On Authentication Rules Of Electronic Evidence In Criminal Procedure

Electronic evidence is different from traditional evidence.Compared with traditional evidence,electronic evidence is easy to copy,destructive,and high-tech.It makes it more difficult to determine whether the electronic evidence obtained by investigators has changed.Therefore,it is important to systematically introduce the authenticity of electronic evidence.Criminal electronic evidence authentication can be divided into the internal carrier authentication and external carrier authentication of electronic evidence.The specific content is that the internal carrier of electronic evidence has not been tampered with,damaged and contaminated.Changes in quantity,and the extraction and collection procedures of these electronic evidences,as well as the information extracted or collected,require authenticity assurance before the evidence of the trial is revealed.Depending on the internal and external carriers of electronic evidence,the method of authenticating electronic evidence is different.For example,the external carrier for electronic evidence mainly relies on the “uniqueness confirmation”authentication method and the “ custody chain certificate ” formed by complete transcripts.The authenticity verification method of the internal carrier of electronic evidence is mainly to compare the integrity check value,check the digital signature,digital certificate and other special identification and identification.China's electronic evidence forensics is a hidden existence system,which is currently not clearly specified in the law.It is essentially a judge's review and judgment of evidence.Therefore,there are certain problems in practice.The first is that the proportion of authenticity of electronic evidence is not high,and a large part of it is due to the excessive application of transcript evidence,which makes the authenticity of electronic evidence to be in the form.Secondly,the current electronic evidence Authentication procedures lack system,and currently rely on the mutual verification of various types of evidence.Furthermore,due to the irregularity of evidence collection,electronic evidence authentication is insufficiently guaranteed,and professional information is needed in the collection,transfer,and certification of electronic evidence.Technology serves as technical support,and in judicial practice,the subjects of collecting electronic evidence,such as investigators,parties,and people's courts,arelimited by the lack of expertise in the collection process,and it is easy to make operational mistakes,making the extracted electronic evidence authentic,The integrity is questioned;finally,the electronic custody authentication has not yet formed a complete chain of custody system and the electronic evidence that cannot pass the authentication is still allowed to be corrected afterwards.Aiming at the aforementioned problems,it is necessary to increase the application ratio of electronic evidence forensics and reduce the amount of evidence to be transferred to courts such as documentary evidence and transcripts.On the issue of electronic evidence authentication and custody chain,the internal carrier for electronic evidence can use the trusted time stamp technology in the blockchain to form a complete and verifiable electronic evidence.A credible time stamp is a complete verifiable electronic evidence,which can prove to which specific point in time an electronic evidence exists,so that the electronic evidence has unique evidence characteristics.During the trial of criminal electronic evidence authentication,you can try to authenticate some electronic evidence in the pretrial conference,but this does not mean that the authenticity of electronic evidence can only exist in the pretrial conference,and the litigants can still be in the trial.To raise an objection to the authenticity of a certain evidence,the preposition is not to prevent the objection of the authenticity of the evidence in the trial,but to maximize the efficiency and professionalism of the trial.At the same time,according to China's existing legal norms,it is proposed to establish the necessary self-authentication system.Because of its strong creditworthiness,electronic evidence does not need to be summoned or presented to prove or clarify the authenticity of the form of electronic evidence.The court should consider it to be authentic.In view of the fact that the electronic evidence forensics in China's current legal norms still cannot be applied after being corrected,the rigid consequences of electronic forensics cannot be established and the relevant accountability mechanisms should be established.