Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Societal Factors Impacting on the Potentialities of Electronic Evidence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 39))

Abstract

Electronic evidence is an important area of innovation, and inasmuch is characterized by strong and profound social dynamics. These dynamics can generate both opportunities and risks (if not managed or poorly managed), in terms of the functioning of the institutions of justice, the proper administration of justice for citizens and their rights, the representation of justice in public opinion, and so on. The aim of this paper is to present a panorama of some initial theoretical and empirical insights on this issue, from a sociological point of view. Our research tried to identify the types of actors that play a role in electronic evidence and its presence in judicial systems, as well as the obstacles and facilitating factors for the introduction of electronic evidence in courts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nowotny (2006) and Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1997).

  2. 2.

    The studies described in this paper were developed by LSC, represented by the writer, as part of the work package “Market Size” within the EVIDENCE project, in the years 2014–2015.

  3. 3.

    For an analytical discussion of these aspects, see: d’Andrea et al. (2005). See also: Bijker and d’Andrea (2009), Mezzana (2011).

  4. 4.

    Bijker (1995).

  5. 5.

    Bourdieu (1993), Kitschelt and Offe (1980), Renn (1992, pp. 179-196).

  6. 6.

    For this study, we used a theoretical and methodological approach to mapping based on the sociology of knowledge, used by LSC for many years in various areas. This includes, by way of example, the RESPECT project map on social costs linked to socio-technical surveillance systems (http://respectproject.eu; Colonnello (2014)), and the map underlying the Obstacles for Civil Society in Serbia, see: Mezzana (2008).

  7. 7.

    EVIDENCE (2014). In this report, for each typological area, and, possibly, for each type of actor, beside their definitions, general information, data, examples of the roles played in the electronic and evidence field were provided.

  8. 8.

    In general terms, agency can be defined as the orientation of actors towards changing or influencing dominant “structures”, i.e. societal patterns, which may be cognitive (values, beliefs, etc.), relational (models of behavior, procedures, etc.) or political-institutional (laws, power relations, areas of expertise, etc.). Purely by way of example, see Giddens (1984).

  9. 9.

    Our research showed that no specific studies have been undertaken on the sphere of justice (particularly criminal justice) in terms of an electronic evidence market. An effort was, therefore, made to provide, first, some statistical data as a first approach to the analysis of this issue. By way of example, in the 28 European Union countries there are a total of 1,019,684 lawyers and legal advisors, 81,879 professional judges and 35,330 technical judicial experts (analysis based on CEPEJ data); see: CEPEJ (2014).

  10. 10.

    For more details, see: Cannataci et al. (2016).

  11. 11.

    Bear in mind that only two of the 28 EU countries showed a decrease in computer facilities in 2012–2014 (Croatia and Cyprus); in most, it remained stable or even showed an increase (in about half the cases) (analysis based on CEPEJ data); see: CEPEJ (2014).

  12. 12.

    IndustryARC (2013).

  13. 13.

    D’Andrea and Quaranta (1996).

  14. 14.

    EVIDENCE (2015).

  15. 15.

    Representatives of law enforcement agencies were not consulted, as they were the main focus of other activities of the EVIDENCE project.

  16. 16.

    The maps produced as part of this work (especially as regards the obstacles and facilitating factors) also formed the basis for a discussion in the workshop held in Rome on 10–11 December 2015, organized by LSC within the framework of EVIDENCE project, and entitled “Obstacles and facilitating factors towards the digitalization of Justice: the specific issue of electronic evidence in criminal trials”. The workshop was attended by 36 people, representing organizations based in eight European countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom) and some international bodies (INTERPOL, Eurojust, Council of Europe Cloud Evidence Group).

  17. 17.

    Insa (2006), CYBEX (2006), Boddington et al. (2008), Evidence (2013), and Mason (2013).

  18. 18.

    CYBEX (2006); Costabile and Attanasio (2012); UNODC (2013).

  19. 19.

    Digital forensics has yet to produce a defined, recognized and stable professionalism.

  20. 20.

    Caloyannides (2004); Boddington et al. (2008); Yuan (2011); Evidence (2013).

  21. 21.

    Being on an electronic medium, data can disappear easily.

  22. 22.

    Cohen (2010a); Kahvedzic (2013a); (Cohen et al., 2011, pp. 3–21).

  23. 23.

    Mason (2012); Cohen (2010b); UNODC (2013).

  24. 24.

    Cottim (2010); CYBEX (2006).

