
defines the “most important outcomes from such a
validation study are (1) information about whether or
not the method can discriminate the hypothesis from an
alternative, and (2) assessments of the sources of errors
and their consequences on the decisions returned by the
method.” It goes on to cite the validation criteria in
ISO/IEC 17025 [23] and defines as a critical step
publication in a peer-reviewed journal with detail
sufficient that an independent laboratory can replicate
the results. The second section of the chapter describes
the importance of defining uncertainty and error, and
modelling the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and
negative predictive values of a technique. The final
section describes how sources of bias manifest
themselves in human judgment, such as ignoring
typicality data, and that “[t]he goal is to make scientific
investigations as objective as possible so the results do
not depend on the investigator.” These practices
parallel those in the guidelines put forth by ILAC [24]
and ENFSI [25].
The first questions to ask are what methods are being
employed within forensic audio, and have those
methods been validated to the standards set in the
Report? If so, where is the scientific data published?
There is a distinction between engineering practices
used to enhance an audio recording, where no opinions
or interpretations of the data are offered, and more
rigorous scientific practices that are required to form a
reliable opinion as to the authenticity of a recording.
AES 39th International Conference, Hillerød, Denmark, 2010 June 17–19
Forensic Audio Standards
AES43 [26], like many current SWG guidelines,
currently lacks the desired specificity described in the
Report. The same is true for the Koenig paper [27]
commonly cited within U.S. law enforcement as
describing the generally accepted operating procedure.
This same paper, published twenty years ago, is the
most current informative reference within AES43.
Even the seminal work of the “Watergate tapes”
investigators [28], cited in both papers, was limited to a
closed set of three recorders, all of which were available
for testing and allowing for deductive reasoning.
Typical forensic cases lack complete knowledge and
require inductive reasoning [29] on an open set.
One step required to begin to deal with this situation is
to dispel the notion that court acceptance is an indicator
of scientific validation [1][30][31] and bring “forensic”
science practices in line with those in the general
scientific community. Some points to consider
concerning standards of validation in forensic audio:
• Is the existing body of research sufficient to justify
conclusions being made in the field?
• Of the research being cited to justify current
methodologies, how much of it has been
reproduced by independent labs?
• Should validation require testing by independent
laboratories, i.e., ones outside of forensics that have
no interest in using the tool operationally?
• Have techniques that predate the validation criteria
in ISO/IEC 17025, ILAC, and ENFSI been
validated to these criteria?
• Can the reliability of current techniques be
quantifiably measured? Can the uncertainty of
current techniques be quantifiably measured? Are
examiners reporting that reliability and uncertainty
with their results?
• Should opinions and interpretations in forensic
audio move away from “expert” opinions subject to
bias and toward statistical reporting of results, such
as likelihood ratios [29][30][32]? Obviously
computing a likelihood ratio requires the evaluation
of competing hypotheses. This could require large-
scale typicality studies testing variables on known
data sets. If those studies are lacking, how should
we as a community publicly acknowledge the
limitations of our accepted practices?
• Do we need to create or identify standardized
known reference collections to make validation test
results comparable?
• Like the paternity testing market with DNA, is
there a commercial interest that can be leveraged to
advance the state of forensic audio?
SWGDE is considering compiling a “sourcebook” of
relevant material in the existing literature upon which to
base best practices and minimum “standards.” This can
Piper, et al.
also serve to identify research needed to resolve
unanswered questions. We propose to begin with basic
test methods to see if they can be codified and
standardized, and from there, develop standard
protocols for choosing test methods and interpreting
results.
A good example for discussing validation is electric
network frequency (ENF) analysis. There have been a
couple papers suggesting ENF test methods [33][34],
but they differ in their approach and are applied to a
single grid. North America has four major
interconnected grids each potentially with its own
performance characteristics. SWGDE currently
maintains a discussion paper on ENF [35] cataloguing
these issues to benefit potential researchers. Could a
standard methodology be developed that could be
applied to any grid? Could standard test methods be
developed and agreed upon for the extraction of ENF
from a recording, the recording of reference databases,
and the comparison of one to the other? Would the
adoption of standard methods accelerate research to
better the technique because the data would be quality
controlled and therefore easier to cross-reference? For
the development of acceptable practices and standards,
how much testing is enough? And should minimum
standards be established for subjective processes like
enhancement?
