header-logo header-logo

01 June 2018 / Nick Vamos , Philip Gardner
Issue: 7795 / Categories: Features , Profession , Technology
printer mail-detail

Cloud security

nlj_7795_vamos

Nick Vamos & Philip Gardner discuss competing approaches to digital evidence gathering

  • Competing approaches to digital evidence gathering in light of the US CLOUD Act and the proposed Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for Electronic Evidence in Criminal Matters (‘the E-Evidence Regulation’).

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies across the world are increasingly demanding speedy access to electronic data, most commonly emails or other forms of digital messaging. Such data is ubiquitous, ephemeral and lacks an obvious geographical location: three qualities that give rise to thorny practical and legal problems.

Electronic communications data is as ubiquitous in crime as it is in normal daily life. Offenders communicate via email and social media in order to plan and carry out their schemes. Crucial evidence can be found within a suspect’s internet search history. Some offences, such as hacking and disruption attacks, exist only in the digital world. The importance of digital evidence has been underlined repeatedly in high-profile terrorist investigations, from the UK airline bomb plot in 2006 through to present day attacks

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll