Recent Trends in Cross-Border Data Access by Law Enforcement Agencies

Access to online data has long been important for law enforcement agencies in their collection of electronic evidence and investigation of crimes. These activities have also long involved cross-border investigations and international cooperation between agencies and jurisdictions. However, technological advances such as cloud computing have complicated the investigations and cooperation arrangements. Therefore, several new laws have been passed and proposed both in the United States and the European Union for facilitating cross-border crime investigations in the context of cloud computing. These new laws and proposals have also brought many new legal challenges and controversies regarding extraterritoriality, data protection, privacy, and surveillance. With these challenges in mind and with a focus on Europe, this paper reviews the recent trends and policy initiatives for cross-border data access by law enforcement agencies.

[1]  Christos Karagiannis.  Digital evidence “hidden in the Cloud”: Is “possession” still a relevant notion? , 2023, ERA Forum.

[2]  T. Schneider,et al.  Data Protection Law and Multi-Party Computation: Applications to Information Exchange between Law Enforcement Agencies , 2022, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[3]  Marcin Rojszczak.  e‐Evidence Cooperation in Criminal Matters from an EU Perspective , 2022, The Modern Law Review.

[4]  S. Perepolkin.  Legal Status of European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) , 2022, Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence.

[5]  N. Annappa.  The State’s access to data and internet intermediary response – an assessment of India’s attempt to reallocate the legal framework to ensure national security , 2022, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology.

[6]  A. Solanas,et al.  SoK: Cross-border Criminal Investigations and Digital Evidence , 2022, J. Cybersecur..

[7]  M. Murphy.  ASSESSING THE IMPLICATIONS OF SCHREMS II FOR EU–US DATA FLOW , 2021, International and Comparative Law Quarterly.

[8]  Piotr Lewulis.  Collecting Digital Evidence from Online Sources: Deficiencies in Current Polish Criminal Law , 2021, Criminal Law Forum.

[9]  Filip Radoniewicz.  Cyberspace, Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism , 2021, Cybersecurity in Poland.

[10]  Anke Sophia Obendiek,et al.  What Are We Actually Talking About? Conceptualizing Data as a Governable Object in Overlapping Jurisdictions , 2021, International Studies Quarterly.

[11]  Mohammad Masdari,et al.  Data replication schemes in cloud computing: a survey , 2021, Cluster Computing.

[12]  Jukka Ruohonen,et al.  The Treachery of Images in the Digital Sovereignty Debate , 2020, Minds and Machines.

[13]  Halefom H. Abraha,et al.  Law enforcement access to electronic evidence across borders: mapping policy approaches and emerging reform initiatives , 2020, Int. J. Law Inf. Technol..

[14]  Fabien Terpan,et al.  EU–US negotiations on law enforcement access to data: divergences, challenges and EU law procedures and options , 2020, International Data Privacy Law.

[15]  Stefan Braum.  ‘Rechtsstaat’ and European criminal law – From the end of sovereignty , 2020 .

[16]  F. Fabbrini,et al.  Competing Jurisdictions: Data Privacy Across the Borders , 2020, Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies.

[17]  Abraham L. Newman,et al.  Domestic courts, transnational law, and international order , 2020 .

[18]  Hannes Ebert.  Hacked IT superpower: how India secures its cyberspace as a rising digital democracy , 2020 .

[19]  Halefom H. Abraha.  Regulating law enforcement access to electronic evidence across borders: the United States approach , 2020, Information & Communications Technology Law.

[20]  Stanisław Tosza.  All evidence is equal, but electronic evidence is more equal than any other: The relationship between the European Investigation Order and the European Production Order , 2020 .

[21]  Dagna Knytel.  Evidence Gathering in the European Union: The Transposition of Directive 2014/41/EU into French and German Legislation , 2020, European Criminal Law Review.

[22]  Raphael Bossong.  Policy networks for European internal security governance: toward a more systematic empirical and normative assessment , 2020, Journal of Transatlantic Studies.

[23]  Jessica Shurson,et al.  Data protection and law enforcement access to digital evidence: resolving the reciprocal conflicts between EU and US law , 2020, Int. J. Law Inf. Technol..

[24]  Adám Molnár,et al.  Governing Liberty Through Accountability: Surveillance Reporting as Technologies of Governmentality , 2020 .

[25]  K. Hardy,et al.  Digital surveillance and access to encrypted communications in Australia , 2020 .

[26]  H. Aden.  Information sharing, secrecy and trust among law enforcement and secret service institutions in the European Union , 2018, Secrecy in European Politics.

[27]  B. Rowe.  Transnational state-sponsored cyber economic espionage: a legal quagmire , 2020, Security Journal.

[28]  Steven D. Brown.  Hacking for evidence: the risks and rewards of deploying malware in pursuit of justice , 2020, ERA Forum.

[29]  B. Blažič,et al.  Removing the barriers in cross-border crime investigation by gathering e-evidence in an interconnected society , 2019, Information & Communications Technology Law.

[30]  D. Svantesson,et al.  Re-thinking the categorisation of data in the context of law enforcement cross-border access to evidence , 2020, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology.

[31]  Jukka Ruohonen.  An Acid Test for Europeanization: Public Cyber Security Procurement in the European Union , 2019, European Journal for Security Research.

[32]  Halefom H. Abraha.  How compatible is the US ‘CLOUD Act’ with cloud computing? A brief analysis , 2019, International Data Privacy Law.

[33]  Lawrence Siry.  Cloudy days ahead: Cross-border evidence collection and its impact on the rights of EU citizens , 2019, New Journal of European Criminal Law.

[34]  T. Christakis.  Transfer of EU Personal Data to U.S. Law Enforcement Authorities After the CLOUD Act: Is There a Conflict with the GDPR? , 2019 .

[35]  Matthew Robert Shillito.  Untangling the ‘Dark Web’: an emerging technological challenge for the criminal law , 2019, Information & Communications Technology Law.

[36]  P. De Hert,et al.  A leading role for the EU in drafting criminal law powers? Use of the Council of Europe for policy laundering , 2019, New Journal of European Criminal Law.

[37]  Jukka Ruohonen,et al.  Updating the Wassenaar debate once again: Surveillance, intrusion software, and ambiguity , 2019, Journal of Information Technology & Politics.

[38]  Shoshana Zuboff.  The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power , 2019 .

[39]  Christopher Parsons.  The (In)effectiveness of Voluntarily Produced Transparency Reports , 2019 .

[40]  Marwa Y. Y. Elbesiky.  The Role of Mutual Legal Assistance on Collection of Evidence in Cases of the Recovering Asset Smuggled Abroad , 2018, Arab Journal of Forensic Sciences & Forensic Medicine.

[41]  Yashar Abed,et al.  The Challenges of Institutional Distance: Data Privacy Issues in Cloud Computing , 2018, Science, Technology and Society.

[42]  J. Maillart.  The limits of subjective territorial jurisdiction in the context of cybercrime , 2018, ERA Forum.

[43]  P. De Hert,et al.  Legal arguments used in courts regarding territoriality and cross-border production orders , 2018, New Journal of European Criminal Law.

[44]  Abraham L. Newman,et al.  Divulging data: Domestic determinants of international information sharing , 2017, The Review of International Organizations.

[45]  T. Holt.  Regulating Cybercrime through Law Enforcement and Industry Mechanisms , 2018, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

[46]  Eleni Kosta,et al.  Looking for some light through the lens of "cryptowar" history: Policy options for law enforcement authorities against "going dark" , 2018, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[47]  D. Fennelly.  Data retention: the life, death and afterlife of a directive , 2018, ERA Forum.

[48]  Thomas. Renard.  EU cyber partnerships: assessing the EU strategic partnerships with third countries in the cyber domain , 2018 .

[49]  G. Christou.  The challenges of cybercrime governance in the European Union , 2018 .

[50]  Catherine Jasserand,et al.  Law enforcement access to personal data originally collected by private parties: Missing data subjects' safeguards in directive 2016/680? , 2017, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[51]  Lyria Bennett Moses,et al.  Open Secrets: Balancing Operational Secrecy and Transparency in the Collection and Use of Data by National Security and Law Enforcement Agencies , 2017 .

[52]  T. Scassa.  Law Enforcement in the Age of Big Data and Surveillance Intermediaries: Transparency Challenges , 2017 .

[53]  Martyna Kusak.  Common EU Minimum Standards for Enhancing Mutual Admissibility of Evidence Gathered in Criminal Matters , 2017 .

[54]  John Selby,et al.  Data localization laws: trade barriers or legitimate responses to cybersecurity risks, or both? , 2017, Int. J. Law Inf. Technol..

[55]  M. de Goede,et al.  Secrecy and security in transatlantic terrorism finance tracking , 2017 .

[56]  Raphael Bossong,et al.  A typology of cybersecurity and public-private partnerships in the context of the EU , 2016, Crime, Law and Social Change.

[57]  Patryk Pawlak,et al.  Politics of cybersecurity capacity building: conundrum and opportunity , 2017 .

[58]  Sara Conti,et al.  Electronic Evidence Semantic Structure: Exchanging Evidence Across Europe in a Coherent and Consistent Way , 2015, AICOL.

[59]  Jennifer Daskal,et al.  Law Enforcement Access to Data across Borders: The Evolving Security and Rights Issues , 2016 .

[60]  Damir Kahvedzic.  Cybercrime investigations of mobile phone devices and the cloud in the light of EU safe harbour rulings , 2016 .

[61]  Nhien-An Le-Khac,et al.  The End of Effective Law Enforcement in the Cloud? - To Encrypt, or Not to Encrypt , 2016, 2016 IEEE 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD).

[62]  Dan Jerker B. Svantesson,et al.  Law enforcement access to evidence via direct contact with cloud providers - identifying the contours of a solution , 2016, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[63]  Matt Blaze,et al.  Insecure Surveillance: Technical Issues with Remote Computer Searches , 2016, Computer.

[64]  Peter P. Swire,et al.  How Both the Eu and the U.S. Are "Stricter" Than Each Other for the Privacy of Government Requests for Information , 2016 .

[65]  E. Guild,et al.  Access to Electronic Data by Third-Country Law Enforcement Authorities, Challenges to EU Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. Center for European Policy Studies, 2015 , 2016 .

[66]  Nicolás Guarda.  Governing the ungovernable: international relations, transnational cybercrime law, and the post-Westphalian regulatory state , 2015 .

[67]  Daniel Trottier,et al.  Open source intelligence, social media and law enforcement: Visions, constraints and critiques , 2015 .

[68]  Gail Kent,et al.  International Law Enforcement Access to User Data: A Survival Guide and Call for Action , 2015 .

[69]  C. Murphy.  Transnational counter-terrorism law: law, power and legitimacy in the ‘wars on terror’ , 2015 .

[70]  Marek Martyniszyn.  Inter-agency evidence sharing in competition law enforcement , 2015 .

[71]  Sudha N. Setty.  Surveillance, Secrecy, and the Search for Meaningful Accountability , 2014 .

[72]  Enrico Pelino,et al.  Law Enforcement Agencies' activities in the cloud environment: a European legal perspective , 2013 .

[73]  Austen L. Parrish.  Domestic Responses to Transnational Crime: The Limits of National Law , 2012 .

[74]  Bruce Schneier,et al.  A Taxonomy of Social Networking Data , 2010, IEEE Security & Privacy.

[75]  C. Harfield.  A review essay on Models of Mutual Legal Assistance: Political Perspectives on International Law Enforcement Cooperation Treaties , 2003 .

[76]  F. Pocar.  New Challenges for International Rules Against Cyber-Crime , 2002 .

[77]  R. Currie.  Human Rights and International Mutual Legal Assistance: Resolving the Tension , 2000 .