{"id":448,"date":"2025-04-21T14:51:26","date_gmt":"2025-04-21T14:51:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/?p=448"},"modified":"2025-04-21T14:57:45","modified_gmt":"2025-04-21T14:57:45","slug":"policy-analysis-paper-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/2025\/04\/21\/policy-analysis-paper-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy Analysis Paper 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Political Implications for Digital Forensic Standards<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lexi Bowman<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CYSE 425W: Cyber Strategy and Policy<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Aslan<\/p>\n\n\n\n

March 6, 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has made guidelines for handling digital evidence in criminal investigations. These rules gather, preserve, and use data from devices, which are all keys to solving crimes. The main goal is to collect data and evidence properly while also protecting people\u2019s rights. By looking further into the political implications of these rules, how policymakers have responded, why they chose their positions, and what consequences will come will allow us to fully understand why and how these guidelines work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So much of our lives are stored on digital devices, and the DOJ\u2019s policy giving law enforcement clear steps for handling this evidence is very important for solving crimes as well as protecting ourselves. At the same time, there are still concerns about how it\u2019s collected and used. These guidelines are meant to make sure law enforcement follows legal procedures, protects people\u2019s rights, and keeps evidence from being damaged or misused. Without clear rules, digital evidence could be thrown out in court, making it harder to hold criminals accountable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Policymakers have different opinions on the DOJ\u2019s digital evidence rules. Some believe law enforcement should have full access to digital data to solve crimes more easily. They argue that technology has changed how criminals operate, so the law has to keep up (Goodison et al., 2015). Others worry that giving too much access could invade people\u2019s privacy. They think law enforcement might collect more data than necessary, which could lead to overreach (Woods, 2020). Some experts believe there should be a balance\u2014allowing law enforcement to do its job while making sure people\u2019s rights are protected (Kerr, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, some lawmakers worry that too much access to digital evidence could lead to privacy violations. They are concerned that law enforcement might overstep and infringe on people\u2019s rights by collecting too much data without proper oversight (Woods, 2020). Others believe there needs to be a balance between effective law enforcement and protecting people\u2019s rights. They support policies that give law enforcement the tools they need while also setting clear boundaries and ensuring accountability (Kerr, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Policymakers\u2019 positions on digital evidence policies are influenced by several factors. First, technology is rapidly changing the way criminals commit crimes. Some lawmakers support policies that help law enforcement deal with these new challenges (Goodison et al., 2015). Second, policymakers often respond to what their voters want. For example, if privacy groups are worried about surveillance, lawmakers may be more cautious about expanding digital evidence policies (Woods, 2020). Finally, the legal background of policymakers plays a big role. Some lawmakers focus on protecting individual freedoms, while others prioritize public safety and crime prevention (Kerr, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DOJ\u2019s digital evidence policy has led to new laws and legal decisions. Some laws have been updated to set clear rules on how digital evidence can be collected, trying to balance law enforcement needs with privacy protections (Goodison et al., 2015). Court cases have also shaped how digital evidence is used, setting important legal precedents (Kerr, 2021). Public trust in law enforcement is also affected by these policies. When clear rules are followed, people are more likely to trust that their rights are being respected (Woods, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, the DOJ\u2019s digital evidence policies play a huge role in modern crime investigations. As technology continues to evolve, lawmakers will continue to have to figure out how to balance public safety with personal privacy. Some believe law enforcement needs broad access to digital data to solve crimes, while others worry about the risks of government intrusion. Finding that balance isn\u2019t easy, but it\u2019s necessary to protect both justice and individual rights. As new technologies emerge, these policies will need to keep evolving to make sure they stay effective and trustworthy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Work Cited<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goodison, S., Davis, R. C., & Jackson, B. A. (2015). Digital evidence and the U.S. criminal justice system: Identifying technology and other needs to more effectively acquire and utilize digital evidence. RAND Corporation. (ojp.gov)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Woods, A. K. (2020). Regulating law enforcement access to electronic evidence across borders. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 28(1), 1-31. (tandfonline.com)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerr, O. S. (2021). Surveillance technologies and constitutional law. Annual Review of Criminology, 4, 147-166.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Political Implications for Digital Forensic Standards Lexi Bowman CYSE 425W: Cyber Strategy and Policy Professor Aslan March 6, 2025 The Department of Justice (DOJ) has made guidelines for handling digital evidence in criminal investigations. These rules gather, preserve, and use data from devices, which are all keys to solving crimes. The main goal is to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29606,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","wds_primary_category":0},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/448"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/29606"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=448"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/448\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":449,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/448\/revisions\/449"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/lexibowman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}