Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 9 - Digital Evidence Generated by Consumer Products

  • from Part II - Human–Robot Interactions and Procedural Law
  • Edited by Sabine Gless, Universität Basel, Switzerland, Helena Whalen-Bridge, National University of Singapore
  • Book:
    Human–Robot Interaction in Law and Its Narratives
    Published online:
    03 October 2024
    Print publication:
    29 August 2024, pp 193-220
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    Historically, criminal offenses were proved through witness testimony, physical evidence, confessions, and rudimentary forensic techniques such as fingerprinting. But with the dawn of the digital era, prosecutors have increasingly relied on evidence gleaned from the modern arsenal of consumer technologies, such as cell phones or automated systems. Although much has been written about prosecutors’ use of such evidence to prove a defendant’s guilt, far less attention has been given to the challenges faced by the defense in accessing, presenting, or attacking forms of proof derived from sophisticated consumer technologies. This chapter aims to fill that gap, first by presenting a taxonomy of digital proof and then by isolating the critical characteristics of such evidence. The chapter suggests that this taxonomy can support efforts to formalize and standardize a defendant’s ability to marshal defense evidence for exculpatory and adversarial purposes as readily as the government does to inculpate.