Methods of Extracting and Analyzing Metadata for Evidentiary Purposes
Abstract views: 95 / PDF downloads: 20
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ujldp.206Keywords:
Metadata, Digital Forensics, Civil Proceedings, Evidence, Data Extraction, Legal Analysis, Cybersecurity, Cloud ComputingAbstract
This paper examines methods for extracting and analyzing metadata for evidentiary purposes in civil proceedings. Through a comprehensive review of current literature, legal cases, and forensic techniques, it explores the diverse approaches to metadata analysis across various digital domains, including file systems, emails, documents, web browsers, mobile devices, cloud storage, social media, and emerging technologies. The study highlights the critical role of metadata in establishing the authenticity, reliability, and chronology of digital evidence. It also addresses the challenges posed by encrypted data, large-scale analysis, and the need for robust quality assurance processes. The findings underscore the importance of adapting forensic methodologies to evolving digital landscapes while maintaining legal and ethical standards. This research contributes to the ongoing development of best practices in digital forensics and their application in civil litigation.
References
AllahRakha, N. (2024). Addressing Barriers to Cross-Border Collection of E-Evidence in Criminal Investigations. International Journal of Law and Policy, 2(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.193
AllahRakha, N. (2024). Addressing Barriers to Cross-Border Collection of E-Evidence in Criminal Investigations. International Journal of Law and Policy, 2(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.193
AllahRakha, N. (2024). Constitutional Safeguards for Digital Rights and Privacy. International Journal of Law and Policy, 2(4), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.172
AllahRakha, N. (2024). Cybercrime and the Legal and Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies. International Journal of Law and Policy, 2(5), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.191
AllahRakha, N. (2024). Legal analysis of the law of the republic of Uzbekistan" on payments and payment system". TSUL Legal Report International electronic scientific journal, 5(1), 38-55.
Banday, M. Tariq. (2011). Analyzing E-mail Headers for Forensic Investigation. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law 6, no. 2, 49-64
Camera & Imaging Products Association. (2019). Exchangeable image file format for digital still cameras: Exif Version 2.32. CIPA DC-008-Translation-2019. Tokyo
Carrier, Brian. (2004). The Sleuth Kit and Autopsy: Open Source Digital Forensics Tools for Investigating Computer Systems and Disks. Digital Investigation 1, no. 4 277-283
Casey, Eoghan. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet. 3rd ed. Waltham, MA: Academic Press
Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, 2013 WL 1208558 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2013)
Crocker, Dave. (2009). Internet Mail Architecture. RFC 5598, Internet Engineering Task Force
Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
Gulyamov, S. S. (2024). Legal frameworks for the integration of artificial intelligence. IFMBE Proceedings, 92, 144–149
Kleiman v. Wright, No. 18-cv-80176 (S.D. Fla. filed Feb. 14, 2018)
Krause v. City of Tulsa, No. 15-CV-0424-CVE-TEJ (N.D. Okla. Jan. 26, 2017)
Largent v. Reed, No. 2009-1823 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Franklin Cty. Nov. 8, 2011)
Magnet Forensics. (2020). Internet Evidence Finder User Guide. Version 7.0. Waterloo, ON: Magnet Forensics
Martini, Ben, and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo. (2013). Cloud storage forensics: ownCloud as a case study. Digital Investigation 10, no. 4, 287-299
Neiswonger v. Krupin, No. 5:08-CV-02034 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2010)
S. S. Gulyamov, E. Egamberdiev and A. Naeem. (2024). "Practice-Oriented Approach to Reforming the Traditional Model of Higher Education with the Application of EdTech Technologies," 2024 4th International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education (TELE), Lipetsk, Russian Federation, pp. 340-343, doi: 10.1109/TELE62556.2024.10605684
State v. Bates, No. CR-2016-370-2 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Benton County Feb. 22, 2017)
State v. Bjornson, 2015 ND 182, 865 N.W.2d 415
Suzlon Energy Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation, 671 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2011)
United States v. Apple MacPro Computer, 851 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2017)
United States v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2011)
United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016)
United States v. Merritt, 2015 WL 3936397 (D. Kan. June 26, 2015)
United States v. Seiver, 692 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2012)
United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2017)
United States v. Wetzel, 514 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2008)
Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 2005)
Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-05236 (LTS) (KHP), 2017 WL 5664852 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Uzbek Journal of Law and Digital Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.