  25. 25.

    Often the media make a hasty, superficial and distorted use of litigation material, including electronic evidence such phone records or wire-tapping, the probative value of which the media are unaware or insufficiently informed.

  26. 26.

    UNODC (2013); ECOSOC-UN (2010); Cottim (2010).

  27. 27.

    Carrier and Spafford (2003); Piccini and Vaciago (2008); Cohen (2010a,b).

  28. 28.

    It means lack of digital forensic hardware and software, which also affects electronic evidence collection and management.

  29. 29.

    Allied Market Research (2014); Cohen (2010a,b); UNODC (2013).

  30. 30.

    Casey (2013); Adams (2012); Brezinski and Killalea (2002); Albert and Greenfield (2002); Mason (2013); Hickok (2014); Grundy (2004).

  31. 31.

    ITU (2013); UNODC (2013); Kahvedzic (2013b).

  32. 32.

    Private companies can play a significant role in the target area, especially in the development and dissemination of technological solutions in the field of cybercrime (e.g. against online pedophilia).

  33. 33.

    Pinch and Bijker (1990).

References

  • Adams R (2012) The Advanced Data Acquisition Model (ADAM): a process model for digital forensic practice. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/14422/2/02Whole.pdf

  • Albert MJ, Greenfield RS (2002) Cyber forensics—a field manual for collecting, examining, and preserving evidence of computer crimes. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Allied Market Research (2014) Global Forensic Technologies Market (Service, Products and Geography)—Size, Share, Global Trends, Company Profiles, Demand, Insights, Analysis, Research, Report, Opportunities, Segmentation and Forecast, 2012–2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker W (1995) Of Bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker W, d’Andrea L (eds) (2009) Handbook on the socialisation of scientific and technological research. Social Sciences and European Research Capacities (SS-ERC) Project. European Commission, Rome. http://www.scienzecittadinanza.org/public/SSERChandbook.pdf

  • Boddington R, Hobbs V, Mann G (2008) Validating digital evidence for legal argument. ECU, Perth. www.ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=adf

  • Bourdieu P (1993) The field of cultural production. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brezinski D, Killalea T (2002) Best current practice—guidelines for evidence collection and archiving, IEEE RFC 3227

    Google Scholar 

  • Caloyannides MA (2004), Privacy protection and computer forensics. Artech House, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannataci JA, Zhao B, Torres VG, Monteleone S, Mifsud Bonnici J, Moyakine E (2016) Privacy, free expression and transparency: redefining their new boundaries in the digital age. UNESCO series on internet freedom.United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier B, Spafford E (2003) Getting physical with the digital investigation process. Int J Digit Evid 2, Fall 2003, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey E (ed) (2013) Handbook of digital forensics and investigation. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • CEPEJ (2014) Report on “European judicial systems—edition 2014 (2012 data): efficiency and quality of justice”. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2014/Rapport_2014_en.pdf

  • Cohen F (2010a) Toward a science of digital forensic evidence examination. In: Advances in digital forensics VI. IFIP advances in information and communication technology, vol 337. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen F (2010b) Digital forensic evidence examination, 2nd edn. ASP Press, Livermore, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen F, Lowrie J, Preston C (2011) The state of the science of digital evidence examination. In: IFIP advances in information and communication technology, vol 361. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Colonnello C (2014) Map of the present and incipient social dangers related to the development and spreading of surveillance socio-technical systems. RESPECT Project, Deliverable D13.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Costabile G, Attanasio A (2012) IISFA memberbook 2012. Digital forensic, Forlì, Experta

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottim A (2010) Cybercrime, cyberterrorism and jurisdiction: an analysis of article 22 of the COE convention on cybercrime. Eur J Leg Stud, 2(3). http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/15118

  • CYBEX (2006) The admissibility of electronic evidence in courts. www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/WSIS/3rd_meeting_docs/contributions/libro_aeec_en.pdf

  • d’Andrea L, Quaranta G (1996) Civil society and risk. Contribution for a general theory, Workshop CERFE-Amsterdam School of Social Research, Amsterdam, 26 February 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Andrea L, Quaranta G, Quinti G (2005) Manuale sui processi di socializzazione della ricerca scientifica e tecnologica. CERFE, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • ECOSOC-UN (2010) Digital evidence certification recommendation, recommendation no. 37, 19 February 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (eds) (1997) Universities in the global economy: a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Cassell Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Evidence (2013) Description of Work (DOW), 18 September 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • EVIDENCE (2014) Deliverable D7.1—report on prima facie size of the market. Laboratorio di Scienze della Cittadinanza (LSC), 31/12/2014

