Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identity and Sufficiency of Digital Evidence

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Digital Forensics XVI (DigitalForensics 2020)

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 589))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 519 Accesses

Abstract

Digital evidence proffered by prosecutors is subject to the same standards as all other evidence. However, a major concern is that the novelty of digital evidence may lead to less rigor in its application. This chapter discusses issues related to identity and sufficiency of digital evidence, including the need for authenticity and reliability, and concerns about identification via digital evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Axon AI and Policing Technology Ethics Board, First Report of the Axon AI and Policing Technology Ethics Board, Axon, Scottsdale, Arizona, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. Blue, J. Condell, T. Lunney and E. Furey, Bayesian-chain: Intelligent identity authentication, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Irish Signals and Systems Conference, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  3. T. Maughan, Infinite Detail, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Reputation Defender, About Reputation Defender, Redwood City, California (www.reputationdefender.com/about), 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Smith, Review of Selected Los Angeles Police Department Data-Driven Policing Strategies, BPC #19-0072, Office of the Inspector General, Los Angeles Police Commission, Los Angeles, California (www.lapdpolicecom.lacity.org/031219/BPC_19-0072.pdf), 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  6. State of Texas, Texas Penal Code §33.07. Online impersonation, Austin, Texas (codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-33-07.html), 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  7. United States Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit), United States v. Alexander, Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 48, pp. 1477–1484, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. United States Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), United States v. Vayner, Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 769, pp. 125–131, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  9. United States Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit), United States v. Jackson, Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 208, pp. 633–637, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), Mikes v. Bork, Federal Reporter, Second Series, vol. 947, pp. 353–361, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Fraser, Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 448, pp. 833–842, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  12. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Perry, Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 438, pp. 642–652, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  13. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Ray, Federal Appendix, vol. 189, pp. 436, 449–450, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  14. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Jordan, Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 544, pp. 656–671, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  15. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Martinez, Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 588, pp. 301–317, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  16. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Boyd, Federal Appendix, vol. 447, pp. 684–690, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  17. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Davis, Federal Appendix, vol. 531, pp. 601–607, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  18. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Gonzalez, Federal Appendix, vol. 560, pp. 554–559, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  19. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Farrad, Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 895, pp. 859, 875–880, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  20. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), Cahoo et al. v. SAS Analytics Inc. et al., Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 912, pp. 887–897, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  21. United States Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), United States v. Vance, No. 19-5160, Decided and Filed, April 17, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  22. United States Court of Appeals (Tenth Circuit), Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, Federal Reporter, Third Series, vol. 402, pp. 1039–1046, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  23. United States District Court (Eastern District of Kentucky), United States v. Vance, Transcript of Trial, Case No. 18-CR-10, R. 72, Ewald, Transcript of Trial, 9/5/2018, pp 48–49, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  24. United States Government, Rule 404. Character evidence; crimes or other acts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Washington, DC (www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404), 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  25. United States Government, Rule 801. Definitions that apply to this article; exclusions from hearsay, Federal Rules of Evidence, Washington, DC (www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801), 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  26. United States Government, Rule 803. Exceptions to the rule against hearsay, Federal Rules of Evidence, Washington, DC (www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803), 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  27. United States Government, Rule 901. Authenticating or identifying evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Washington, DC (www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901), 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  28. United States Supreme Court, Jackson v. Virginia, U.S. Supreme Court, vol. 443, pp. 307–339, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  29. J. Velasco, Four Case Studies in Fraud: Social Media and Identity Theft, Socialnomics Blog (socialnomics.net/2016/01/13/4-case-studies-in-fraud-social-media-and-identity-theft), January 13, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

    Michael Losavio

Authors
  1. Michael Losavio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Losavio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA

    Gilbert Peterson

  2. Tandy School of Computer Science, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA

    Sujeet Shenoi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Losavio, M. (2020). Identity and Sufficiency of Digital Evidence. In: Peterson, G., Shenoi, S. (eds) Advances in Digital Forensics XVI. DigitalForensics 2020. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 589. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56223-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56223-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56222-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56223-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation