The European Union, Essay Example

Global Forensics

The European Union directive 95/46/EC and the legal approach in the U.S have visible dissimilarities associated with computer evidence collection and data privacy protection. Likewise, investigation teams must consider and differentiate legal and regulatory requirements before moving evidence across borders of the European Union (EU) (E-discovery and the EU: European data privacy regulations every litigator should know, n.d). As there is a requirement of transferring data on regular basis because there is a requirement for collaborative support in transferring data across borders along with investigation processes carried out at the remote offices (Privacy lost: EU, U.S. laws differ greatly – technology & science – privacy lost – msnbc.com, n.d ).

In the U.S, the federal rules of civil procedures are pertinent, which do not distinguish two information types i.e. private and public. Similarly, the information that is categorized as relevant ESI must be secured (Privacy & EDiscovery). Nonetheless, exclusion is allowable that is the confidential communication between two parties i.e. attorneys and clients identical to patients and doctors etc. Besides, ‘clawback agreement’ is used for agreeing on recommendations via conference known as the ‘meet and confer’. A conference facilitates privileged or confidential documentations that are established inadvertently for the conflicting party. As per (Rule 26 (b) (5) (B) (Privacy & EDiscovery, n.d ), provision needs to be reverted and destroyed. In addition, HIPAA known as the health insurance portability and accountability act also do not represents an effective law in terms of personal privacy (Sande, PamelaVigliotta, JoanWagner, Marcia S.Peabody,Virginia S., 2009). Conversely, data protection laws in the EU region dearth management and association among  different EU countries, as practitioners in the field faces difficulty when dealing with these laws that are application in any given scenario or situation. Likewise, in the US, investigators incorporate encryption techniques to secure the data in the context of authentication and integtory. Encryption techniques are further classified in to two categories:

General:  “The use, development, manufacture, sale, distribution and import of encryption products, standards, and services for purposes of assuring the confidentiality, authenticity, or integrity or access control of electronic information shall be voluntary and market driven” (E-PRIVACY encryption bill, n.d )

Conditions: “No agency of the United States or a State shall establish any condition, tie, or link between encryption products, standards, and services used for confidentiality, and those used for authentication, integrity, or access control purposes” (E-PRIVACY encryption bill, n.d)

With Directive 95/46/EC, there are two critical procedures that must be used to bring legitimacy to the computer forensics data processing activity. Article 7 provides the directive concerning this procedure (E-discovery and the EU: European data privacy regulations every litigator should know, n.d). The privacy data of any person or individual will only be processed or transferred  by the investigator, if clear permission is granted from the owner of that data. Although different EU states have varying requirements for defining what consent really means, this will be a strict determination as a member of the EU.

Subsequently, one area that is of prime importance for the investigators is electronic discovery presence in case of any legal obligation. In the U.S, orders from the court associated with the outpost station locations present in the EU, must be addressed by the organization located within the EU. Consequently, any U.S based organization that confines within the EU boundary must comply with the regulation of making a personal data of any individual public (The european union privacy directive and its impact on the U.S. privacy protection policy: A year 2003 perspective, n.d). As per EU Directive 95/46/EC, article eight categorizes in to medical evidence, political evidence and evidence related to sexual nature. Likewise, processing of data related to these categories will not be acceptable unless defense of an individual is clearly defined or else in the best interest of the public as per Directive 95/46/EC Article 26(1)(d) (E-discovery and the EU: European data privacy regulations every litigator should know, n.d ).

The conclusion is visible between the two privacy laws i.e.EU and US. US implement privacy laws in only certain sectors that the U.S think are relevant, whereas, EU privacy laws are applicable by following a holistic approach i.e. covering all businesses and governmental sectors.

References

The european union privacy directive and its impact on the U.S. privacy protection policy: A year 2003 perspective, n.d Retrieved 11/10/2011, 2011, from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v2/n1/5/

Privacy lost: EU, U.S. laws differ greatly – technology & science – privacy lost – msnbc.com, n.d Retrieved 11/10/2011, 2011, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221111/ns/technology_and_science-privacy_lost/t/la-difference-stark-eu-us-privacy-laws/#.Tryoz_JkHtw

E-discovery and the EU: European data privacy regulations every litigator should know, n.d Retrieved 11/10/2011, 2011, from http://articles.technology.findlaw.com/2007/Jun/19/10884.html

Sande, PamelaVigliotta, JoanWagner, Marcia S.Peabody,Virginia S. (2009). Chapter 10: HIPAA and other laws. (pp. 10:1-10:26) Aspen Publishers Inc.

Privacy & EDiscovery, n.d Retrieved 10/31/2011, 2011, from http://ediscoverymap.com/2011/03/how-to-conduct-ediscovery-in-the-european-union/

E-PRIVACY encryption bill Retrieved 10/31/2011, 2011, from http://epic.org/crypto/legislation/eprivacy.html

E-discovery and the EU: European data privacy regulations every litigator should know, n.d Retrieved 11/11/2011, 2011, from http://articles.technology.findlaw.com/2007/Jun/19/10884.html