Talk:Digital evidence

UK law
This page does not seem to accurately represent UK Law.

In the UK, there are a number of tests or questions that are applied to evidence in general: * admissibility; and * weight The question of admissibility is usually decided by the Judge where he/she, in consideration will look at admissibility and whether the evidence available is best evidence. Once this has been established, it will be put before the court to determine what weight it will attach to the evidence; that is; how much effect does it have on proving or disproving. Sources of evidence are: * Original or primary evidence * Real evidence * Secondary evidence * Documentary evidence

Rules affecting evidence and categories covering admissibility are: * hearsay evidence * circumstantial evidence * presumptions * character * opinion * corroboration * judicial notice

With regards to hearsay specifically, the rule against hearsay is that any statement, other than one made by a witness while giving evidence, is inadmissible as evidence of the facts stated, Hearsay evidence may, on some occasions (covered in a number of circumstances and backed up by specific case law and common law) be admissible.

The typical view from a group of forensic specialists in the UK is that the issue of digital evidence being hearsay has rarely, if ever, been cited in recent UK cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joncare (talk • contribs)

Also: I would caution calling electronic evidence the same thing as digital evidence. Electronic evidence could also be analog technology based. Some legal interpretations of the validity of digital signatures (not the crypto sense, rather, the indication of intent binding a statement) are based on interpretations of precedents regarding the transimssion of telexes (a defunct analog messaging technology). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.251.66 (talk • contribs)

Ceri Linden
On 1 May 1915 Masood Mansouri was jailed for 13 years at Chester Crown Court for the kidnap and rape of 20-year old Ceri Linden in 2014. The mother-of-one was found dead at her home days after giving a police interview. An inquest has yet to take place. Mansouri was convicted largely on the strength of Linden's powerful video interview. Is this case unique in UK law? Should such cases be mentioned in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

New page
I propose to supplement this U.S.-heavy page with a European version under the newer term "e-evidence". Seniorexpat (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to contribute please see my draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seniorexpat/sandbox02 Seniorexpat (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge Electronic evidence
I suggest that the material on that page would be better off integrated into this article. The distinction between analog and digital evidence can readily be made here, and any US-centric focus addressed by adding EU-specific subsections. There's no need for two separate articles, specifically if one of them only consists of an added EU perspective and one "controversy" that also already has its own well-developed page. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge as per Elmidae's suggestion and rationale. Onel 5969  TT me 13:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge: I object to this suggestion, as it is based on a false reading. The MS case is quite different from the Klingst case. I have edited the page to make this more easily apparent, and find therefore the new page is justified. Seniorexpat (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This really does nothing to change the observation that the material could be easily and productively integrated here. What's wrong with sub-sections on these topics, while avoiding the confusing (and to the reader somewhat annoying) lede statement that "of the two meanings of the term, one is covered elsewhere and one is no longer used, and this article is merely about a few regional specialities"? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You write "...productively integrated here." Just where do then do you mean? Under Electronic evidence, I propose, as it is the term that is more comprehensive than Digital evidence? And secondly, who would produce a draft and where would we see it? Seniorexpat (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think that the present Digital evidence should be renamed "Electronic evidence" because that is the more encompassing term, fair enough; very likely worth a discussion on its own though (and not in my competence :). As for who would do the merging if that is the decision: whoever feels inclined to do so. Hopefully you would be willing to adapt the material, since you know your way around it? -- Elmidae (talk ·

contribs) 18:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Elmidae, for your ideas. However, looking over the current Digital evidence, I am reminded that it was written totally from the standpoint of common-law jurisdictions, i.e. mainly the US and UK, and was originally categorized in the right-hand box on Evidence as "part of the common-law series" -- which I corrected to read simply and more accurately "law series". Nonetheless the flavour remains in the text. English native speakers are, after all, usually at home in common-law countries. Indeed, it is one of the more interesting aspects of this type of evidence that it is leading to a hot encounter, if not reconciliation or convergence, of both jurisdictions.
 * As for the perspective of a new discussion on the title of any merged page, who wants to participate in that? Seniorexpat (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, just propose it below in a new section, and see what people say. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - a brief mention of relevant cases based on independent sources could easily be added here. But I'll also note that the content in Electronic evidence seems to have problems with an undue focus on recent cases (WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE) - so it would need to be trimmed and/or rephrased before merging. GermanJoe (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Stephen Mason: http://stephenmason.co.uk/ First, I must make it clear that I write and teach extensively on this topic, and have 2 books and a journal: http://stephenmason.co.uk/books/electronic-evidence (open source as well as on paper) http://stephenmason.co.uk/books/international-electronic-evidence (paper only) http://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/ (open source)

I have taught and continue to teach judges, lawyers and students about electronic evidence: http://stephenmason.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Stephen-Mason-professional-training-of-judges-lawyers-and-students-March-2019.pdf

You will observe that I have taught in more 'civil' law countries and 'commomn' law countries. I have also been the external marker to 3 PhDs relating to electronic evidence.

With the first edition of my book Electronic Evidence, the question was what title to give it: Digital Evidence or Electronic Evidence. This debate took place in 2006/2007. The publishers (LexisNexis) thought that Electronic Evidence was the better title becuase lawyers were so far behind this topic (and they still are). I explained this in chapter 2, and Burkhard Schafer agreed with my views when he joined me in the chapter. There is a problem with using both phrases, becasue, strictly speaking, neither are correct. It might be better to refer to it as Electronic Digital Evidence, because the data is digital, but nothing would happen without electricity. For my part, if the two pages were to be agreed, it would be appropriate to have a note to this effect on both pages. If a person lights on one or the other by chance, then at least they will be made aware of the problem. Regarding the comments relating to a page being based on common law, as opposed to civil law, there is an issue here that can be resolved. If you download the 4th edition of Electronic Evidence, you will observe that only 2 chapters are relevant to common law - the remaining chapters refer to legal issues in all legal systems. This is partly why the book is used across so many jurisdictions. In editing International Electronic Evidence, I not only had to find lawyers or legal academics in every jurisdiction to be willing to be part of the project, but I also had to tutor people in the topic, and to ensure we translated words from one language into English to ensure they were as accurate a transaltion as possible to reflect the legal culture and norms of that jurisdiction. For me the project was interesting to learn from so many jurisdictions. If pages are developed to take into account these differences, they can be more relevant. I hope this brief outline helps with the debate. What is certain is that few lawyers will rely on either page other than to help steer them in the direction of practitioner texts that cover the subject matter.86.11.9.17 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have no doubt that Seniorexpat is correct that they are technically different. However, I could not discern that difference in reading Electronic evidence (frankly the page lacks coherence at the moment - the individual parts make sense but not how they're part of the whole). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot discern any difference, may I refer you to these documents for better orientation: Digital Evidence Trends and Perspectives, [Deliverable] D2.1 EVIDENCE Semantic Structure Report, page 3, http://s.evidenceproject.eu/p/e/v/evidence-d2-1-summary-334.pdf and [Deliverable] D2.1 EVIDENCE Semantic Structure (dynamic version), http://www.evidenceproject.eu/categorization/

Seniorexpat (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The illustration at the right shows a definitive relationship between electronic evidence and digital evidence.Seniorexpat (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cybersecurity Policy
— Assignment last updated by CyberKravMaga (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)