Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criminal Investigation, Technological Development, and Digital Tools: Where Are We Heading?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Investigating and Preventing Crime in the Digital Era

Abstract

This introductory chapter discusses three aspects that need to be further studied to understand the impact of digitalization and new technologies in the criminal proceedings and to be able to define how criminal procedure should be structured and in which direction it should move. First, the issue of the blurring division between criminal prevention and repression caused and accelerated to a great extent due to the digital shift which claims for a new scheme on the transfer of information from the security and intelligence units to the criminal investigation authorities. Second, the fact that criminal proceedings are becoming more and more transnational, also due to the fact that the internet and the absence of territorial borders in the virtual space have consequences in the way the cross-border criminal investigation is regulated and carried out. And third, because of such ‘transnationalisation’ of the criminal activities—and criminal assets—with criminal proceedings still bound to domestic rules, it is necessary to rethink the role of criminal law in guaranteeing security in the cyberspace due to the intrinsic limitations of the current normative framework of the criminal procedure. These challenges for the future structure and role of the criminal procedure in the digital society as well as its limits in prosecuting certain cybercrimes are addressed in this chapter.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    See the Interpol report “Cybercrime Covid-19 Impact” of 2020, available at: https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2020/INTERPOL-report-shows-alarming-rate-of-cyberattacks-during-COVID-19.

  2. 2.

    Big Brother Watch and others v the United Kingdom, Appl. nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15 (ECtHR, Chamber’s judgment of 13 September 2018; and Grand Chamber’s judgment of 25 May 2021).

  3. 3.

    See Bachmaier Winter (2012), pp. 46 ff.

  4. 4.

    See for the German system of cooperation between intelligence and criminal investigation, e.g. Zöller (2020), pp. 79–95.

  5. 5.

    See, for example the report of the International Commission of Jurists Assessing Damage, Urging Action. Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, done in Geneva in 2009, p. 67, which can be accessed at http://ejp.icj.org/IMG/EJP-Report.pdf.

  6. 6.

    See the “Guidelines for Starting an Analytic Unit” published by the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, Inc. (IALEIA): “A lesson learned by the U.S. on September 11, 2001 was that intelligence is integral to preventing terrorist attacks. Since then, more and more U.S. Police agencies have adopted the intelligence led model, and intelligence units have been established worldwide. Intelligence led policing uses analysis in a pro-active way to effectively target criminal groups and activities. This front-end application allows agencies to assess the needs and resources of the organization and jurisdiction, placing viable alternatives in the hands of decision-makers. Strategic targeting allows the agency to prioritize cases with the highest probability of success”. On the change in the objectives of the intelligence services from the Cold War to the present moment, as well as its essential role in preventing terrorist attacks, see Treverton (2009), pp. 15 ff.

  7. 7.

    As it is set out in the report of the International Commission of Jurists Assessing Damage, Urging Action…, cit. in note 5, p. 67: “Intelligence plays an indispensable role in identifying, understanding, and analysing terrorist threats, in providing important hints and leads for criminal investigations and in developing effective strategies to counter terrorism. Good intelligence has always been crucial to preventing, disrupting, or subsequently punishing, criminal activity. What is new is the fact that the work of the intelligence agencies has become the most relevant acts in the panoply of counter-terrorist measures available to governments. This centrality is reflected in expanded powers of intelligence agencies, increasing international cooperation, and greater information sharing.” See also, Droste (2002), p. 117.

  8. 8.

    On this amount of data accessible in the information society, the growing interconnection of networks and the tendency to merge the private and public spheres of individuals, see, for example, Schermer (2008), pp. 64 ff.

  9. 9.

    As recognized in the Report on the Democratic Oversight of Signals Intelligence Agencies, of 15 December 2015, of the Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2015)011, para. 47.

  10. 10.

    On the proportionality principle, see e.g. Alexy (1986), 102 Degener (1985), 43 and Emiliou (1996), 23–24.

  11. 11.

    ECtHR judgment Big Brother Watch and others v The United Kingdom, of 13 September 2018, Appl. nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15; and ECtHR Judgment (GC) of 25 May 2021. On this judgment; see, among others, Bachmaier Winter (2021), pp. 17 ff.

  12. 12.

    See the ECtHR, Weber and Saravia v. Germany, judgment of 29 June 2006, Appl. no. 54934/00; Liberty and others v the United Kingdom Appl. no. 58243/00, of 1 July 2008; Roman Zakharov v Russia Appl. no. 47143/06 (GC), of 4 December 2015; Szabó and Vissy v Hungary Appl. no. 37138/14, of 12 January 2016); Centrum för Rättvisa v Sweden Appl. no. 35252/08, of 19 June 2018.

  13. 13.

    In addition to Centrum för Rättvisa, a case which also dealt with a digital mass surveillance regime.

  14. 14.

    Id. (Chamber), para. 387.

  15. 15.

    Id., para. 386.

  16. 16.

    Id., para. 314.

  17. 17.

    See ibid., partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Koskelo, joined by Judge Turković, para. 20. The possibility for such a prior mechanism of prior judicial or independent authorisation is illustrated by the Swedish legislation, as seen in the Centrum för Rättvisa cited above.

  18. 18.

    See Big Brother Watch (Chamber), para. 317.

  19. 19.

    For a comparative study at the European Union level see Sieber and Von zur Mühlen (2016). See also Bachmaier Winter (2017), p. 3 ff.; Soares Pereira (2019), p. 248 ff.

  20. 20.

    On the lawyer-client privilege in a comparative view, see Bachmaier Winter and Thaman (2020), pp. 37 ff.

  21. 21.

    Bachmaier Winter (2017), pp. 317 ff.

  22. 22.

    CETS 185, of 23 November 2001.

  23. 23.

    Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on enhanced cooperation and disclosure of electronic evidence, adopted on 17 November 2021, and opened for signature on 12 May 2022. The rules included in this Protocol aim at providing tools for enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence—such as direct cooperation with service providers and registrars, effective means to obtain subscriber information and traffic data, immediate co-operation in emergencies or joint investigations—respecting human rights and rule of law, including data protection rights.

  24. 24.

    Council Decision (EU) 2022/722, of 5 April 2022 authorizing Member States to sign, in the interest of the European Union, the Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence, O.J. of 11.5.2022, L/134/15.

  25. 25.

    See the Communication from the Commission “Digitalisation of justice in the European Union. A toolbox of opportunities”, Brussels, 2.12.2020, COM(2020) 710 final, accessible at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2020:710:FIN.

  26. 26.

    Juniper Research, The Future of Cybercrime & Security (2018), p. 4 ff., accessible at https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computer-fraud-and-security.

  27. 27.

    Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526/2013 (Cybersecurity Act).

  28. 28.

    COM(2020) 605 final.

  29. 29.

    The main areas to be addressed according to the EU strategy are: Cybercrime, the Networks and Information Security (NIS), the EU Defence Agency (EDA), Cyberdefence, in the intergovernmental pillar of the EU.

  30. 30.

    In this realm, resilience is defined as “the ability to provide and maintain an acceptable level of service in the face of various faults and challenges to normal operation” (ENISA 2011).

  31. 31.

    Ortega y Gasset (1935), in his lecture given at the Complutense University of Madrid on the 20th May 1935, p. 30.

  32. 32.

    Ortega y Gasset (1939), p. 360 ff.

References

  • Alexy R (1986) A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2012) Información de inteligencia y proceso penal. In: Bachmaier L (ed) Terrorismo, proceso penal y derechos fundamentales. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 45–101

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2017) Remote search of computers under the new Spanish Law of 2015: proportionality principle and the protection of privacy. ZStW 129(1):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2021) Proportionality, surveillance and criminal investigation: Strasbourg Court facing Big Brother. In: Billis E, Knust N, Rui P (eds) The principle of proportionality in crime control and criminal justice. Hart, pp 317–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L, Thaman S (2020) A comparative view of the right to counsel and the protection of attorney-client communications. In: Bachmaier Winter L, Thamn S, Lynn V (eds) The right to counsel and the protection of attorney-client communications in criminal proceedings. Springer, Cham, pp 7–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Degener W (1985) Grundsatz der Verhältnismäβigkeit und strafprozessuale Zwangsmaβnahme. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Droste B (2002) Nachrichtendienste und Sicherheitsbehörden im Kampf gegen Organisierte Kriminalität. Carl Heymans Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Emiliou N (1996) The principle of proportionality in European law: a comparative study. Kluwer International, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega y Gasset J (1935) Misión del bibliotecario, reprint by Asoc. Andaluza Bibliotecarios, Málaga, p 1994

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega y Gasset J (1939) Meditaciones de la técnica y otros ensayos sobre ciencia y filosofía, reprint by Alianza, Madrid 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermer BW (2008) Surveillance and privacy in an ubiquitous network society. Amsterdam Law Forum 1(63), 2008–2009:63–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber U, Von zur Mühlen N (eds) (2016) Access to telecommunication data in criminal justice. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Soares Pereira R (2019) O acesso (unilateral e sem recurso a mecanismos de cooperação judiciária internacional) a dados armazenados em sistemas informáticos localizados no estrangeiro. Revista de Estudios Europeos, special issue 1-2019: 246–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Treverton GF (2009) Intelligence for an age of terror. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 2009

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zöller MA (2020) Die Zusammenarbeit der Nachrichtendienste mit Strafverfolgungsbehörden. In: Dietrich JH, Gärditz KF, Graulich K et al (eds) Nachrichtendienste in vernetzter Sicherheitsarchitektur. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 79–95

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Department, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain

    Lorena Bachmaier Winter

Authors
  1. Lorena Bachmaier Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorena Bachmaier Winter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, Complutense University Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Lorena Bachmaier Winter

  2. Law Department, Messina University, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bachmaier Winter, L. (2022). Criminal Investigation, Technological Development, and Digital Tools: Where Are We Heading?. In: Bachmaier Winter, L., Ruggeri, S. (eds) Investigating and Preventing Crime in the Digital Era. Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13952-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13952-9_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13951-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13952-9

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation