Digital evidence within the EIO Framework (Directive 2014/41) and the Police Directive (Directive 2016/680) : an analysis of the balance between security and data protection

Abstract

The clear need to strike a fair balance between the need for security, through the execution of cross-border investigative acts and through the processing and exchange of digital evidence across different EU Member States, and the fundamental right to personal information privacy is one which lies at the foundation of this dissertation. A new technological challenge for investigative authorities has been created by the massive expansion of the user generated content community. Although the internet and online social networks have drastically changed society, these technological developments have changed the very nature of crime, as well as the evidence that supports law enforcement measures against it, and have, as a result, created new economic opportunities. Cybercrime is now an emerging crime. The fusion of these old types of crime with the modern world of cybercrime produces an unparalleled criminal environment and a number of new threats for law enforcement agencies, each of them on its own. The implementation of Directive 2014/41 on the European Investigative Order (EIO) was a significant step towards improving the capacities of law enforcement agencies, but it should not be regulated to ensure that strong facts and knowledge are required to establish innovative and creative ways of preventing new types of crime. This is another area that will be elaborated on throughout my dissertation. Digital proof and big data from the open source could become the foundation for the digital overhaul of law enforcement operations, but this will not be done for a variety of reasons to be explored in my dissertation. It is a delicate and difficult challenge to strike a fair balance between the data subject's rights such as rectification, restriction of collection, and erasure, and the need to conduct investigative operations. Although investigative operations, particularly where the crime committed is serious and the evidence solid, shall not be hindered, the data subject shall not be unreasonably deprived of the exercise of his or her rights at the same time. Thus there is an aspect of Human Rights Law that will also be included in this dissertation.