The Discovery of Stored Personally Identifiable EU Member Information - Report Example

? Constructing Report Introduction Over the past years, the pre trial for the forensic discovery procedures and the necessary requirements carried out in the US has gradually changed. This is mainly in the area of the forensic investigation requirements, where the US has been granted the right to search for the electronically stored data of individuals. The US amendments further has been updated so as to allow the forensic investigators free access to individuals data no matter where they are kept for privacy purposes. This further includes all the data of an individual stored by the European Union. Thus, for the forensic investigator to be able to gin access to any individual’s, he must first include all the necessary details and activities involved in the forensic report to be presented. Thus, they must follow the rules set by the EU to access any electronically stored personal records. Therefore, for the US investigators to be able to get information of individuals they have to gain access to their private data and get their details. For example, they are competent of obtaining the individuals’ live data using the advanced forensic pitfalls such as the encryption, or even the malicious running of the data procedures and also the networked storage pools information. Thus, the investigators need to obtain this personal forensic information in incidences like the abduction of children, missing of individuals, exploitation of individuals, and the act of pedophiles. These cases normally require the investigators to act very quickly and in time so as to effectively solve them. Thus, those investigators who are dealing with cases of crimes, forensics, and the suspects cases require them to act quickly and obtain evidence very fast without delay (Bennet & Raab, 2007). Identification of the applicable legal constraints involving the discovery of stored personally identifiable EU member information (also known as ESI) The abbreviation ESI stands for the electronically stored information of an individual. These are the information details of an individual that are stored in the computers and other electronics devices. For these procedures to be regarded as legal and acceptable by a state, they must therefore utilize a set of legal law and also standards (Bayuk, 2005). First, the investigator is chiefly appointed by the government body. The investigator must be able to identify and utilize a set of legal procedures which are applicable in the discovery of the stored personal records for any forensic investigations. Moreover, they have to ensure limited types of personal data are collected from the member states of the EU. For instance, the data that is capable of revealing an individual’s ethnic, or the race, also the political conviction unless the investigator collecting that information has the right to do so in the member country. Secondly, the investigator must guarantee accuracy of the forensic details collected. The investigator ought to ensure accuracy of forensic data and any inaccurate data must be deleted. This is to enable the availability of correct data and therefore the inaccurate forensic details must be removed or updated and rectified. Additionally, the investigator of the EU members must further ensure that the information collected from the individuals is kept securely and safely. Moreover, the data investigator must further make certain that they have implemented appropriate technical and also organizational measures so as to protect it against any forms of accidental loss, or even the alterations, or from any unauthorized disclosure or even access. There must be redress of the forensic data. This is an independent mechanism that ensures individuals have recourse if they want to and feel like their rights to their personal details has been interfered with or infringed. Eventually, the investigator must ensure that the individual has a right and access to the power to investigate claims of forensic data protection violations. They must also have a right to intervene and further stop the collection of any personal data and further initiate a legal procedure against any violators of the individual details (Staples, 2001). The means of obtaining the personal information by the EU for the forensic purposes follows a set of regulations which is employed to govern the legal procedures. For the investigator to be able to effectively communicate with the concerned individuals about the discovery requests there must be a well set procedure and rules governing them. For instance, the idea of the technological developments has a secure manner on reactions to incidences like the terrorism-related intimidation which normally occurs in numerous increasingly interrelated appearances. Moreover, the investigators apply the use of the technologies to monitor, also to screen and furthermore to analyze numerous number of handset and electronic mail interactions simultaneously in genuine instances. Secondly, there is an enormous development in data surveillance. The investigator does this by accessing the private and public-sector databases of all entities. The investigators accomplish this task by employing the use of modern technological procedures for instance, fingerprints. Furthermore, data on those using the airline is compulsorily obtained by the investigator. This information is utilized to analyze and also for the effective detection of the antiterrorist attacks (Farrell, 2002). How this Technique is Different than U.S. Discovery Law The techniques in which the US investigators use to gain access to an individual’s data are extremely different from that of the EU discovery laws. The US must first be capable of coordinating with the EU on the forensics discovery. Furthermore, the forensic data ought to be genuine. The US utilizes a different scheme for the forensic data investigation procedures as compared to that of the EU. The US employs what is called the ‘sectoral’ approach while the EU employs the governmental regulation rules. Therefore, it is known that the US and the EU data protection policy have never been similar. The sectoral approach involves the employment of the combination of the legislation, the regulation and further employment of the self regulation policy. For the US, the sector must start to implement the self governing regulations to issues caused by the internet technology The EU must first ensure that the third party country is capable of giving effective and adequate details regarding the forensic details before they decide to exchange the forensic details. Therefore, they must guarantee that the recipient third party country is willing and ready to comply with the forensic investigations rules set by the EU. Subsequently, the investigator must be ready to advice the third country for instance, the US about the level of protection that is required by the EU. Therefore, the US must be willing to listen and ready to oblige to the rules set by the EU. Moreover, the investigator has the task of successfully negotiating with the US representatives over the protection of the forensic details of both countries. Though the law set for forensic details protection is in use, the US has a very low level of forensic details protection especially, since it only favors the US citizens and not the foreign countries (Bennet & Raab, 2007). How Investigators should Document (in compliance with EU discovery requirements) a Forensic Report The investigators are recommended to a specific laid down procedure to be competent of carrying out their tasks on the forensic data discovery. The methods in which the US investigators use to communicate and coordinate with the EU on the forensics discovery must be genuine. The investigator first goes to the field to collect the necessary details of individuals. The investigator then saves the individuals data as databases files. Then the investigator takes the data collected to the laboratory where they carry out their thorough investigation. When in the laboratory, the investigator carry out the analysis of the data collected from the suspects system. The investigator collects the information using a variety of systems developed by the IT experts. For instance, they utilize the technique of the MacLockPick which is specifically developed for this function. This version of technology utilizes the technique of the logarithm functions to perform the analysis procedures (Bayuk, 2005). The investigator then is able to compile the final report of the forensic data based on the information and items of interest. Further, this technique enables the investigator to get the some of the critical details about the suspect for example. The investigator utilizes the application of software program called the MacLockPick on a computer system to perform a given task on field triage. Normally, the results obtained from this procedure are then used to analyze the obtained data. Moreover, the investigators tend to employ the use of the computer forensic procedure for instance, the MacForensic Lab. Thus, this forensic application chiefly focuses on the final analysis of the static information of any given individual. Eventually, the investigator is competent of obtaining the final professional and well formatted reports about the forensic details obtained and required for further investigation procedures. Another method used in the compiling of the forensic details of any individual involves the utilization of the model called the ‘cyber forensic field triage process model’ (Bennet & Raab, 2007). This technique involves obtaining of an individual data from the field. It is vital and more essential in giving out the identification of the data, and also the analysis of the information obtained and the interpretation of the digital details within a very short time. The investigators are further competent of obtaining the information while still in the field even without going back to the laboratory for further investigation. Thus, they are capable of carrying out the examination and also the acquiring of the final personal images of forensics data. The US has a different scheme for the obtaining any individual forensic details as compared to that of the EU. (Bennet & Raab, 2007). Conclusion From the discussions above, it is clear that not all the participating agencies, the chief departments or even the immediate user of the data obtained about the forensic investigation have the same and equal need for the information obtained. Therefore, the application of the MacLockPick enables specific users to access only the required details of the forensic investigation which is regarded to be vital for their investigation. Secondly, all the participating parties involved in the forensic investigation ought to take effective measures required to comply with the investigations procedures and also decisions of the data protection body. Based on the information above, the US is competent of stipulating individuals’ data of other countries which can only be transferred to the third countries that are competent of offering adequate protection of their right to their personal information. Therefore, U.S. ought to set a law for the procedures to follow while conducting the forensic investigations. This is therefore done by combining of databases that will eventually lead to the creation of unbelievably detailed image and evidence of any forensic incidences. Lastly, focusing on the coming years ahead, extra concentration will further be required for the description of new systems to be employed when obtaining an individuals’ private data for forensic investigation. This will be emphasized on the behavioral character of an individual, and also the identification tags termed as smart chips for any persons, in the search engines and moreover in all the social networks. In addition, the EU Member States are trying to come up with ever extra potent fundamental databases which will belong to them. They are doing this by utilizing the idea of biometrics such as the computer comprehensible facial snaps, the idea of the fingerprints use, and the DNA analysis for instance, in the EU and the US, they use a central databases that is capable of holding social security of the population, their pension and the benefit details of the individuals. It further holds the medical records on huge segment of the inhabitants. References Bennet C., & Raab, C. (2007). The adequacy of privacy: The European Union data protection directive and the North American response. New York, NY: Information Society Press. Farrell, H. (2002). Negotiating privacy across arena: The EU-US safe harbor discussions. Common goods reinventing European and international governance. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield Publications. Bayuk, J. (2005). Cyber forensics: Understanding information security investigations. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell. Staples, W. (2001). Encyclopedia of privacy. New York, NY: Springer Publishers. Read More