Advertisement

A Model for Digital Evidence Admissibility Assessment

  • Albert Antwi-BoasiakoEmail author
  • Hein Venter
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 511)

Abstract

Digital evidence is increasingly important in legal proceedings as a result of advances in the information and communications technology sector. Because of the transnational nature of computer crimes and computer-facilitated crimes, the digital forensic process and digital evidence handling must be standardized to ensure that the digital evidence produced is admissible in legal proceedings. The different positions of law on matters of evidence in different jurisdictions further complicates the transnational admissibility of digital evidence. A harmonized framework for assessing digital evidence admissibility is required to provide a scientific basis for digital evidence to be admissible and to ensure the cross-jurisdictional acceptance and usability of digital evidence. This chapter describes a harmonized framework that integrates the technical and legal requirements for digital evidence admissibility. The proposed framework, which provides a coherent techno-legal foundation for assessing digital evidence admissibility, is expected to contribute to ongoing developments in digital forensics standards.

Keywords

Digital evidence Admissibility assessment framework 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Ami-Narh, J., Williams, P.: Digital forensics and the legal system: a dilemma of our time. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Digital Forensics Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Association of Chief Police Officers, Good Practice Guide for Computer-Based Evidence. United Kingdom, London (2008)Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Brobbey, S.: Essentials of the Ghana Law of Evidence. Datro Publications, Accra (2014)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Casey, E.: Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet. Academic Press, Waltham (2011)Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Garrie, D., Morrissy, J.: Digital forensic evidence in the courtroom: Understanding content and quality. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 12(2), article no. 5 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Giova, G.: Improving chain of custody in forensic investigations of electronic digital systems. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 11(1) (2011)Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Grobler, M.: Digital forensic standards: international progress. In: Proceedings of the South African Information Security Multi-Conference, pp. 261–271 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    International Organization of Standardization, Information Technology – Security Techniques – Guidelines for Identification, Collection, Acquisition and Preservation of Digital Evidence, ISO/IEC 27037:2012 Standard, Geneva, Switzerland (2012)Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    International Organization of Standardization, Information Technology – Security Techniques – Guidance on Assuring Suitability and Adequacy of Incident Investigative Methods, ISO/IEC 27041:2015 Standard, Geneva, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    International Organization of Standardization, Information Technology – Security Techniques – Incident Investigation Principles and Processes, ISO/IEC 27043:2015 Standard, Geneva, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Kessler, G.: Judges’ awareness, understanding and application of digital evidence. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law 6(1), 55–72 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Leigland, R., Krings, A.: A formalization of digital forensics. International Journal of Digital Evidence 3(2) (2004)Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Leroux, O.: Legal admissibility of electronic evidence. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 18(2), 193–222 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Mason, S.: Electronic Evidence. Butterworths Law, London (2012)Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    National Forensic Science Technology Center, Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement, Largo, Florida (2013)Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Palmer, G.: A Road Map for Digital Forensic Research, DFRWS Technical Report, DTR-T001-01 Final, Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Reith, M., Carr, C., Gunsch, G.: An examination of digital forensic models. International Journal of Digital Evidence 1(3) (2002)Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Roffeh, E.: Practical Digital Evidence: Law and Technology, Part I. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Seattle (2015)Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Schroeder, S.: How to be a digital forensic expert witness. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering, pp. 69–85 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence, SWGDE Best Practices for Computer Forensics, Version 3.1 (2014). www.swgde.org/documents/Current%20Documents/SWGDE%20Best%20Practices%20for%20Computer%20Forensics
  21. [21]
    Technical Working Group for Electronic Crime Scene Investigation, Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for First Responders. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    U.S. Supreme Court, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., United States Reports, vol. 509, pp. 579–601 (1983)Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Valjarevic, A., Venter, H.: Harmonized digital forensic process model. In: Proceedings of the Information Security for South Africa Conference (2012)Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Vecchio-Flaim, C.: Developing a Computer Forensics Team, InfoSec Reading Room. SANS Institute, Bethesda (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations