<aside> 👉🏾
This ****article, forms part of a series of articles on application of blockchain for optimised evidence management. This introductory article introduces the applicability and legal legitimacy of blockchain for evidence management in legal systems, setting the stage for its potential to optimise processes and enhance reliability.
Text in the following colours mean:
⬛ : general
🟦 ****: blockchain application
🟫 : examples/use cases
</aside>
With advancements in technology, we are steadily moving towards automated and highly optimised legal systems. For instance, Google’s quantum chip, Willow, has the potential to enhance data protection through Novel Homomorphic Encryption Algorithms, addressing critical areas like data minimisation, purpose limitation, and safeguarding data subject rights. While laws have not evolved as fast as technology to address these developments, there are promising discussions in motion. For eg., UNCITRAL Working Group IV (Electronic Commerce) is currently working on the Model Law on Automated Contracting.
Evidence management is a resource-intensive aspect of the justice system, often creating barriers to timely and equitable access to justice. However, leveraging appropriate technologies can transform this process, enhancing the reliability, efficiency, and accessibility of evidence. This series of articles explores how emerging technologies, particularly blockchain, can optimise evidence management. This article focuses specifically on the use of blockchain to enhance the evidence collection process and examines whether explicit laws or policies are necessary to legitimise the adoption of these technologies.
The term evidence refers to information which is used to establish or refute a fact. Evidence is relied on to establish credibility in judicial proceedings, conflict resolution, journalism, policy formulation, scientific research, etc. In short, evidence is the foundation of truth, accountability and order in the society. Despite this, conventional means of collection, storage and authentication of evidence remains outdated and resource intensive.
There are several stages to evidence management, namely, collection of evidence, maintenance of chain of custody, secure preservation of evidence, authentication, and admissibility and establishing reliance of evidence. In this article, we will explore how challenges in the collection stage can be addressed with blockchain technology.
Blockchain is a digital database which stores data in cryptographically linked blocks. Once data is added on-chain (i.e.,blockchain), it is extremely difficult to alter without being detected. Its ability to record data in a transparent and tamper-resistant manner makes it an ideal use case for evidence management.
Collection/recording of evidence in its original form, whenever possible, is imperative to ensuring its reliability. If recording it in the original form is not an option, then we must ensure that digital copies or proof of physical evidence which are being recorded are authenticated. The process of evidence collection for legal purposes varies across jurisdictions and is guided by established protocols.
If evidence is collected in a manner which compromises its integrity, it may become unreliable or inadmissible. Consider instances where the person collecting it does so with the intention of tampering with it, or collecting it in a manner violating the mandated protocol (eg. law enforcement agent storing evidence in their personal laptop). Some of these issues may be addressed by formulating special systems powered by blockchain. To design such systems it is important to understand the how blockchain work.
<aside> 💡
The most ideal method of leveraging blockchain is to directly store evidence on-chain (or decentralised storage networks linked to blockchain), leaving no room for tampering.
<aside> 💡 Example 1
It may not be possible to stored evidence directly on-chain at all times. When evidence is collected and stored on-chain manually, it relies on intermediaries who could alter or mishandle the data. However this may be addressed by resorting the following methods:
Manual Authentication
The person recording the data may be an authorised individual such as a police officer or forensic expert ( based on the nature of evidence). The evidence may then be recorded with contextual details like officer ID, digital signatures, timestamp, and geolocation. The digital signature of the relevant personal may act as a verification mechanism, authenticating the data at source. While this process relies on human accountability, it introduces the risk of errors or deliberate manipulation, as the addition of the individual’s person markers adds a layer of accountability from their end.
Further layers of authentication can be introduced at different stages of the evidence lifecycle, such as forensic experts verifying the evidence, investigators adding notes, and judicial authorities approving the data. These subsequent layers of authentication will be discussed in more detail in later articles.
When incorporating evidence submitted by laypersons, it becomes essential to design systems that ensure the integrity and reliability of the data. Unlike evidence collected by state officials or authorised personnel, which follows strict legal protocol, and carries an inherent presumption of reliability due to their position and training, layperson-submitted evidence lacks such institutional safeguards. Various approaches can be considered when designing systems for evidence collected by laypersons. For example, reputation-based systems can be implemented to encourage users to provide honest and accurate information. These systems reward credibility and discourage manipulation, ultimately fostering trust in crowdsourced evidence. At ETH Bangkok, we explored the potential of such systems within decentralised evidence collection, a topic that will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming article.