Chapter 10 looks at Estonia, which has one of the world’s most advanced digital societies. Correspondingly, its legal frameworks are adjusted to support the high level of digitalisation, including its criminal laws. However, the ongoing reform aims at making rules technology-neutral rather than establishing specialised regimes. Therefore, on the one hand, general rules of evidence apply to evidence in digital form, and the criminal procedure relies to a great extent on general and broad powers to meet the challenges of modern investigations. On the other hand, the cooperation duties of national service providers are highly specific and governed by the Electronic Communications Act. The chapter first provides an overview of Estonian criminal proceedings and digital evidence, before elaborating on the details of cooperation between law enforcement authorities and service providers, both domestic and foreign. Additionally, it considers aspects of protection of fundamental rights in this context.

Chapter 13 focuses on Luxembourg, which sits near the top of several regional and international indexes for ICT development, digital economy and society, and technological readiness, and hosts an impressive and growing number of data centres along with the regional or global headquarters of major internet and e-commerce players. The country’s small size, highly connected nature and financial strength translate into the active cooperation of service providers in criminal investigations in both domestic and cross-border situations. Drawing on interview-based research, this chapter provides an international audience with a targeted overview of the Luxembourg legal framework, the ways in which it has adapted to developments at the international and EU levels (Budapest Convention, European Investigation Order, Law Enforcement Directive) and the practical as well as legal challenges relating to the various forms of cooperation between service providers and law enforcement authorities. It offers a comprehensive, up-to-date picture of national data retention rules and discusses the potential impact of the new European Production Order on service providers in Luxembourg.

Chapter 16 comparatively examines the national legislation in EU member states in order to reveal common patterns and differences in legal rules and their practical application with respect to gathering digital evidence for the purpose of criminal investigations. The study is essentially based on the information provided in the preceding book chapters, covering seven national legal systems selected for this research: Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland and Spain. The comparative analysis investigates not only the rules on access to digital evidence but also their broader legislative context. Indeed, before analysing how data can be obtained, it is important to understand the legal terminology and categorisations used in the different legal systems, as well as the national rules on data retention in light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU.

Chapter 20 focuses on the UK legal landscape around the investigatory powers of UK law enforcement authorities (LEAs) and the duties of service providers to cooperate with them. The primary legislative framework from which LEAs derive their powers to obtain digital evidence is the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The chapter examines the different categories of data that may be requested from communication services providers and the legal procedures governing such lawful access. It also looks at other legal sources available to LEAs, to provide a comprehensive framework for cooperation between service providers and LEAs in obtaining digital evidence. Last, the chapter explores the cooperation of UK LEAs with non-UK-based service providers, as well as that of UK-based service providers with foreign LEAs.

Chapter 21 provides an account of the governing legal framework with respect to the gathering of digital evidence by US law enforcement authorities (LEAs) and the rules that bind US service providers – an issue that, given the quantity of data of interest in the hands of US-based providers, increasingly matters to LEAs around the world. It describes the general statutory and constitutional scheme governing data collection in the United States, with a focus on the federal level. It then examines specific questions with respect to cross-border cooperation, particularly in light of the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act, which seeks to better facilitate cross-border access to data, in specified circumstances, and in accordance with baseline procedural and substantive protections. The chapter’s concluding thoughts point to both the need for more attention to cross-border access to data and some of the lacunae in US law.

Chapter 17 discusses China’s Criminal Procedure Law, which provides a general cooperation obligation for all relevant entities, including service providers. As collecting data from service providers has become increasingly important in criminal investigations, the past decade has witnessed a certain number of laws, regulations and explanatory documents adopted to specify service providers’ cooperation obligations. This chapter systematically studies these provisions and summarizes the rich content of service providers’ cooperation obligations relating to collection of historical and real-time data in criminal investigations as well as in their daily operation. It also discusses future improvements to the current legislations, namely more protection of sensitive data, due process in evidence collection and criminal liability for service providers when cooperation obligations cannot be fulfilled. Based on China’s position of respecting data sovereignty, China requires data to be stored locally. Foreign LEAs can obtain data from Chinese service providers only via mutual legal assistance, and service providers in China are prohibited from providing data directly to foreign LEAs.

Chapter 14 discusses the Polish law on the basis of which electronic evidence is collected. These provisions are not always consistent with each other and do not contain a definition of electronic evidence. The chapter presents the problem of adapting the regulations of the Polish Telecommunications Act to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of legal requirements for collecting electronic evidence, and assesses the mechanism for controlling the acquisition of telecommunications data by the police. It looks at difficulties in providing electronic evidence to law enforcement authorities (LEAs) by very small service providers that do not possess appropriate organisational and financial resources, and the problem of limited remedies being available for persons whose data was collected by an LEA in violation of the law. It expresses doubt as to the manner of implementing the European Investigation Order in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Poland in terms of guaranteeing the defendant’s right to defence.