Digital Traces as an Object of Forensic Research: Concept, Classification and Evidentiary Challenges
Abstract views: 1
/ 
PDF downloads: 0
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ujldp.470Keywords:
Digital Traces, Forensic Research, Digital Evidence, Chain of Custody, Evidentiary Challenges, Cybercrime Investigation, Admissibility StandardsAbstract
Digital traces constitute a fundamental category of forensic evidence in contemporary criminal investigations, yet their conceptualization remains fragmented across jurisdictions. This study examines the theoretical foundations of digital traces as objects of forensic research, proposing a systematic classification framework and analyzing evidentiary challenges in criminal proceedings. Through comparative analysis of international legal frameworks, including the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, EU Digital Evidence Regulation, and national legislation across multiple jurisdictions, this research identifies critical gaps in the legal treatment of digital traces. The study reveals significant inconsistencies in authenticity verification standards, chain of custody requirements, and admissibility criteria for digital evidence. Results demonstrate the necessity for harmonized international standards governing digital trace collection, preservation, and presentation in criminal proceedings, while recognizing jurisdictional variations in procedural safeguards and constitutional protections.
References
Arquilla, J. & Ronfeldt, D. (2001). Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy. RAND Corporation.
Beebe, N. L. & Clark, J. G. (2005). A hierarchical, objectives-based framework for the digital investigations process. Digital Investigation, 2(2), 147-167.
Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels Effect (pp. 167-189). Oxford University Press.
Brenner, S. W. & Frederiksen, B. A. (2002). Computer searches and seizures: Some unresolved issues. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 8(2), 39-114.
Brenner, S. W. (2004). U.S. cybercrime law. Information Systems Frontiers, 6(2), 115-125.
Breyer, P. (2005). Telecommunications data retention and human rights: The compatibility of blanket traffic data retention with the ECHR. European Law Journal, 11(3), 365-375.
Carrier, B. & Spafford, E. H. (2003). Getting physical with the digital investigation process. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 2(2), 1-20.
Carrier, B. & Spafford, E. H. (2004). An event-based digital forensic investigation framework. Digital Forensic Research Workshop, pp. 11-13.
Carrier, B. & Spafford, E. H. (2006). Categories of digital investigation analysis techniques based on the computer history model. Digital Investigation, 3(Suppl.), 121-130.
Carrier, B. (2005). File System Forensic Analysis (pp. 445-467). Addison-Wesley.
Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet (3rd ed.). Academic Press.
Cohen, F. (2010). Challenges to digital forensic evidence. Digital Investigation, 7(1-2), 10-12;
Garfinkel, S. L. (2010). Digital forensics research: The next 10 years. Digital Investigation, 7(Suppl.), S64-S73.
Damaska, M. R. (1997). Evidence Law A drift (pp. 118-142). Yale University Press.
Edmond, G., Tangen, J. M., Searston, R. A. & Dror, I. E. (2015). Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences. Law, Probability and Risk, 14(4), 299-312.
Garfinkel, S. L. (2007). Carving contiguous and fragmented files with fast object validation. Digital Investigation, 4(Suppl. 1), 2-12.
Goodison, S. E., Davis, R. C. & Jackson, B. A. (2015). Digital Evidence and the U.S. Criminal Justice System. RAND Corporation, pp. xiii-xix.
Hutchinson, T. & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83-119.
Iain Sutherland, Jon Evans, Theodore Tryfonas, Andrew Blyth. (2008). Acquiring volatile operating system data tools and techniques. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, Volume 42, Issue 3. Pages 65 - 73
Kerr, O. S. (2003). Internet surveillance law after the USA PATRIOT Act: The big brother that isn't. Northwestern University Law Review, 97(2), 607-673.
Koops, B. J. & Leenes, R. (2014). Privacy regulation cannot be hardcoded: A critical comment on the 'privacy by design' provision in data-protection law. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 28(2), 159-171.
Kroll, J. A., Huey, J., Barocas, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., Robinson, D. G. & Yu, H. (2017). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(3), 633-705.
Ligh, M. H., Case, A., Levy, J. & Walters, A. (2014). The Art of Memory Forensics. Wiley, pp. 3-22.
Losavio, M., Adams, J. & Rogers, M. (2006). Gap analysis: Judicial experience and perception of electronic evidence. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, 1(1), 13-17.
McConville, M. & Chui, W. H. (2007). Research Methods for Law. Edinburgh University Press, pp. 45-67.
Meyers, M. & Rogers, M. (2004). Computer forensics: The need for standardization and Certification. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 3(2), 1-11.
Ohm, P. (2010). Broken promises of privacy. UCLA Law Review, 57(6), 1701-1777.
Oriwoh, E. & Williams, G. (2015). Internet of Things: The argument for smart forensics. In H. Jahankhani et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Electronic Security (pp. 163-178). World Scientific.
Pollitt, M. M. (2010). A history of digital forensics. Advances in Digital Forensics VI, pp. 3-15; Cohen, F. (2010). Challenges to digital forensic evidence. Digital Investigation, 7(1-2), 10-12.
Reed, C. (2012). Making Laws for Cyberspace (pp. 1-27). Oxford University Press.
Reith, M., Carr, C. & Gunsch, G. (2002). An examination of digital forensic models. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 1(3), 1-12.
Ruan, K., Carthy, J., Kechadi, T. & Baggili, I. (2013). Cloud forensics definitions and critical criteria. Digital Investigation, 10(4), 303-315.
Selbst, A. D. & Barocas, S. (2018). The intuitive appeal of explainable machines. Fordham Law Review, 87(3), 1085-1139.
Sommer, P. (2008). Directors' and corporate advisors' guide to digital investigations and evidence. Information Systems Security Association Journal, 6(1), 18-25.
Thaman, S. C. (2008). Comparative criminal procedure. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 219-244.
Van Hoecke, M. (2011). Methodology of comparative legal research. Law and Method, December 2011, 1-35.
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B. & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in GDPR. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76-99.
Zweigert, K. & Kötz, H. (1998). An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Uzbek Journal of Law and Digital Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