2.4 Context Bias
The Report encourages research into sources and
quantifiable levels of human bias and error in forensic
examinations including to what extent results of
analysis are influenced by knowledge of case details
unrelated to the measurements being made. It
recommends standard operating procedures be
developed to minimize potentially biasing sources of
information.
Has any research been done on these effects in forensic
audio analysis? Does anyone currently have these
provisions written in their procedures?
2.5 Collaboration, Tool and Protocol Development
The Report calls for collaboration between NIST (the
U.S national standards body), the SWGs, government
labs, private labs, and universities to “develop tools for
advancing measurement, validation, reliability,
information sharing, and proficiency testing” and “to
establish protocols for forensic examinations, methods,
and practices. Standards should reflect best practices
and serve as accreditation tools for laboratories and as
guides for the education, training, and certification of
professionals.”
AES 39th International Conference, Hillerød, Denmark, 2010 June 17–19
Forensic Audio Standards
Collaboration is at the heart of this presentation. With
this being the third AES conference dedicated to
forensic audio, clearly the idea of collaboration is not
limited to the authors of the Report. If any
recommendation SWGDE puts forward is sufficient to
gain traction as a U.S. standard, it will likely reflect the
values of the international forensic audio community as
well. We’ve discussed validation above, which is an
integral part of developing tools that advance the state
of technology relevant to the discipline. Another key
point mentioned in this recommendation is proficiency
testing.
Presumably a forensic audio examiner should be
periodically tested on the tasks being performed.
Certainly those tasks that result in an expert opinion for
a legal proceeding should be tested, but what about
enhancement? How should proficiency be tested? How
should the content of the test be determined? How
should the structure and evaluation of the test be
determined? How shall tests themselves be validated –
by what principles and to what standard? ENFSI offers
general guidance on administering proficiency tests
[36], and has administered two proficiency tests for
authentication [37], but these tests were evaluative and
ENFSI has not yet issued minimum testing guidelines
suitable for standardization.
2.6 Mandatory Accreditation, Certification and
Quality Assurance
The Report states, “Forensic laboratories should
establish routine quality assurance and quality control
procedures to ensure the accuracy of forensic analyses
and the work of forensic practitioners.” It also suggests
that accreditation of laboratories and certification of
examiners be mandatory, and that standards for such
should be enforced through disciplinary procedures. It
states “No person (public or private) should be allowed
to practice in a forensic science discipline or testify as a
forensic science professional without certification.
Certification requirements should include, at a
minimum, written examinations, supervised practice,
proficiency testing, continuing education, recertification
procedures, adherence to a code of ethics, and effective
disciplinary procedures.”
SWGDE has expressed caution [2] at making
accreditation mandatory due to the personnel and
financial burdens it imposes, but endorses a robust,
written quality assurance program [38]. To date, other
than general laboratory accreditation under ISO/IEC
17025, is there an accreditation program available
suitable for forensic audio examination? To what
standards should labs be accredited and to what
categories of testing should it apply? What would the
Piper, et al.
impact of mandatory accreditation be on smaller
laboratories?
Similar questions can be asked about mandatory
certification. If certification is mandatory, does that not
imply it be consistent for all examiners? Where should
this be developed and how should it be administered?
Should the certification program itself be accredited to
some testing standard? SWGDE offers some basic
criteria that any such certification should meet [2], but
the content of such a program should be consistent with
education standards for the discipline which are also not
yet defined. How should accreditation and certification
be enforced (if at all), through licensing or through the
courts?
2.7 Ethics
The Report also calls for a unification of codes of ethics
across all disciplines and forensic science societies,
recommending enforcement through the certification
process.
2.8 Education
To generate university graduates suitable for forensic
sciences, the Report urges the development of
interdisciplinary graduate programs focused on forensic
science related fields with emphasis on developing and
improving research methods and methodologies
applicable to forensic science practice.
The Audio Committee within SWGDE is currently
drafting comprehensive recommendations for training
and education in forensic audio by identifying the core
competencies needed for each process in a forensic
audio lab. Once identified, these core competencies will
serve as the backbone for any recommended training
program, proficiency testing program, and certification
process.
3 DISCUSSION
The Report calls for standardization of operating
procedures to make measurable and maximize reliability
and minimize both bias and sources of human error.
Some aspects of forensic audio analysis may be best
served by adopting uniform test methods and uniform
interpretation protocols to guarantee reliable,
comparable results. For others there may be a set of
multiple acceptable practices each with its own
measurable reliability under defined circumstances.
Still others might not be suitable for standardization at
all. One of our primary concerns is that the
methodologies employed in forensic audio analysis be
scientifically valid. SWGDE intends to identify
shortcomings within the forensic audio community and
facilitate their solutions. As the U.S. government
response takes form, research funding may be allocated
AES 39th International Conference, Hillerød, Denmark, 2010 June 17–19
Forensic Audio Standards
toward fulfilling the recommendations of the Report,
but the competition for such funding will be great.
SWGDE is attempting to position itself to influence
funding decisions toward problems recognized as most
valuable to the forensic audio community as whole. To
achieve this, we intend to create comprehensive
recommendations based on international collaboration
among SWGDE, AES, ENFSI, and other interested
parties. While some of the recommendations in the
Report focus on law and policy issues specific to the
U.S., others apply to the forensic community as a
whole.
We look to our colleagues at this conference for
assistance in this task and have posed many questions to
further our field. Do you agree with some or all of the
recommendations? If funding were available to realize
them, would you support (some of) them? If so, why?
If not, why not? SWGDE encourages comments on this
presentation as well as our “Best Practices for Forensic
Audio” document. Ideas and remarks can be sent to
audio@swgde.us.
4 REFERENCES
[1] Committee on Identifying the Needs of the
Forensic Sciences Community, National
Research Council (U.S.), “Strengthening
Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
Forward”, The National Academies Press
(2009),
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=125
89. Also available from the U.S. Department of
Justice at
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/22809
1.pdf. The Executive Summary of the report is
available for free at http://www.nap.edu/nap-
cgi/report.cgi?record_id=12589&type=pdfxsum
[2] Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence,
“Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence
(SWGDE) Position on the National Research
Council Report to Congress Strengthening
Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
Forward” (2009),
http://www.swgde.org/documents/swgde2009/P
osition on the National Research Council
Report to Congress.pdf.
[3] Consortium of Forensic Sciences Organizations
(CFSO), Press release, 2009 February 17,
http://www.thecfso.org/news/press_releases/20
090217_nsa_study.pdf.
[4] CFSO Advocacy web page, accessed 2010
March 11, http://www.thecfso.org/advocacy.
Piper, et al. Forensic Audio Standards

[5] R. J. Garrett, President of the International [13] Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence,
Association for Identification (IAI), Letter to “SWGDE Best Practices for Forensic Audio,”
IAI members, 2009 February 19. http://www.swgde.org/documents/swgde2008/S
http://www.theiai.org/current_affairs/nas_memo WGDEBestPracticesforForensicAudioV1.0.pdf
_20090219.pdf. (2008).

[6] Charter of the Subcommittee on Forensic [14] M. Piper and D. Hallimore, “SWGDE Best
Science, Committee on Science, National Practices for Forensic Audio”, presented at the
Science and Technology Council, Office of AES 33rd International Conference: Audio
Science and Technology Policy, Executive Forensics—Theory and Practice, Denver, CO,
Office of the President, USA, 2008 June 5–7.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/m
icrosites/ostp/forensic-science-subcommittee- [15] AES27-1996 (r2007), “AES recommended
charter.pdf. practice for forensic purposes – Managing
recorded audio materials intended for
[7] D. E. Adams and K. L. Lothridge, “Scientific examination.”
Working Groups”, Forensic Science
Communications, Vol. 3, No. 3 (2000). [16] Scientific Working Groups on Digital Evidence
and Imaging Technology, “SWGDE and
[8] Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence SWGIT Digital & Multimedia Evidence
By-Laws, Article I, Section 2 (2008). Glossary,”
http://www.swgde.org/documents/swgde2008/S
[9] Statement of the Hon. Harry T. Edwards, Senior WGDE_SWGITGlossaryV2.2.pdf (2007).
Circuit Judge and Chief Judge Emeritus, United
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and [17] IEEE Standards Information Network, IEEE
Co-Chair, Committee on Identifying the Needs Standards Dictionary: Glossary of Terms &
of the Forensic Science Community, The Definitions, ISBN 978-0-7381-5739-9 (CD-
Research Council of the National Academies, ROM).
before the United States Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, March 18, 2009, [18] IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/09-03- IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Ed. (CD-
18EdwardsTestimony.pdf. Webcast at ROM), ISBN 978-0-7381-4903-5 (2006).
http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/judiciary031
82009-1000.ram. Full hearing webpage at [19] ANSI S1.1-1994 (R2004) “Acoustical
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm Terminology.”
?id=3714.
[20] ASTM E 1732-96a (Reapproved 2005)
[10] Hearing: “The Need to Strengthen Forensic “Standard Terminology Relating to Forensic
Science in the United States: The National Science”.
Academy of Science's Report on a Path
Forward”, United States Senate, Committee on [21] ANSI S3.5-1997 (R2007) “Methods for the
the Judiciary, 2009 March 18, Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index.”
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm
?id=3714. [22] D. Kennedy, “Forensic Science: Oxymoron?”
editorial, Science, vol. 302, 5 December 2003,
[11] Hearing: “Strengthening Forensic Science in the p. 1625.
United States”, United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary, 2009 September 9, [23] ISO/IEC 17025:2005 “Accreditation of testing
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm and measurement laboratories.”
?id=4038.
[24] ILAC G-19:2002, “Guidelines for Forensic
[12] Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. Science Laboratories.”
2527 (2009).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07- [25] ENFSI QCC-VAL-001, “Validation and
591.ZO.html Implementation of (New) Methods” (2006).

AES 39th International Conference, Hillerød, Denmark, 2010 June 17–19

Piper, et al.
[26] AES43-2000 (r2005), “AES standard for
forensic purposes – Criteria for the
authentication of analog audio tape recordings.”
[27] B. E. Koenig, “Authentication of Forensic
Audio Recordings,” Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society vol. 38, no. 1/2, pp. 3-33
(1990).
[28] R. H. Bolt, F. S. Cooper, J. L. Flanagan, J. G.
McKnight, T. G. Stockham, Jr., and M. R.
Weiss, “Report on a Technical Investigation
Conducted for the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia by the Advisory Panel on
White House Tapes," U. S. Government
Printing Office (1974).
[29] G. Jackson, S. Jones, G. Booth, C. Champod,
and I. W. Evett, “The Nature of Forensic
Science Opinion,” Science & Justice, vol.46,
no. 1, pp. 35-44 (2006).
[30] I. Evett, “Evaluation and Professionalism,”
Science and Justice, vol. 49, pp. 159-160
(2009).
[31] D. M. Risinger, “The NAS/NRC Report on
Forensic Science: A Path Forward Fraught with
Pitfalls,” Utah Law Review (forthcoming),
January 15, 2010. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1537038.
[32] G. S. Morrison, “Forensic Voice Comparison
and the Paradigm Shift,” Science and Justice,
vol. 49, pp.298-308 (2009).
AES 39th International Conference, Hillerød, Denmark, 2010 June 17–19
Forensic Audio Standards
[33] C. Grigoras, “Applications of ENF Analysis in
Forensic Authentication of Digital Audio and
Video Recordings,” Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, vol. 57, no. 9, pp.6-660
(2009).
[34] A. J. Cooper, “The Electric Network Frequency
(ENF) as an Aid to Authenticating Forensic
Digital Audio Recordings—An Automated
Approach,” presented at the AES 33rd
International Conference: Audio Forensics—
Theory and Practice, Denver, CO, USA, 2008
June 5–7.
[35] Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence,
“ENF Discussion Paper,”
http://www.swgde.org/documents/swgde2009/S
WGDE_ENF_Discussion_Paper_v1.1.pdf
(2009).
[36] ENFSI QCC-PT-001, “Guidance on the
Conduct of Proficiency Tests and Collaborative
Exercises Within ENFSI,” 2005 February 18.
[37] “Final report of the first Proficiency Test for
Authentication of Analogue Audio Tape
Recordings” (draft), September/December
2003. Provided by ENFSI FSAAWG.
[38] Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence,
“Recommended Guidelines for Developing a
Quality Management System,”
http://www.swgde.org/documents/swgde2006/S
WGDE%20Recommended%20Guidelines%20f
or%20Developing%20a%20Quality%20Manag
ement%20System.pdf (2006).