KIBERJINOYATLARNI TERGOV QILISHDA RAQAMLI DALILLARNI AUTENTIFIKATSIYA QILISHNING HUQUQIY MUAMMOLARI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47390/ydif-y2026v2i10/n13Kalit so‘zlar:
raqamli dalillar, autentifikatsiya, kiberjinoyat, chain of custody, forensic imaging, hashing, Daubert standarti, Budapesht konvensiyasi.Annotasiya
Mazkur maqolada kiberjinoyatlarni tergov qilish jarayonida raqamli dalillarni autentifikatsiya qilishning huquqiy va kriminalistik muammolari qiyosiy-huquqiy tahlil asosida o‘rganiladi. Tadqiqotda AQSH dalillar huquqidagi Federal Rules of Evidence qoidalari, Daubert va Frye standartlari, Yevropa elektron dalillar modeli, Budapesht konvensiyasining protsessual yondashuvi hamda O‘zbekiston milliy amaliyoti o‘zaro solishtiriladi. Maqolada autentifikatsiya raqamli dalilning manbasi, yaxlitligi, o‘zgarmaganligi va jinoyat hodisasi bilan aloqadorligini tasdiqlovchi davomli protsessual-texnik jarayon sifatida talqin qilinadi. Raqamli dalillarning oson manipulyatsiyaga uchrashi, RAM kabi vaqtinchalik ma’lumotlarni asl nusxa bilan solishtirish qiyinligi, texnik vositalar xatosi va shaxsga bog‘lashdagi murakkabliklar tahlil qilinadi. Yakunda O‘zbekiston amaliyoti uchun raqamli dalillarni autentifikatsiya qilish bo‘yicha yagona metodik standart, hash, forensic imaging va chain of custody mexanizmlarini mustahkamlash zarurligi asoslanadi.
Manbalar
1. Ballou, S. (ed.). Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for First Responders. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice / NIJ, 2008. P. 29.
2. Black’s Law Dictionary. 11th ed. St. Paul: Thomson Reuters, 2019. P. 154.
3. Casey, E. Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Academic Press / Elsevier, 2011. Pp. 47–53.
4. Council of Europe. Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185). Budapest, 23 November 2001. Articles 7, 14–19.
5. Council of Europe. Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2001. Paras. 155–170, 177–186.
6. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
7. Federal Rules of Evidence. Rules 901, 902. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2024. URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre.
8. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
9. Garfinkel, S. Digital Forensics Research: The Next 10 Years. Digital Investigation, 2010, Vol. 7 (Suppl.). Pp. S64–S73.
10. Grimm, P. W., Capra, D. J., Joseph, G. P. Authenticating Digital Evidence. Baylor Law Review, 2017, Vol. 69, No. 1. Pp. 1–58.
11. ISO/IEC 27037:2012. Information Technology — Security Techniques — Guidelines for Identification, Collection, Acquisition and Preservation of Digital Evidence. Geneva: ISO, 2012.
12. Kerr, O. S. Searches and Seizures in a Digital World. Harvard Law Review, 2005, Vol. 119, No. 2. Pp. 531–585.
13. Mason, S. (ed.). Electronic Evidence. 4th ed. London: LexisNexis, 2017. Pp. 112–115.
14. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Jinoyat-protsessual kodeksi. 204¹–204²-moddalar.
15. Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 on European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. OJ L 191, 28.7.2023. Pp. 118–178.
16. Roth, A. Machine Testimony. Yale Law Journal, 2017, Vol. 126, No. 6. Pp. 1972–2043.
17. Stallings, W. Cryptography and Network Security: Principles and Practice. 7th ed. Hoboken: Pearson, 2017. Pp. 354–358.
18. Wang, X. et al. How to Break MD5 and Other Hash Functions. Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS 3494. Berlin: Springer, 2005. Pp. 19–35.
This work is licensed under a 