Pervasive Monitoring: Appreciating Citizen’s Surveillance as Digital Evidence in Legal Proceedings

4th International Conference on Imaging for Crime Detection and Prevention 2011, ICDP 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Coudert, F ^a   Gemo, M ^b   Beslay, L ^b   Andritsos, F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Crowd sourced sensing; Data protection; Digital evidence criteria; Pervasive monitoring; Privacy; Surveillance

Indexed keywords

CRIME; DATA PRIVACY; DIGITAL FORENSICS; MONITORING; SECURITY SYSTEMS; WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS;

CROWD-SOURCED SENSING; DIGITAL EVIDENCE; DIGITAL EVIDENCE CRITERIA; HARMONISATION; IT IDENTIFY; LEGAL PROCEEDINGS; PERVASIVE MONITORING; PRIVACY; SMART PHONES; SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS;

CROWDSOURCING;

EID: 85071058996     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. L. Beslay and H. Hakala, “Digital Territory: Bubbles,” in European Visions for the Knowledge Age: A Quest for New Horizons in the Information Society (P. Kidd, ed.), 2007.
2. A. Samuel, “6 Keys to Putting the Crowdsourced Surveillance Genie Back in the Lamp,” Harvard Business Review, 2011.
3. “Arrêté du 3 août 2007 portant définition des normes techniques des systèmes de vidéosurveillance, NOR: IOCD0762353A,” 2007.
4. WG 5, “ISO 22300 Video surveillance,” in Societal Security Standards, expected 2012.
5. O. Leroux, “Legal admissibility of electronic evidence,” International Review of Law Computers & Technology, vol. 18, pp. 193–220, July 2004.
6. Police Scientific Development Branch Report, “Digital imaging procedure,” 2002.
7. N. Beser, T. Duerr, and G. Staisiunas, “Authentication of digital video evidence,” in SPIE Applications of Digital Image Processing XXVI, (San Diego), August 2003.
8. European Commission, “GREEN PAPER on obtaining evidence in criminal matters from one Member State to another and securing its admissibility,” COM(2009) 624 final, 11 November 2009.
9. L. Kennes, “Manuel de la prevue,” in, 2009.
10. ECtHR, “Jalloh v. Germany,” 11 July 2006. no. 54810/00 (Grand Chamber).
11. ECtHR, “Khan v. The United Kingdom,” 12 May 2000.
12. ECtHR, “P.G. and J.H. v. The United Kingdom,” 25 September 2001. no. 44787/89.
13. CCass. 14 October 2003. no. P.03.0762.N.
14. CCass. 23 Mars 2004. no. P.03.1347.N.
15. M. Syvlain, “La police n’ayant pas le droit de visionner le contenu d’une caméra trouvée, le tribunal fédéral suisse a écarté les aveux obtenus à l’aide de ces images,” Droit & Technologies, June 2011.
16. F. Coudert, “When video cameras watch and screen: Privacy implications of pattern recognition technologies,” Computer Law & Security Review, pp. 377–384, 2010.
17. CCass. 2 Mars 2005. J.T. 2005, p. 211.
18. F. Coudert and E. Werkers, “Ensuring the Evidentiary Value of Images in Criminal Proceedings,” in FIDIS D.6.8.b Identification of Images, pp. 59–81, 2009.
19. M. Good, “The Stanley Cup riot shames Vancouver,” Guardian guardian.co.uk, 2011.
20. People v. Wood, “Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9959, 11-12 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Dec. 17, 2009),”
21. S. Battiato, G. Farinella, G. Messina, and G. Puglisi, “Digital video forensics: Status e perspectives,” in IISFA Memberbook 2010 DIGITAL FORENSICS, (Italy), 2010.
22. “Directive 2002/58/EC,” Official Journal of the European Communities, 12 July 2002.