No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Authenticating Digital Evidence
... For example, simple frauds are often committed via Internet. The convergence between the socioeconomic life and computer technology causes digital materials to be common in everyday criminal proceedings (Granja & Rafael, 2017;Grimm et al., 2017). Law enforcement and judicial officials, as well as other legal professionals and laypeople often may not consider digital evidence to be 'complicated' or requiring 'extra care'. ...
From a forensic point of view, to preserve the evidentiary value, all digital evidence has to
be gathered, analysed, and presented following the rules established within the field of computer forensics. The actual court practice in this area has not been fully explored through empirical research. It may be hypothesised that the forensic guidelines on digital evidence handling are not entirely followed. To test such hypothesis and to weight the potential discrepancies, an empirical analysis of judicial practice in Poland has been performed (Lewulis, 2021). The principles of computer forensics are not always followed. Forensic procedures are often skipped, especially in technically uncomplicated cases which does not necessarily constitute a threat to individual rights and the good of justice. This is contrary to traditionally formulated forensic requirements regarding the use of digital evidence, but often it does speed up the proceedings.
Niniejsze opracowanie zawiera opis wyników wstępnego
badania ankietowego, przeprowadzonego w styczniu 2021 r. wśród przedstawicieli
części zawodów prawniczych. Celem badania było określenie skali
występowania, źródeł, rodzajów, znaczenia i form prezentacji treści z mediów
społecznościowych prezentowanych w postępowaniach sądowych w charakterze
materiału dowodowego. Omówione zostały wyniki ilościowej analizy odpowiedzi
respondentów odnoszących się do spraw cywilnych
ნაშრომი ეხება ისეთ აქტუალურ საკითხს, როგორიცაა კომპიუტერული მონაცემი და მისი გამოყენება სისხლის სამართლის პროცესში. მოცემულობას, რომელიც სრულებით განსხვავდება ტრადიციული მტკიცებულებისგან და მისი სპეციფიკური და ტექნიკური მახასიათებლებიდან გამომდინარე, მნიშვნელოვან გამოწვევად იქცა იურიდიული საზოგადოებისათვის. რთული აღმოჩნდა მისი შინაარსობრივი მხარის გაგება, მატერიალურ და ელექტრონულ დოკუმენტს შორის არსებული სხვაობის წარმოჩენა და ელექტრონული სახით არსებული ინფორმაციის ავთენტურობის განსაზღვრა. შესაბამისად, ნაშრომის მიზანს კომპიუტერული მონაცემის შინაარსობრივი მხარის კვლევა, მისთვის დამახასიათებელი ნიშან-თვისებების წარმოჩენა და მისი ავთენტურობის დადგენისთვის აუცილებელი წინაპირობების განსაზღვრა წარმოადგენს.
Artykuł porusza problematykę pozyskiwania przez polskie organy ścigania danych z Facebooka, Twittera oraz Instagrama, zarówno w drodze bezpośredniego kontaktu z danym usługodawcą, z wykorzystaniem instrumentów międzynarodowej pomocy prawnej, jak i w drodze czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawczych. Zakres artykułu został zawężony do pozyskiwania danych pochodzących z terenu Unii Europejskiej. Autorzy opisują podstawy prawne przetwarzania danych osobowych przez usługodawców, dokonywania przez funkcjonariuszy Policji czynności białowywiadowczych w mediach społecznościowych, proces pozyskiwania danych z social media na podstawie regulaminów wewnętrznych usługodawców, a także przepisy polskie, unijne oraz irlandzkie. Autorzy sygnalizują potrzebę prowadzenia dalszych badań w zakresie wykorzystania mediów społecznościowych w pracy organów ścigania, wydanie przez Komendanta Głównego Policji wytycznych co do sposobu sięgania do mediów społecznościowych, a także przeprowadzenie odpowiednich szkoleń dla funkcjonariuszy. Ponadto artykuł zwraca uwagę na złożony proceduralnie proces pozyskiwania danych od usługodawców z wykorzystaniem instrumentów międzynarodowej pomocy prawnej. Autorzy postulują w tym zakresie rozważenie zawarcia przez Polskę odpowiednich umów bilateralnych z państwami, w których swoje siedziby mają usługodawcy, opartych na wskazanych w artykule dostępnych rozwiązaniach prawnych.
The increasing use of digital technologies in judicial and arbitration proceedings increases the usage of digital evidence by the parties, which brings the necessity of creating patterns for adjudicators to admit and assess this new type of evidence. This paper generally addresses digital evidence focusing on the second moment in international arbitration proceedings. It also narrows the topic to hacked and leaked evidence and its admissibility in international arbitration. The literature review showed a significant amount of research devoted to the evidence in arbitration. Some considered electronic evidence within one jurisdiction; others focused on certain forms of digital evidence such as electronic signatures. Papers on digital evidence in international arbitration approach arbitration rules for digital evidence but skip admissibility issues. No systemic and complex works research digital evidence in arbitration, explicitly focusing on the admissibility of hacked and leaked digital evidence from a comparative perspective. Also, no research deals with enforcing international arbitration awards relying on illegally obtained digital evidence. In these cases, there could be a possible violation of domestic public policy under the New York Convention terms (art. V, 2, b). That is why the paper aims to offer the concept of digital evidence in international arbitration, including hacked and leaked evidence, criteria of its admissibility and relevance, and design the arbitration guidelines for assessing hacked and leaked evidence. Comparative legal analysis of the international arbitration rules and national procedure law allowed us to compare the regulatory approaches to the definition of digital evidence and its admissibility worldwide. The method of legal modeling allowed designing model guidelines for arbitral tribunals to evaluate the admissibility and relevance of digital evidence, including hacked and leaked evidence. Moreover, the case study method allowed us to analyze jurisprudence and define criteria for admission of hacked and leaked evidence. We conclude that the admissibility of hacked and leaked evidence depends solely on the arbitrator’s broad discretion to assess the evidence. Nevertheless, thorough evidence analysis and a well-reasoned award are always mandatory.
The attitude of law, practice and science to actively appearing sources of evidentiary information is controversial and belated. Besides some exceptions Criminal Procedure Code does not contain special rules for handling electronic information. Meanwhile evidentiary rules were formulated more than half a century ago and were principally oriented only on receiving analog information. Electronic traces and ways of displaying legally relevant information contained in them are sospecific that previous procedural forms are not usable nowadays. Procedural science develops the theory of electronic evidence on a sectoral basis. However, thecommunity of information-digital technologies which is lying in the core of impetuous growth of importance of electronic information predetermines the possibility of producing consolidated intersectoral rules. Examples of foreign science show the success of this approach. Criminally-remedial practice uses only sourcesby which you can get paper analogs or conduct an examination while proving. The extension of traditional inspection, seizure, search and examination to electronic information lowers its efficiency and does not provide a regime of secrets protected by law. A huge layer of electronic information remains outside the procedural proof. Its real value is confirmed by its use in law enforcement intelligence-gathering activities. Defensive side in criminal proceedings is deprived of even a few evidentiary opportunities in relation to digital information. Civil, Arbitral, Administrative proceedings are more open to recent evidences. Equal rights of the contestants contribute to the development of electronic evidence. A criminal procedure with a monopoly of the prosecution on it strengthens the accusatory bias and impoverishes the proof as a whole. A further spread in the share of electronic evidence in criminal procedural proving requires a change in approaches to it, a rejection of the exclusively classical rules for dealing with them, the extension of civilistic approaches to the relevant activities of the defense.
Keperluan dalam memastikan kebolehgunaan dan kebolehpercayaan dokwnen digital di mahkamah merupakan salah satu penentu kebolehterimaan dokumen digital sebagai kaedah pembuktian di mahkamah. Oleh itu, bagi mengekalkan keasliannya, dokumen digital perlu dinilai secara betul dengan mengglmakan prosedur khusus supaya bukti tersebut terlindung daripada diceroboh dan diubah lantas memastikan ia diterima sebagai bukti, khususnya di mahkamah sivil. Waiau bagaimanapun, masih tiada kajian yang membincangkan aspek keperluan prosedur operasi standard (SOP) dalam kebolehterimaan dokumen digital di mahkamah sivil walaupun secara umumnya mahkamah sivil telah pun mengguna pakai dokumen digital sebagai bukti seja.k tahun 1950-an. Oleh itu, kajian inia.kan membincangkan kedudukan dokumen digital di mahkamah sivil, enakmen, dan peruntukan berkaitan penggunaannya serta SOP untuk. mengguna.kan dokumen digital sebagai bukti khususnya di mahkamah sivil. K.ajian ini juga mengguna.kan kaedah kualitatif dengan mengumpul data daripada sumber primer dan sumber sekunder yang kemudiannya dianalisis mengguna.kan kaedah analisis kandungan. K.ajian mendapati bahawa satu SOP tentang penerimaan dokumen digital di mahkamah sivil adalah sangat penting dan sesuai dengan undang undang untuk. memastikan bahawa bukti yang dikemukakan adalah sahih dan boleh dipercayai, seperti yang digariskan oleh mahkamah. Hasil kajian ini juga menunjukkan bahawa ia boleh dijadikan sebagai rujukan oleh para hakim dan pengamal undang-undang sivil untuk. membuat pertimbangan adil terhadap isu berkaitan dengan dokumen digital sebagai salah satu bentuk. kaedah pembuktian khususnya di mahkamah sivil.
ABSTRACT
The need to ensure the usability and reliability of digital documents in court isoneofthedeterminants intheadmissibility ofdigital documents as a method of proof in court. Therefore, in order to maintain its authenticity, digital documents must be evaluated in the right way to protect evidence from being tampered with and altered through specific procedures to ensure that they can be accepted as evidence, especially in civil courts. However, there are no specific studies asyet that discuss the requirements of standard operatingprocedure (SOP) in the admissibility of digital documents in civil courts; even though generally, the civil courts have been adopting digital documents as a method ofproof since the 1950s. Thispaper examines theposition of digital documents in civil courts, the enactments and provisions relating to their use including SOPsfor the use of digital documents as evidence, particularly in civil courts. Qualitative methods were used to collect datafrom primary and secondary sources, which were then analyzed using content analysis. The results of the studyfound that SOP is important in the admissibility of digital documents by the civil courts, to verify thatproof submitted to the court is genuine and accurate in accordance with the guidelines of the court. The results also show that this study can be used as referencefor judges and civil lawpractitioners to makefair judgements on issues related to digital documents as aform ofproof method especially in civil courts.
As electronic evidence is easy to be changed, falsified or manipulated, it is necessary to ensure the authenticity of electronic evidence in order to be admitted by the courts or arbitral tribunals. This chapter seeks to analyse the method for authenticating electronic evidence. This analysis will be proceed in three steps. Firstly, it identify the requirements of authentication of electronic evidence and the general process of authenticating electronic evidence. It will then examine electronic signature as proof of the authenticity of electronic evidence and the law on electronic signature. Finally, it explains briefly the authentication of the significant electronic evidence in recent years, including: the authentication of electronic document and its printout, the authentication of emails and instant messages, the authentication of printouts or screenshots of websites, and the authentication of electronic evidence obtained from social networking sites.
The subject. The introduction of electronic technologies into management processes has led to the need to regulate the issues of the use of electronic personnel document management (further - EPDM). In the spring of 2020, Russia was conducting a legal experiment on the use of electronic documents related to work. As part of this experiment, according to the rules established by federal law, individual employers voluntarily refuse to issue certain types of personnel documents in paper form. It concerned employment contract and other contracts with an employee (on financial responsibility, apprenticeship), a vacation schedule, employee statements, as well as regulatory and organizational and administrative documents of the employer on labor (orders on admission, dismissals, penalties, etc.). The results of this experiment became the basis for the introduction of appropriate amendments to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
The main purpose of the study is to develop recommendations for improving the current labor legislation for the legalization of electronic personnel document management as part of a system of measures to achieve the maximum balance of interests of employees and employers.
The main methods of the research are the analysis and generalization of judicial practice on labor disputes related to the evaluation of electronic evidence, the practice of using electronic personnel document management by individual employers, both participating and not participating in the legal experiment conducted at the federal level.
The main results , scope of application. The preliminary results of above mentioned experiment have been summarized and an assessment of the validity and potential effectiveness of the draft law submitted to the Russian Federal Assembly has been given. The authors propose the results of a critical analysis of the interim results of the legal experiment on the introduction of EPDM. The authors demonstrate the pros and cons of electronic document management in terms of the readiness of the current legislation for it, as well as subjects of labor relations. The innovations of the prepared draft law on the introduction of a new article 22.1 to the Russian Labor Code as well as its positive aspects and some shortcomings are considered. Not only legal and technical shortcomings are indicated, but also some fundamental substantive contradictions. For example, a negligent attitude to the involvement of employees in making managerial decisions in the social and labor sphere due to the establishment of a trade union monopoly in a number of issues of social dialogue when introducing electronic personnel document management. The draft law does not consistently address issues related to security, enhanced qualified signature and the costs associated with obtaining it by an employee. The modern attitude of Russian courts to electronic evidence in labor disputes is demonstrated by the example of judicial practice. These examples demonstrate the most pressing issues of the introduction and use of EPDM, which need to be resolved at the legislative level. There is a need for effective protection of all participants in labor relations in the context of the development of digital technologies and their implementation in the daily life of each person.
Conclusions. Adoption of new federal law regulating EPDM was necessary to establish general rules for employee-employer interaction in the digital environment, as well as for legalization of the exchange of electronic documents as a way of labor management.
Polska procedura karna stoi wobec nowych wyzwań związanych z wykorzystywaniem dowodów pochodzących z mediów społecznościowych i związanym z tym problemem oceny ich wiarygodności oraz dopuszczalności. W artykule poddano analizie orzecznictwo oraz przepisy dotyczące przedmiotowej problematyki w Stanach Zjednoczonych, ponieważ może ono stanowić podstawę do sformułowania wniosków odnoszących się do polskiego porządku prawnego. Skupiono się na problematyce dopuszczalności dowodów z mediów społecznościowych w obu państwach, z uwzględnieniem ogólnych zasad procedury karnej, kryteriów dopuszczalności dowodów, sposobów ich zabezpieczenia. Zwrócono uwagę także na praktykę orzeczniczą sądów oraz konstytucyjne i międzynarodowe standardy ochrony wybranych praw człowieka.
У статті досліджуються умови застосування різних конструкцій правових презумпцій як засобів підтвердження фактів і обставин, що обґрунтовують достовірність електронних доказів у цивільному процесуальному праві. Особливу увагу приділено іноземному досвіду правового регулювання електронних доказів і практиці застосування доказових презумпцій щодо окремих їх різновидів. Автором проаналізовано підходи вітчизняних учених до використання припущень щодо деяких фактів і обставин, які стосуються оцінки електронних доказів, а також деякі положення чинного законодавства України, що містять норми-презумпції, котрі можуть бути застосовані у цивільному процесі для підтвердження чи спростування достовірності даних в електронній формі. Визначено їх ключові переваги та недоліки.
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 296 n.32 (2d Cir. 2012) (websites of governments of Vietnam and Brazil)
- E G See
See, e.g., United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 296 n.32 (2d Cir. 2012) (websites of
governments of Vietnam and Brazil).
Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Pile Found
Local 282, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Pile Found.
Constr. Co., No. 09-cv-4535(KAM)(LB), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86644, at *17 n.5 (E.D.N.Y.
Aug. 5, 2011).
- Hb V. Monroe Woodbury Cent
HB v. Monroe Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 11-CV-5881
(CS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141252, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2012).
United States v. Mosley, 672 F.3d
United States v. Mosley, 672 F.3d 586, 591 (8th Cir. 2012) (Physicians' Desk Reference);
LEXIS 149419, at *5 (D. Colo
- Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
- Llc V Monaco
Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Monaco, No. 14-cv-00275-RM-MJW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
149419, at *5 (D. Colo. Aug. 26, 2014) (FINRA rules);
:12-CV-01970-LJO-SKO
Dealer Comput. Servs. v. Monarch Ford,
No. 1:12-CV-01970-LJO-SKO, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11237, at *11 n.3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25,
2013) (American Arbitration Association rules);
- E G See
- Stein V
- Bennett
See, e.g., Stein v. Bennett, No. 2:12-CV-42-WKW [WO], 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126667,
at *20-21 n.10 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 5, 2013) (stating that "Wikipedia is not a source that warrants
judicial notice");
) (refusing to take judicial notice of a Wikipedia entry "as such information is not sufficiently reliable
- Blanks V
- Cate
Blanks v. Cate, No. 2:11-cv-0171 WBS CKD P, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11233,
at *8 n.4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013) (refusing to take judicial notice of a Wikipedia entry "as such
information is not sufficiently reliable");
The Court declines Plaintiff's request to take judicial notice of the Wikipedia definition of Parkinson's Disease because the internet is not typically a reliable source of information
Gonzales v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 861 F. Supp. 2d
1099, 1104 n.4 (S.D. Cal. 2012) ("The Court declines Plaintiff's request to take judicial notice of
the Wikipedia definition of Parkinson's Disease because the internet is not typically a reliable
source of information.").
) (requiring that the district court take judicial notice of the contents gathered from the Wayback Machine and holding that the district court "abused its discretion
- E G See
- O'toole V. Northrop Grumman
- Corp
See, e.g., O'Toole v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007)
(requiring that the district court take judicial notice of the contents gathered from the Wayback
Machine and holding that the district court "abused its discretion" in failing to take judicial notice
of the website (emphasis added));