Archive for the ‘forensic science’ Category

Call for Chapters-Vargas Martin et al. "Technology for Facilitating Humanity and Combating Social Deviations: Interdisciplinary Perspectives"

October 18, 2009


Full Chapters Due: 11/2/2009

Technology for Facilitating Humanity and Combating Social Deviations:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives 

A book edited by Miguel Vargas Martin (University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada), Miguel A. Garcia-Ruiz (University of Ontario Institute of Technology, and University of Colima, Mexico) and Arthur Edwards (University of Colima)

 Dealing with disgraceful and unethical uses of the Internet and computers as storage devices and communication tools, used to facilitate the perpetration of crimes against humans, animals, and the environment, including racism, cyber-bulling, illegal pornography, torture, illegal trade of exotic species, irresponsible waste disposal, and other harmful aberrations of human behavior, requires the “coming together” of science, technology, and social knowledge, among others, working in an interdisciplinary fashion. This book will be comprised of new perspectives from top researchers and practitioners around the world discussing topics such as: how computing can support prevention, mitigation, and elimination of social deviations with the help of computer science and technology in general, and how technical developments can drive novel ways of dealing with social problems. Technology for Facilitating Humanity and Combating Social Deviations: Interdisciplinary Perspectives will comprise a comprehensive –yet specialized– state-of-the-art compendium of research and development in socio-technical approaches.

Objective of the Book
This book will provide the rationale, state-of-the-art studies, proof-of-concepts, experimental studies, and future perspectives on the use of computing tools to prevent and deal with the problems of humanity deviations.

Target Audience
The target audience of this book will be composed of professionals and researchers working in the fields of computer science, as well as students, teachers, instructors, and academics from other related areas, lawyers, people involved in law enforcement and/or humanitarian societies such as Red Cross/Red Half Moon, United Nations, etc.

Recommended Topics
This book will include (but will not be limited to) the following topics on the use of computing for preventing and attacking the physical, psychological and social problems of:

People trafficking
Organ trafficking
Hate propagation
Illegal pornography, including pedophilia and child exploitation
Use of the Internet as a facilitator of kidnappings
Torture broadcasting
Violence against women and children
Violence related to gender or sexual orientation
Violence against disabled persons
Unhealthy life choices
Environmental crimes
Animal cruelty

The book will include a suitable balance of science and technology with ethical, moral, and legal issues on using computing for preventing and attacking humanity deviations. The book seeks to include works from the following computing areas:

Computer networks
Computer security
Digital forensics
Software engineering
Human-computer interaction
Mobile and ubiquitous computing
Social computing
Artificial intelligence
Information technology
Computer electronics

Submission Procedure
Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit on or before November 2, 2009 a full chapter submission of 7,000 to 10,000 words. Please contact the editors for full chapter submission guidelines. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-blind review basis. Additional information regarding this publication can also be found at:

This book is scheduled to be published by IGI Global (formerly Idea Group Inc.), publisher of the “Information Science Reference” (formerly Idea Group Reference), “Medical Information Science Reference” and “IGI Publishing” imprints. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit This publication is anticipated to be released in late 2010.

Important Dates
November 2, 2009: Full Chapter Submission
December 15, 2009: Review Results Returned
February 28, 2010: Final Chapter Submission

Editorial Advisory Board Members
Dr. Raul Aquino-Santos, University of Colima, Mexico
Prof. Michael E. Auer, Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Villach, Austria
Dr. Walter S. DeKeseredy, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada
Prof. Dr. Samir Abou El-Seoud, The King Hussein School for Information Technology, Jordan
Dr. Alberto L. Moran, Autonomous University of Baja California (UABC), Mexico
Dr. Patrik Olsson, UOIT- University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada
Prof. Dr. Doru Ursutiu, University “Transilvania” of Brasov, Romania
Dr. Aurora Vizcaino-Barcelo, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
Prof. Jihad M. Alja’am, Qatar University, Qatar

Inquiries and submissions can be forwarded electronically (Word document) or by mail to:

Miguel Vargas Martin, BSc, MEng, PhD, PEng
Associate Professor
Faculty of Business and Information Technology
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, ON. L1H 7K4, Canada
P: 905-721-8668 ext. 2834, Fax: 905-721-3167

Miguel A. Garcia-Ruiz, BEng, MSc, PhD
Visiting Professor, Faculty of Business and IT,
University of Ontario Institute of Technology,
2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada L1H 7K4
P. 905 721 8668 ext. 2885, Fax: 905-721-3167

Arthur Edwards, MSc
Professor, College of Telematics
University of Colima
Ave. Universidad 333, Colima, 28040, Mexico
P./fax: +52(312)3161075

Junk Science Redux: Judges as Evidentiary Gate-Keepers

August 20, 2009
One of the key functions of judges is to act as gate-keepers in deciding upon the admissibility of expert evidence. In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (the “Daubert standard”) held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the “general acceptance” test established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. In R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court of Canada set out a four-factor test to determine admissibility of expert evidence: (1) relevance; 2) necessity in assisting the trier of fact; (3) the absence of any exclusionary rule; and (4) a properly qualified expert.
In a new article, D. Michael Risinger (Seton Hall University School of Law), “The NAS Report on Forensic Science: A Glass Nine-Tenths Full (This is About the Other Tenth)” provides an incisive critique and advocates the use of masking and sequential unmasking protocols in forensic science practice. Here is the abstract:
The NAS Committee Report, STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES, issued in February of 2009, was a milestone in the decades-long struggle to get those who control the production and utilization of forensic science expertise to admit the various weaknesses of some of the techniques involved, and to take steps to strengthen the reliability of those techniques and their products. The NAS Committee Report is in some ways the culmination of those efforts, and has made it now untenable to dismiss criticisms as simply the cavils of uninformed academics with nothing better to do.
In this sense the report is a glass nine-tenths full, and is to be celebrated as such. But then there is the other tenth, the tenth that may, as an unintended consequence, delay needed reform significantly and unnecessarily. The most significant part of this unwise tenth is the decision not to push strongly for the immediate adoption of masking and sequential unmasking protocols in forensic science practice, but instead to call for “more research” on the issue in advance of moving forward.
This paper explains in detail why the “await more research” approach is misguided. 
Further reading:
Todd L. Archibald and Heather L. Davies, “Law, Science and Advocacy: Moving Towards a Better Understanding of Expert Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom”, in Annual Review of Civil Litigation, 2006, Justices Archibald and Echlin (Eds.) (Toronto, Canada: Thomson-Carswell, 2007), at pp. 1-31.
David E. Bernstein, “Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution” (February 2007). Iowa Law Review, Forthcoming; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 07-11. Available at SSRN:
Antonin I. Pribetic

%d bloggers like this: