CC BY 4. Introduction The Council of Europe adopted the Guidelines on electronic evidence in civil and administrative law only recently, on 30 January The aim of this paper is to determine whether the revision of the Guidelines is already needed.
Bet kokiu atveju į prekybos platformos pasirinkimą reikia
This is of particular importance as the Guidelines need to be updated from time to time and the first experience of their application should be used kraking trumpas bitcoin this purpose. Therefore, the proposal recognizes that the direct taking of evidence by videoconference should be one the means of taking of evidence.
The equal treatment and evidentiary value of electronic evidence should be ensured. The readers of this paper are encouraged to read both the guidelines and the explanatory memorandum. The references to the original version of the Guidelines is made only if required.
Since both authors were the members of the drafting group preparing the Guidelines, we also would like to comment on the sections removed during the final stage of preparation.
We kraking trumpas bitcoin of opinion that some points and definitions should be reinstated to the Guidelines, as their removal was not sufficiently justified. This mainly relates to the fundamental principle of human rights. Additionally, the Guidelines should directly refer to the use of blockchain and cloud computing in securing or handling electronic evidence.
Beside the general question of the possible revision, a number of additional specific academic questions that need to be answered. Should the revised Guidelines provide more practical advice to courts and legal practitioners related to electronic evidence?
Should such guidelines be aimed at harmonisation of the national legislation of Member States or continue to be established at the level of general principles accommodating all the different legal systems?
Should the new EU regulations on electronic evidence and ongoing work at the Hague Conference be used as a source of inspiration for developing revised guidelines?
The main reasons for revising the guidelines new challenges The courts and administrative authorities daily handle cases concerning electronic evidence that have been submitted by the parties and other persons involved in civil or administrative proceedings.
This is also directly related to the development of Online Dispute Resolutions ODR systems, more often in parallel with introduction of artificial intelligence algorithms i. ODR are to be defined as mechanisms used for dispute resolution that is carried out at a distance through the use of computers and the internet.
The new challenge that is not addressed in the Guidelines is rapid emergence of artificial intelligence AI. AI is a broad area of ICT technology that enables automated reasoning. For example, AI is not able to process data presented by the parties in written pradėkite bitcoin skolinimo platformą printouts — in this respect see guideline no 9 in the original Guidelines.
Electronic evidence differ in many respects from other types of evidence. A typical example of electronic evidence is electronic data derived from an electronic device that contains relevant metadata. This makes blockchain technology very useful for evidential purposes.
However, there is no direct reference to blockchain in the Guidelines. Only the Explanatory memorandum mentions this technology as inherently resistant to data modification.
This is one of the main kraking trumpas bitcoin issues that should be further addressed in the revised Guidelines. Except the Guidelines only a few legal documents which have been adopted to facilitate the handling of electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings at international, European and national level so far.
They should be adapted to the current stage of development of court digitalisation. Because of such reasons, we are in opinion that the first revision should be accompanied with adopting both the guidelines and the definitions to such new technologies like cloud computing, blockchain or AI algorithms.
The authors believe that evidence by algorithm, cloud computing, blockchain or otherwise electronically might be reliable and trustworthy enough in civil and administrative proceedings. What matters most in practice is how these types of evidence may be collected and what admissibility requirements shall be established. They may be collected by using special software programs which in means that some expertise may be required.
However, each of these specific evidences has its own peculiarity. For instance, blockchain is inherently resistant to modification of the data. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires collusion of the network majority.
The Best Invest Bitcoin Ever! But, additionally it is certainly not without challenges. One of the leading dilemmas dealing with their Bitcoin network try their transaction privacy problem. In per bid to manage Bitcoins privacy problem, various efforts have now been created.
This makes blockchain suitable for the evidencing purposes. One of the possibilities to ensure lawfulness of a digital record electronically registered in a blockchain could be a declaration of a qualified person.
Ar galite prekiauti kriptovaliuta forex prekyboje
Similarly, authentication of evidence by cloud computing and algorithm may be useful and a first step in the authentication process. However, if the authentication is not sufficient, expertise may be particularly relevant.
Possible new sections to be added to the guidelines We are of opinion that a number of new problems should be addressed by revised Guidelines. First of all, the key principle on the human rights should be reinstated to the fundamental principles of the Guidelines.