    Google Scholar 

  • EVIDENCE (2015) Deliverable D7.2—map of obstacles and facilitating factors before validation. Laboratorio di Scienze della Cittadinanza (LSC), 30/9/2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundy BJ (2004) Computer crimes division the law enforcement and forensic examiner introduction to linux—a beginner’s guide. NASA Office of Inspector General

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickok G (2014) Digital forensic global trends, GRC-daily. http://www.grc-daily.com/dsp_getFeaturesDetails.cfm?CID=3875

  • IndustryARC (2013) Global digital forensics market—global trends, market analysis, competitive landscape, recent developments, value market, forecasts to 2018. IndustryARC

    Google Scholar 

  • Insa F (2006) The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Court (A.E.E.C.): fighting against high-tech crime-results of a European study. J Digit Forensic Pract 1(4):285–289. Also in http://doi.org/10.1080/15567280701418049

  • ITU (2013) Establishment of harmonized policies for the ICT market in the ACP countries, electronic evidence. Assessment report, HIPCAR, harmonization of ICT policies, legislation and regulatory procedures in the Caribbean, ITU. www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Projects/ITU-EC-ACP/HIPCAR/Documents/FINAL%20DOCUMENTS/ENGLISH%20DOCS/e-evidence_assessment.pdf

  • Kahvedzic D (2013a) Planning and justifying the search and seizure of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings before presenting it to court. Academy of European Law, Trier

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahvedzic D (2013b) The impact of emerging technologies (mobile and cloud computing) on the preservation and management of electronic evidence. Academy of European Law, Trier

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt H, Offe C (1980) Kernenergiepolitik Arena eines gesellschaftllichen Konflikts. Campus, Frankfurt [am Main] and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason S (ed) (2012) Electronic evidence, 3rd edn. LexisNexis Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason S (2013) The fundamentals of electronic evidence. In: Relazione presentata al seminario “Introduction to the Use of Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings”

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezzana D (2008) Guidelines on the management of juridical and non-juridical obstacles for civil society. Ministero degli Affari Esteri, CERFE, Rome. http://www.cerfe.org/public/PRAVOKLG.pdf

  • Mezzana D (ed) (2011) Technological responsibility. Guidelines for a shared governance of the processes of socialization of scientific research and innovation, within an interconnected world, SET-DEV, 7th Framework Programme for Technological Research and Development of the European Commission, Roma, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. http://www.scienzecittadinanza.org/public/SetDevGuidelines.pdf

  • Nowotny H (ed) (2006) Cultures of technology and the quest for innovation. Berghahn Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Piccini ML, Vaciago G (2008) Computer crimes, milano, moretti honneger

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch T, Bijker W (1990) The social construction of facts and artifacts. Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In: Bijker et al. (eds) The social construction of technological systems. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (1992) The social arena concept of risk debates. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp 179–196

    Google Scholar 

  • UNODC (2013) Comprehensive study on cybercrime, Draft February 2013. http://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/UNODC_CCPCJ_EG.4_2013/CYBERCRIME_STUDY_210213.pdf

  • Yuan P (2011) L’admission de la preuve électronique dans le droit français et le droit chinois. http://m2bde.u-paris10.fr/content/ladmission-de-la-preuve-électronique-dans-le-droit-français-et-le-droit-chinois-par-peihao-y

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been encouraged and supported by my colleagues Federico Marta and Luciano d’Andrea through ideas and suggestions in the revision phase of this contribution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratorio di Scienze della Cittadinanza, Rome, Italy

    Daniele Mezzana

Authors
  1. Daniele Mezzana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniele Mezzana .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ITTIG-Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques, CNR-National Research Council of Italy, Florence, Italy

    Maria Angela Biasiotti

  2. RUG-University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jeanne Pia Mifsud Bonnici

  3. RUG-University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Joe Cannataci

  4. ITTIG-Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques, CNR-National Research Council of Italy, Florence, Italy

    Fabrizio Turchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mezzana, D. (2018). Some Societal Factors Impacting on the Potentialities of Electronic Evidence. In: Biasiotti, M., Mifsud Bonnici, J., Cannataci, J., Turchi, F. (eds) Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 39. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74872-6_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74872-6_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74871-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74872-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation