source: https://d3c33hcgiwev3.cloudfront.net/W1Ze4rT5SJ-Ih_OB17WgFw_4990ebfd266143e59378c00caf44e9e1_ACPOguidelinescomputerevidence.pdf?Expires=1691366400&Signature=LC-HtCRWsv7~jZaS7VAYtZoaps-98Xs~kzs~Rs9nhWm8wusp22Zu3~B-feLwOV8qIzYTcMzc1oBreynNgzpI9gEg-oksK7Gi9-Q~GeWzlptjZi99bbfK-T0qDrCtajgpq58I5iv-I5XxxqchNnYtG~i-B8uMR9-nYVETuq7I1gI_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLTNE6QMUY6HBC5A 1. No action taken should change data which may later be relied upon in court. [[integrity]] must be provably maintained 4. If it is necessary to read original data, the actor must be competent and must be able to explain their reasoning in a court of law 5. An independent party, given the same process and data, should be able to arrive at the same conclusion 6. The person in charge of the investigation is responsible for ensuring the law is followed and these principles are adhered to ## Time for an update? source: https://d3c33hcgiwev3.cloudfront.net/HWe7y9VDQ8a-XPCvcoeaRA_f1a330ee381f4ae69d527b98620368e1_ACPO-Time-for-an-Update.pdf?Expires=1691366400&Signature=AgS-B9WP4p9M1hURn5lv~d76RXGxV2zhd9vQ1wZ-3tAuDd4auaVA19T5Rs8MApE~HCfZjWnKX9bLroRQSkJ6CcrWmpttqUj8HjBJi9LNsoWUKmxXw6Gdp~h1vk8m4d2-IKvTQBOy4VW5N5EJACVmww5jjA~lgmDIB3SKwrIXBU8_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLTNE6QMUY6HBC5A This paper claims that the principles above are due for an update. They argue that the principles are too vague; outdated; approaching irrelevance; and that since nobody wants to argue about them someone should. The author then goes on to propose a set of principles: both double in number and four times as great in word count. The author claims this adds clarity. Somewhere Sarah Winters starts weeping, and doesn't know why.