Collecting evidence in cybercrimes is a more complex and specialized process than traditional crimes. The fact that evidence in the digital environment can be easily changed or deleted further increases the importance of this process. Evidence collected in a timely and accurate manner is vital to the apprehension and punishment of the criminal.
Types of Evidence Accepted in Court
The types of evidence accepted in court in cybercrimes may vary depending on the country’s legislation and the decisions of the Supreme Court. However, in general, the following types of evidence are frequently used:
Electronic Trace Processes:
Computer records (log files, e-mail traffic, internet history)
Network traffic analyses
Device identification numbers (IMEI, MAC address)
IP addresses
Geographic location information
Social media activities
Physical Evidence:
Hardware such as computers, mobile devices, storage devices
Software licenses
Data backups
Paper documents (contracts, invoices)
Witness Statements:
Statements of victims and witnesses
Expert opinions (computer engineers, cyber security experts)
What to Consider During the Evidence Collection Process?
Timely Intervention: In order to minimize the risk of evidence loss or corruption, evidence collection processes should be started as soon as possible.
Protection of the Evidence Chain: During the evidence collection, storage and presentation process, the evidence chain should not be broken and no changes should be made to the evidence.
Expert Support: Collecting evidence in cybercrimes is a job that requires expertise. Therefore, support should be sought from experts in the field, such as computer engineers and cybersecurity experts.
Legislative Compliance: Evidence collection procedures should be carried out in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. Particular care should be taken regarding the protection of personal data.
Documentation: All evidence collection procedures should be documented in detail. This documentation is of great importance in terms of ensuring the reliability of evidence in court.
