“Preparatory communication”

A useful concept stemming from the Clarus research is this idea of “preparatory communication”. This is the informal discussion that takes place before a formal process is completed.

For example, an investigator might contact an analyst to ask what can realistically be requested from a device, what timeframe makes sense, or which questions would be too broad.

Analysts may also discuss results with one another so they can agree how best to present findings clearly and accurately in a formal report.

In some settings this is more institutionalised than in others, but across the research it appears as an important way of making the formal process workable.

Familiarity and informal networks

Clarus also found that familiarity matters. Practitioners often turn to people they know and trust when they need quick advice or clarification. This may be because they:

• have worked together before
• are physically close by
• know that someone has useful expertise

These informal networks can be helpful, but they can also create shadow routes of communication alongside the formal workflow.

That is one reason the recommendations from the Clarus project to practitioners is around retaining the benefits of informal communication while improving traceability and documentation.

Communication across borders

Cross-border communication adds another layer. Digital crime and digital evidence often cross national boundaries, which means practitioners may need to communicate with other jurisdictions, service providers, and agencies using different procedures and languages.

Here, the risks include:

• translation problems
• inconsistent terminology
• delays caused by different systems and expectations

Clarus highlights these issues not to suggest that communication is failing internationally, but to show that it is a working part of the system that needs support, structure, and shared understanding.

Move to the next page by clicking the arrow on the top right to move to the next page in this section.