Produced | Odaily (ID: o-daily)
Produced | Odaily (ID: o-daily)
According to the "2018 White Paper on the Application of Electronic Evidence in China", more than 73% of civil cases nationwide involve electronic evidence.
At the same time, there are many difficulties in the actual trial of electronic evidence.
Because it is easy to be tampered with, how to determine the authenticity of electronic evidence has become the primary problem in the case; in addition, electronic evidence is also easy to perish, and usually requires multiple backups and preservation of the original storage media; moreover, the traditional way of storing evidence takes a long time , low efficiency, high cost, and is not suitable for the storage of electronic evidence.
The characteristics of blockchain technology, such as non-tamperable and decentralized storage, are exactly in line with the pain points of electronic evidence storage. Blockchain can reduce the cost of electronic evidence storage and enhance the authenticity of electronic evidence, thereby improving the efficiency of litigation.
secondary title
It is not easy to protect the rights of electronic evidence
Many legal dramas will have such a climax scene: the protagonist presents key evidence, such as a video or audio, to counterattack in an apparently unfavorable situation. After a generous speech, the judge pronounces the sentence in court, and justice is demonstrated.
But the real case trial is not as simple as in the play.
What often happens is that the electronic evidence itself is suspected of being secretly photographed illegally, which eventually leads to invalid evidence; or the authenticity of the video itself needs to be verified, and it needs to be authenticated by an authoritative organization before it can be used as evidence.
Although electronic evidence appears to be powerful, in actual case trials, its regulations are very strict.
For example, before 2012, in Chinese law, electronic data could not be used as independent evidence to participate in litigation. Even after 2012, it is stipulated that it can be used as independent evidence to participate in litigation, but the electronic data evidence collection methods are also strictly regulated.
The evidence collection methods specified in it include: 1. Detaining and sealing up the original storage medium; 2. Extracting electronic data on the spot; 3. Extracting electronic data online; 4. Freezing electronic data; 5. Retrieving electronic data; 7. Take pictures and video; 8. Copy and reproduce; 9. Commissioned analysis.
In addition, the above-mentioned means of obtaining evidence should be carried out by a notary institution, and the notary should operate in accordance with the written operating procedures provided by the applicant to check the authenticity of the evidence, and finally the notary institution will produce a notarization certificate for electronic evidence preservation. This is also a necessary part of the case.
In other words, even if the individual retains the relevant electronic evidence, it should be notarized in a notary institution, and the above process should be repeated to confirm the authenticity of the evidence.
The process of notarization is very time-consuming and labor-intensive, and the parties are exhausted, which also causes the case to bring a considerable burden to the parties in the evidence-fixing stage.
In addition, if the methods used by the parties to obtain evidence are illegal and the procedures are improper, the evidence may be invalid. This is also a problem that most parties involved in rights protection are not aware of.
In addition, electronic evidence is easy to tamper with. The infringing party may have modified the relevant content when the party notarized in the notary office. When presenting evidence in the final trial, the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant was quite different. If the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant modified the evidence, he may eventually lose the case.
Furthermore, due to the consumability of electronic evidence, the parties must properly keep the original electronic data and make multiple copies, which undoubtedly consumes money and energy; once the original file is damaged, the backup file must be notarized again, which again increases the complexity of the case. difficulty.
However, if the electronic evidence is kept by a notary agency or a third party, as a centralized way of storing evidence, once the center is attacked, it is easy to cause loss or tampering of the stored evidence data.
All in all, there are many problems in the process of electronic evidence in actual litigation cases, and there are high requirements for the parties' ability to store evidence and produce evidence.
This problem in the judicial field may be solved by relying on blockchain technology.
Many readers may ask, is it legal to use blockchain for electronic evidence storage?
The answer is of course yes. In the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts" issued on September 7, 2018, the Supreme People's Court admitted for the first time that electronic data stored in the blockchain can be used in the proof of Internet cases, marking that my country's blockchain The technical means of chain deposit evidence has been recognized by the judicial interpretation.
secondary title
Blockchain empowers justice
As a new technology, blockchain adopts distributed ledger technology, which has the characteristics of non-tampering, decentralization, and trustlessness, and meets the needs of electronic evidence storage in the judicial field.
In the whole life cycle of the generation, collection, transmission and storage of electronic evidence, the blockchain and its extended technology can provide security protection for electronic data, prevent tampering, and audit trails of data operations, thus providing relevant institutions with a review effective means.
Below, we will take the "judicial blockchain" of the Hangzhou Internet Court as a case to explain the specific working principle.
The judicial blockchain is an alliance chain, which is supported by the underlying technical support of the ant blockchain under the ant financial service, and more than 20 institutions such as the notary office, the judicial appraisal center, and the time service center act as nodes.
At present, the judicial blockchain can mainly resolve three types of disputes: digital copyright, financial contracts and network service contracts
Users can upload their digital works to the judicial blockchain, and each node of the judicial blockchain will review the work, record the electronic data that needs to be deposited in the form of transactions, stamp it with a time stamp, and package it on the chain. Generate a unique hash value for feedback to the user.
image description
(Only the hash value on the blockchain)
In addition to the confirmation of rights, the judicial blockchain will also start infringement monitoring at the same time. Once it is detected that other people have used the digital work, the evidence will be automatically solidified to provide electronic evidence for subsequent prosecutions.
The above-mentioned process is actually equivalent to simplifying the procedures of the notary office, so as to efficiently fix the evidence.
In addition, if users find that others have infringed their copyrights, they can immediately log in to Hangzhou Internet Court to sue online.
image description
(The whole process of prosecution)
image description
(Submit evidence link)
Of course, in addition to the judicial blockchain, the Hangzhou Internet Court also supports other evidence storage platforms or locally uploaded evidence.
From the time when the parties file a lawsuit, mediation, case filing, service, proof and cross-examination, trial, judgment, execution and other key links that affect the quality and efficiency of trials and judicial credibility will be stamped with the "stamp" of the blockchain.
These "stamps" contain key information such as trusted time, trusted identity, trusted process, and trusted environment, and are broadcast to all nodes in the blockchain in real time. Prevent and reduce the occurrence of disputes. The entire process is recorded on the chain, further ensuring the authority and transparency of the judiciary.
In addition, at the end of October this year, the Hangzhou Internet Court further launched smart contract services. The judicial blockchain smart contract has the capabilities of "credit blacklist" and "credit whitelist", and is currently running in the field of network services and network finance.
In the smart contract, the contract signed by both parties will be saved in digital form, and the contract can be automatically performed after the corresponding conditions are triggered. For example, both parties sign a sales contract, and the contract is stored on the chain in digital form. If the buyer signs and confirms that the goods are correct, the payment will be automatically transferred to the seller's account on the agreed date.
During the experience, Odaily also noticed a particularly humanized element in the judicial blockchain. Since the trial of the case involves personal privacy, the judicial blockchain also encrypts and protects such cases. Users can only see the reason of the case, etc., and cannot see the relevant private information.
The judicial blockchain is also in practical application, improving the efficiency of case trials. Wang Jiangqiao, executive vice president of the Hangzhou Internet Court, said that after using the judicial blockchain technology, due to clear fact determination and conclusive evidence, the pre-litigation mediation and dismissal rate of Hangzhou Internet Court intellectual property disputes has exceeded 90%.
At present, "Blockchain + Judiciary" has been rolled out in various provinces and cities across the country, showing the trend of starting a prairie fire. Specific cases include:
Jilin Provincial Higher People's Court Electronic Evidence Platform
Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court Electronic Evidence Platform
Beijing Internet Court "Tianping Chain" electronic evidence platform
Guangzhou Internet Court "Netcom Law Chain"
Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court Electronic Evidence Platform
Electronic Evidence Platform of the People's Court of Pidu District, Chengdu
Many challenges remain
The application of blockchain in the judicial field has indeed resolved many disputes and improved efficiency, but there are still some shortcomings that need to be resolved urgently.
First of all, blockchain deposit certificates are not equal to legal facts, and the authenticity of deposit certificate data needs to be verified.
As an example, the reporter uploaded an Odaily article on the electronic evidence platform of the Jilin Provincial Higher People’s Court on November 26, and obtained two certificates, as follows:
However, this certificate cannot actually prove that the article was indeed written by the reporter, it can only prove that the reporter was the first to register the copyright certification of the blockchain. Assuming that this article is not original, the original author can still sue the reporter if he retains evidence of the time it was written.
Like the challenges faced by many blockchain applications in practical scenarios, how to ensure the authenticity of data before it is uploaded to the chain is also a difficult problem on the way forward for "blockchain + justice".
Therefore, in the actual court demonstration process, if there is no original document corresponding to the hash value, the purpose of depositing evidence will not be achieved.
Therefore, Odaily also reminds all parties involved to keep the original electronic documents properly, and data uploading to the chain does not mean that it is foolproof.
Secondly, the scope of copyright infringement monitoring is relatively narrow, and there is uncertainty in the definition of infringement.
image description
(article monitoring is 0)
image description
(As a demonstration, use your own platform for screenshot monitoring)
In addition, when the reporter deletes the article and edits it, he can still obtain the blockchain copyright certification again. The definition of infringement standards is not clear, which is also a difficult problem in the actual law.
Furthermore, the evidence storage systems cannot be interconnected with each other, which has formed a certain obstacle to cross-regional case handling.
After the blockchain hash value was generated on the evidence platform of the Jilin High Court, the author submitted it to the Hangzhou Internet Court, and found that the evidence was difficult to read and separated from each other. Regarding the effectiveness of cross-regional blockchain evidence, the courts in various places have not yet given a clear answer.
If intercommunication is not possible, does this mean that the user needs to resubmit the evidence, but at this time the best evidence fixing time may have been missed, so what should I do?
Finally, the acceptance of blockchain evidence among the public needs to be improved.
As a new thing, the blockchain has only been developed for more than ten years, and the technologies themselves are still immature; in addition, the previous MLM currency also "stigmatized" the blockchain, whether the public can accept this new technology? The technology has yet to be tested.
Even if the public is willing to accept it, there are certain deficiencies in the understanding of blockchain technology. Perhaps, it will take a period of time to get used to it before you can finally master it.
The process of the development of things is always spiraling or advancing in waves. Although there are some problems in the application of blockchain in the judicial field, it is a good way to improve efficiency by technical means.
References:
References:
Zhejiang: "Internet +" Rule of Law Boosts Social Governance Modernization
Identity on the chain, helping 500,000 citizens to get loans easily | chain + identity verification
Related Reading:
Identity on the chain, helping 500,000 citizens to get loans easily | chain + identity verification
