Global Forensic Investigations: Discovery of EU Data - IT Course

This report delves into the legal landscape surrounding computer crime investigations, specifically focusing on the discovery of personally identifiable information (PII) of EU members, also known as electronically stored information (ESI), within the context of global forensic investigations. It begins by outlining the legal framework provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in the United States, particularly Rules 26 and 34, which mandate the disclosure of relevant information during investigations. The report identifies the applicable legal constraints related to EU member data, emphasizing the commitment to privacy protection and adherence to the EU Directive. It contrasts these regulations with U.S. discovery law, highlighting differences in approach and requirements. The analysis covers aspects such as data handling, evidence credibility, and the rights of accused individuals. The report concludes by summarizing the key distinctions between the U.S. and EU approaches to forensic investigations and data protection, underscoring the importance of understanding these differences in global investigations. Desklib provides students with access to past papers and solved assignments for further study.

Running head: GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Objectives of the law..............................................................................................................2
Computer Evidences Analyzed..............................................................................................3
Findings..................................................................................................................................3
Identification of the applicable legal constraints involving the discovery of stored
personally identifiable EU member information (also known as ESI)..................................5
How this is different from U.S. discovery law.......................................................................5
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................7
References..................................................................................................................................8

2GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Introduction
It is stated by FRCP or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a report that needs to be
containing the specifications of an investigation needs to be submitted to the court in every
way possible. This is specifically stated within the Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) under
the Rule 26 and 34 (Silberman, Stein & Wolff, 2018). In simple words, the Rule 34 states if
FRCP permits that the party can request the responding party, then under the Rule 26 (b), the
chosen documents and the information stored with electronic procedure is bound to be
produced to the court for further inspection. This entire report is based upon the producing of
this relevant investigation rule under specific analysis that would help in understanding the
legal constrictions that would most likely be applied regarding the discovery of information
that can be identified individually by the European Union members.
Objectives of the law
The primary objective for this particular report is to invest properly on the objectives
and overall purpose of the Computer Forensics investigation. This would provide the reader
with an inclusive idea about the specification of Computer Forensics investigations to find
out if it is possible that the probability of considering the suspect using the computer
forensics equipment for the conduction of a specific crime (Subrin & Main, 2016). This is to
find out the involvement of the hardware and the software about the committed crime. The
key objective of the law was to specify if there had been any sort of involvement from the
operating system or any illegal acts were committed by the suspect about the crime. This
would make a reader understand what the crime literally demands from the suspect and what
is need to be investigated upon for further analyzing the justification of the law. The report
would analyze the effectiveness of the enforcement of the law by FRCP and how effectively

3GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
does it respond to the actual committed crime, or how relevant is it with the cybercrimes or
unauthorized accessing of identities and the investigation processes along with it.
Computer Evidences Analyzed
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) under the Rule 26 and 34, it is mentioned
that if a suspect is considered to be under the investigation considered for a cybercrime, then
the list of computer equipment apparently used for the conduction of the crime can be
investigated. There are disclosures in this regards that needs to be included further through
the research procedure while the entire thing is about to be carried out, that is, the sets of
equipment is brought abut to the court for further analysis of all the suggestive equipment can
be further continued. These disclosures can be grouped into several other disclosure groups
that elaborates the description about the electronic evidences that needs to be analyzed and
presented to the court (Cleckley, Davis & Palmer Jr, 2015). The initial disclosure states that
the computer equipments can be investigated when one party requests for this but if the other
party does not mean to have the computer equipment investigated they can also of for denial
of this particular request for not disclosing the identity of any computer equipment and
investigate on it further with special conditions of being privileged or be protected from
disclosure. Therefore it can be said that the disclosure of the electronic information through
the investigation of the computer systems for a suspected attack can be denied by the suspect
only if the equipments to be investigated fall under the section of being a privileged
equipment or search which should be protected for further disclosure (Slesnick, 2016).
Findings
The findings of the legal information about rule number 26 according to the Legal
Information Institute states general ideas about the Duty to Disclose; General Provision

4GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Governing Discovery (Grimm, 2017). Through the analysis of this particular regulation that
falls under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure number 26 and 34, the findings can be
thoroughly described as follows:
This legislation procedure is comprised of a number of disclosures that ensure what
the legislation is all about in details. The last dates the initial disclosure, the disclosure of
expert testimony, the pretrial disclosures, the trial preparation materials, and the claiming of
the privilege or protecting of trial preparation materials.
The general disclosure law expands the rule number 26 (a) (1) (b). This rule states that
the entire awaiting request made on the discovery must be provided to one party to the other.
 This law states that all the confidential and important information would most
likely be discoverable considering the name, address along with the telephone
number of every specific person if they are able to be identified with the
subjects regarding that particular information so that the unveiling party could
use this in the support of their defenses author claims; otherwise it would only
be used for impeachment.
 All the documents must be electronically stored or else the description can
also be made a copy of with the category and location described in details.
Along with that all the tangible things that the disclosing party can present to
the court having in the possession, control or custody can use it for presenting
to the court in support of their defenses and claims (Laporte & Redgrave,
2015). The computation of the category of damages that the disclosing party
claims should also we make themselves available for inspection and copying
since under the rule 34, can be opted out of being presented to the court or
investigated in details when they are privileged or protected from disclosure.

5GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Identification of the applicable legal constraints involving the discovery of stored
personally identifiable EU member information (also known as ESI)
According to the applicable legal limitations concerning the unearthing of stowed
information about EU members that would be personally identified, which is also known as
ESI, it can be stated that this particular policy within AST American Society of
Transplantation does not implement the act of collecting personal data belonging to
somebody to be presented or investigated under any circumstances unless the owner of the
personal data chooses to provide them further (Carey, 2018). This particular organization
tries to protect the law by implementing the commitment towards the protection of privacy
belonging to any kind of member. The organization uses the personal data of any person for
contacting that particular individual regarding information that the organization things that
the individual might be interested in. the organization may also send the particular individual
email to content from a third party but there is also contact detail available for the
organization to unsubscribe from receiving this emails when the individual does not ask to.
In addition to that all the marketing communications can also be unsubscribe from if a
user or a particular individual does not want to collect any information any more regarding
marketing communication. Any of the personal details of EU member information is not
record provided to the third parties and this particular organization helps in the protection of
this EU member information under any circumstances.
How this is different from U.S. discovery law
There are indeed various differences found in the forensic reports that go by the
legalization constraint in the United States and the European Union (Drachsler & Greller,
2016). It is quite possible that both the laws for protecting privacy of suspects are treated

6GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
differently in both these countries. Where the United States regards the law considering
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or FRCP, the European Union follows the EU Directive
(Horvitz & Mulligan, 2015). According to FRCP, any kind of investigation has to have an
end in case of a forensic report irrespective of the legal constraints that might be involved
with FRCP or EU Directive.
Where according to the United States any investigator has to identify all the relevant
findings in the supporting detail section of the forensic report they also need to justify how
these relevant findings we are transported. On the other hand while investigator has been
performing in investigation under EU, they need to provide the information to add and ensure
that the credibility and legitimacy of the evidence is justified (Bennett & Raab, 2017).
On the other hand the article 26 for EU Directive guidelines, it has been stated that the
agent needs to add detail by presenting the way by which every data would be used for the
resistance of an accused person of a particular misconduct and if there is any establishment
which has been leading the investigation procedure, all the data should be transferred to the
forensic report and they should state that this particular organization consists of a privacy
policy agreement receiving the ESI or PII (Leibenger et al., 2016).
Another of the differences includes the forensic reports which must be used along
with the terminologies while the forensic authority needs to perform the investigation with
the interest of the data as well as the subjects that are under investigation (Weiss & Archick,
2016). In simple language it can be said that FRCP does not allow any evidence or individual
do not fall under investigation for itching out for their details whereas EU Directive tends to
protect all kinds of data or information even if it belongs to a suspect for might be regarding
evidence.

7GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Conclusion
Therefore it can be concluded by saying that there are various rules and regulation
regarding investigation in the forensic department and in this particular report the
investigation has been analyzed in case of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and European
Union Directive. Both the countries have different set of rules in handling the evidences
during forensic investigations. This has been clearly understood by the report as mentioned
above me clearly stating the objectives of each of the laws, the analysis of the computer
evidences the findings about the law and the legislation under rule number 26 and 34 the
documentation and findings of the legal constraints that would be applied involving the
discovery of this personally stored identified data known as ESI for EU Directive find the
difference of EU Directive with US Discovery Law.

8GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
References
Bennett, C. J., & Raab, C. D. (2017). The governance of privacy: Policy instruments in
global perspective. Routledge.
Carey, P. (2018). Data protection: a practical guide to UK and EU law. Oxford University
Press, Inc..
Cleckley, F. D., Davis, R. J., & Palmer Jr, L. J. (2015). Litigation Handbook on West
Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Juris Publishing, Inc..
Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2016, April). Privacy and analytics: it's a DELICATE issue a
checklist for trusted learning analytics. In Proceedings of the sixth international
conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 89-98). ACM.
Grimm, P. W. (2017). Are We Insane: The Quest for Proportionality in the Discovery Rules
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rev. Litig., 36, 117.
Horvitz, E., & Mulligan, D. (2015). Data, privacy, and the greater good. Science, 349(6245),
253-255.
Laporte, E. D., & Redgrave, J. M. (2015). A Practical Guide to Achieving Proportionality
Under New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Fed. Cts. L. Rev., 9, 19.
Leibenger, D., Möllers, F., Petrlic, A., Petrlic, R., & Sorge, C. (2016). Privacy challenges in
the quantified self movement–an EU perspective. Proceedings on privacy enhancing
technologies, 2016(4), 315-334.
Silberman, L. J., Stein, A. R., & Wolff, T. B. (2018). Civil Procedure: Theory and Practice.
Aspen Publishers.

9GLOBAL FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Slesnick, F. L. (2016). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence-
Selected Text Relevant to Forensic Economic Testimony. J. Legal Econ., 23, 87.
Subrin, S. N., & Main, T. O. (2016). Braking the rules: why state courts should not replicate
amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Case W. Res. L. Rev., 67, 501.
Weiss, M. A., & Archick, K. (2016). US-EU data privacy: from safe harbor to privacy shield.