Stakeholder Forum


Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2
1
Law Enforcement Issues / COE Cloud Evidence Group - Hearing : Criminal justice access to data
« Last post by mattiaep on November 19, 2015, 03:27:58 PM »
http://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/hearing
2
Law Enforcement Issues / Report - Criminal justice access to data in the cloud: challenges
« Last post by mattiaep on November 19, 2015, 03:25:17 PM »
Dear all,
I suggest you the reading of the Report "Criminal justice access to data in the cloud: challenges" produced by the Cloud Evidence Group at the COE.

http://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680304b59
3
Data Protection Issues / Lawful Interception in Cross-border Scenarios
« Last post by LUH on October 23, 2015, 03:23:38 PM »
Lawful interception has undergone significant technological changes over the recent years. Not only has PSTN been largely replaced by packet-switched networks regarding traditional telephony, but also VoIP is being largely used. VoIP services often include built-in encryption.

As a result, traditional approaches to interception on the line between the terminals are doomed to fail in such use cases. A remedy to that is intercepting the telecommunications at one of the terminal devices involved, prior to encryption respectively post decryption. This, however, involves secretly implementing a software to channel the communications to the intercepting unit.

Such procedure is not necessarily covered by existing law, as secretly and remotely altering IT systems such as mobile devices in some member states is governed by other laws than those governing traditional wiretapping. Simultaneously the transition into the mobile results in these devices being moved through different member states, without the intercepting unit necessarily knowing about.

This causes legal insecurities, as – other than traditional lawful interception – this case is not being covered by the Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance.

As a result, the legal situation for LEAs becomes tricky, when the target is moving between different member states and the implemented software continues to intercept data (which is possibly even useful for the case). In that case, such activity could violate laws of the state in which the target is located. This, as it seems, is not yet sufficiently addressed by international/European law, while likewise this situation is of significant practical relevance.

This raises the question of how this could be handled in the future.
4
Standard Issues / Re: Public platform for implementing the digital evidence exchange
« Last post by fturchi on October 08, 2015, 12:34:59 AM »
The desirable solution could be the integration with other platforms already in place, especially those managed by major European/International public bodies. In this case an existing platform should extend their already implemented features in order to manage:
  • Metadata for structuring and representing forensics information
  • Formal languages for expressing these metadata with standard such as DFAX/CybOX or NIEM or UMF
  • Software agents/tools for processing these formalisms
 
5
Standard Issues / Public platform for implementing the digital evidence exchange
« Last post by fturchi on October 08, 2015, 12:27:24 AM »
Which existing platforms already in operation. may be the most suitable solution for the implementation of the evidence exchange process?
6
Standard Issues / Standard for exchanging digital forensic information
« Last post by fturchi on October 08, 2015, 12:25:39 AM »
Standard are important in each science field. In exchanging forensics information is essential to determine the essential metadata for representing the involved forensics information and formal languages for representing these matadata, in order to facilitate tools interoperability and implement a digital evidence exchanging.
7
Standard Issues / Re: Digital Forensics Tools Catalogue
« Last post by fturchi on October 08, 2015, 12:19:36 AM »
Other suggestions:

  • a trusted group of forensics expert should be allowed to add an evaluation of a specific tool on the basis of his/her own experience
  • Further details should be introduced on forensics tools dedicated to Mobile devices, for instance some information about the Applications supported/managed by the tool
  • Some statistics on tools popularity would be appreciated
8
Standard Issues / Re: Digital Forensics Tools Catalogue
« Last post by fturchi on October 08, 2015, 12:15:23 AM »
Some suggestions collected from Digital Forensics Experts:

  • there should be the possibility to add new tools, using the web interface
  • It should be possible to notice new test/review about a specific tools, noticing the related URL
9
Standard Issues / Digital Forensics Tools Catalogue
« Last post by fturchi on October 08, 2015, 12:11:47 AM »
A new Forensics Tools Catalogue is available via the following address:

wp4.evidenceproject.eu

What do you think? Every remarks would be appreciate!
10
Market Issues / The "social arena" of electronic evidence
« Last post by Daniele Mezzana on July 03, 2015, 12:05:53 PM »
Whitin the framework of our work package the following phenomena were studied.

a. The types of actors involved in the introduction of electronic evidence in courts (on a national, European, or global scale, depending on the case)

b. A prima facie estimate, based on existing information, of the market of electronic evidence (quantitative assessment of the various types of actors; current expenditure on technological solutions in the field of electronic evidence).

We have some types of actors having a direct “interest” in electronic evidence, i.e., those public and private actors involved in handling the electronic evidence, and those providing technical solutions and assistance in this field. We have also some types of actors that play an indirect role, since they are part of a broader political, social, economic context influencing the introduction and the use of electronic evidence in courts, in general terms.

From the analysis there emerges a comprehensive framework, characterized by the presence and action of numerous actors, with specific orientations and strategies about the introduction and use of electronic evidence. These actors were not always in agreement nor did they always coordinate with each other, in a context of rapid change which, however, requires more interaction, and common rules and standards. It is clear, therefore, that policies in support of the introduction of electronic evidence in courts cannot disregard this complexity.


Pages: [1] 2