Search results

The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes toward European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology.

This round of Eurobarometer surveys covers the following special topics: (1) helplines for social services, (2) railway competition, (3) food production and quality, and (4) cyber security. Questions in this survey address the respondent's usage, knowledge, and opinions of telephone hotlines and helplines for services of social value. Other questions pertain to the respondent's usage and opinions of the current railway system, as well as their opinions about the effects of additional competition in the rail market. Respondents were asked for their opinions concerning food supply, production, and quality. Additional questions focused on the respondent's usage of the Internet and their concerns regarding cybercrimes.

Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, marital status and parental relations, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, ownership of a fixed or mobile telephone and other goods, difficulties in paying bills, level in society, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).

This study investigated the use and value of digital evidence (DE) to create an evidence base for more efficient and effective DE management and processing. Researchers aimed to assess existing laboratory protocols and better understand the scientific rationale underpinning existing laboratory processes with the ultimate goal of assisting law enforcement agencies and crime laboratories in eliminating backlogs, optimizing available resources, and decreasing justice delays. The data deposited with ICPSR include the Crime Laboratories Survey Data, which describe the processes used by crime laboratories to manage and analyze DE, and the Law Enforcement Agencies Survey Data, which includes information on methods and processes for DE seizure, management, and analysis, and data about coordination between law enforcement agencies and associated crime laboratories.

Despite the critical information security issues faced by academic institutions, little research has been conducted at the policy, practice, or theoretical levels to address these issues, and few policies or cost-effective controls have been developed. The purpose of this research study was three-fold: (1) to create an empirically-based profile of issues and approaches, (2) to develop a practical road map for policy and practice, and (3) to advance the knowledge, policy, and practice of academic institutions, law enforcement, government, and researchers. The study design incorporated three methods of data collection: a quantitative field survey, qualitative one-on-one interviews, and an empirical assessment of the institutions' network activity.

Survey data collection involved simple random sampling of 600 academic institutions from the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database, recruitment via postcard, telephone, and email, Web-based survey administration, and three follow-ups. Results are contained in Part 1, Quantitative Field Survey Data. Interview data collection involved selecting a sample size of 15 institutions through a combination of simple random and convenience sampling, recruitment via telephone and email, and face-to-face or telephone interviews. Results are contained in Part 2, Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data. Network analysis data collection involved convenience sampling of two academic institutions, recruitment via telephone and email, installing Higher Education Network Analysis (HENA) on participants' systems, and six months of data collection. Results are in Part 3, Subject 1 Network Analysis Data, and Part 4, Subject 2 Network Analysis Data.

The Quantitative Field Survey Data (Part 1) contains 19 variables on characteristics of institutions that participated in the survey component of this study, as well as 263 variables derived from responses to the Information Security in Academic Institutions Survey, which was organized into five sections: Environment, Policy, Information Security Controls, Information Security Challenges, and Resources. The Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data (Part 2) contains qualitative responses to a combination of closed-response and open-response formats. The data are divided into the following seven sections: Environment, Institution's Potential Vulnerability, Institution's Potential Threat, Information Value and Sharing, End Users, Countermeasures, and Insights. Data collected through the empirical analysis of network activity (Part 3 and Part 4) include type and protocol of attack, source and destination information, and geographic location.

The Pilot Study of State and Federal Digital Evidence Laboratories data collection contains data collected in 2015 as part of the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). The CPFFCL examined the forensic services provided by publicly funded crime labs across the nation and the resources devoted to completing the work.

To capture more information about an emerging forensic science discipline known as digital evidence, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) expanded the scope of the 2014 CPFFCL from previous data collections to include a separate pilot study of state and federal agencies that solely analyzed digital evidence in support of criminal investigations and prosecutions. These agencies obtained digital and multimedia evidence in various formats, including audio, video, and graphical images from computers, cell phones, cameras, and other electronic devices. The traditional CPFFCL definition of a crime lab limited the information collected about digital evidence since some agencies only handle this type of evidence and employ forensic experts with training in computer science or information technology as opposed to natural sciences such as chemistry and biology.

The census collected detailed information on laboratory staff, budgets, workloads, and backlogs in requests for forensic services. The census also provides data on lab accreditations, proficiency tests, and other quality assurances.