<aside> 👉🏾
Text in the following colours indicate:
⬛ : general information
🟦 ****: explanation of application of technology
🟫 : examples/use cases
</aside>
With advancements in technology, we are steadily moving towards automated and highly efficient legal systems. For instance, Google’s quantum chip, Willow, has the potential to enhance data protection with 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 and more. In short, evidence is the foundation of truth, accountability and order in society. Despite this, conventional means of collection, storage and authentication of evidence remains outdated and resource intensive.
In the legal context, 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 on-chain are first 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 designing special applications powered by blockchain. To design such systems it is important to understand how blockchain works.
<aside> 💡
Directly Collecting Evidence On-chain
The most effective way to leverage blockchain for evidence management is to collect and store evidence directly on-chain (or via decentralised storage networks linked to blockchain). This approach ensures tamper-proof integrity and transparency. However, this method is only applicable when the evidence originates from an event that occurs entirely within the blockchain ecosystem.
<aside> 💡 Example 2
It may not be possible to store evidence directly on-chain at all times. When evidence is collected from outside the blockchain and then stored on it, it relies on intermediaries who could alter or mishandle the data. This could be the case of data stored on-chain being recorded in real time by an intermediary(digital/human), or the case of copies of pre-existing data or proof of physical data being stored on-chain at a later stage.
This issue may be addressed by resorting to the following methods:
Human 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 (crowdsourced evidence), it becomes essential to design systems that ensure the integrity and reliability of the data. Unlike evidence collected by state officials or authorised personnels, which follows strict legal protocol and carries an inherent presumption of reliability due to their position and training, crowdsourced evidence lacks such institutional safeguards. However, various additional checks could be mandated, when considering evidence collected by them. 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.
<aside> 💡 Example 3
<aside> 💡 Example 4
Photographs Taken at a Public Protest
(Recording copy of digital evidence on-chain)
</aside>
<aside> 💡 Example 5
Law Enforcement Evidence Seized During a Raid
(Recording proof of physical evidence on-chain)
</aside>
Oracles
Blockchain oracles are tools/services which may be incorporated into blockchain based evidence management systems to increase the reliability of data coming into the blockchain. There are different types of oracles, such as hardware oracles, software oracles, human oracles, etc.
Oracles are external systems that provide real-world data to blockchains, enabling smart contracts to interact with information outside the blockchain. When it comes to evidence collection, blockchain offers a tamper-proof system to store and verify data. However, to automate and streamline the process of collecting evidence, we can incorporate real-world data through oracles. These oracles act as bridges between the blockchain and external sources, allowing evidence to be automatically collected and recorded, ensuring that the process remains reliable, efficient, and tamper-resistant.
Oracles can be used to build automated evidence management systems which directly store data from outside blockchain without compromising its integrity.
<aside> 💡 Example 6
Real world applications which leverage blockchain to record reliable evidence are already in motion.
K-Smart is an e-governance initiative by Kerala government (in India), which aims to make local self-government services accessible online. Via its mobile application, it officers services such as birth and death registration, tax payment, etc. Registration of birth, death and marriage certificates is supported by a private Ethereum blockchain. Storing certificates on-chain ensures the authenticity and immutability of these vital records, providing irrefutable evidence of their validity.
The Starling Lab for Data Integrity is a research lab based out of California, building tools to establish trust in digital information. In 2022 they submitted a document with Hala Systems, to the International Criminal Court. This document provided evidence relating to violations of right to education and information about attacks on educations facilities during the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. The evidence recorded, preserved and verified using decentralised storage solutions like Filecoin and storj and public blockchains like Avalanche and LikeCoin, is claimed to be the first of its kind submission in any court of law.
Unfortunately there exists other examples of large scale projects which have failed, such as the case of TradeLens, a platform jointly developed by Maersk and IBM. Considerable resources were invested during the development of TradeLens, in digitising and automating the bill of lading (BoL) process using blockchain, which could have served as a valuable source of evidence for shipping transactions. Unfortunately, due to a lack of widespread industry adoption, it failed to achieve the necessary level of commercial success. Therefore, it is crucial for those developing similar tools to account for all contingencies, including legal compliance.
This section examines whether we must explicitly recognise or even legally mandate the use of blockchain and related technologies for evidence management.
Legal Legitimacy of blockchain based evidence management
To encourage use of blockchain and related technology for evidence management, it must be legitimised in the eyes of law. Currently, international and domestic laws to do not explicitly recognise blockchain based evidence. However, its legitimacy may be implied from the existing text.
For example, UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996) provides a legal framework recognising the validity of electronic records and digital evidence in transactions. This served as the foundation for many nations to draft laws concerning the recognition of digital records. While it does not explicitly reference blockchain or decentralised storage systems, it satisfies the parameters set out by the Model Law for admissibility of electronic records, namely, the requirement to be reliably created, stored and accessed. The potential of blockchain blockchain to optimise evidence management, leads to the question, ‘must it be legally mandated’ ?
Mandating Blockchain based Evidence Management
Legally mandating the use of blockchain for evidence collection, preservation and admissibility would be against the principle of technology neutrality. This principle ensures that laws do not favour specific technologies, allowing flexibility and inclusivity for various technological solutions. One reason for emphasising technology neutrality is the high cost of adopting and adapting to new technologies as they evolve, which can pose significant challenges for countries or organisations with limited resource.
Blockchain, as it currently stands, can be an expensive technology to build upon and implement. Thankfully, rapid developments are being made to make it more affordable and energy-efficient. For instance, Ethereum, one of the most widely used blockchains, transitioned to Ethereum 2.0 after "The Merge," reducing energy consumption by over 99% and lowering transaction costs, making blockchain adoption more accessible and sustainable.
Instead of mandating blockchain for evidence management, it would be more effective to leave the law’s scope broad enough to legitimise blockchain-based evidence, allowing for flexibility as the technology evolves. I believe that policies or laws that incentivise blockchain adoption, rather than mandate it, would encourage innovation and promote the use of reliable digital tools in evidence management.
Incentivising the Use of Blockchain for Evidence Management
Incentivising the use of blockchain for evidence management can stimulate innovation while ensuring that legal processes remain flexible and adaptive to evolving technologies. By offering incentives such as legal recognition or regulatory support, policymakers can encourage the integration of blockchain as a trusted tool for managing evidence. For example, presuming the reliability and admissibility of blockchain-based evidence could reduce the steps required to prove its authenticity by automating and streamlining the process. In traditional evidence management systems, authentication often involves lengthy procedures to establish the chain of custody, validate the integrity of the evidence, and prove its origin. Blockchain, however, offers an inherent solution through its immutable, tamper-proof structure. This approach would save time and resources, foster a more efficient legal process, encourage the adoption of reliable digital tools, and lower the overall cost of evidence management*.*
Blockchain and related technologies like Oracles and Decentralised Storage Networks offer transformative potential for optimising evidence management, by enhancing the reliability, efficiency and accessibility of the process. From ensuring authenticity of evidence at the point of collection to maintaining a secure chain of custody, these technologies enable solutions to provide a critical alternative to our easily penetrable and resource intensive tools. Blockchain technology has already begun demonstrating its practicality in evidence management (discussed here). While the potential is immense, there is still a long way to go.