British Government testing DLT for securing digital evidence
The UK Government is currently exploring ways that distributed ledger technology (DLT) could be used to secure identity information, digital evidence, and other pieces of sensitive data.
In a blog post published on the 23rd of August, it came to light that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) and the Open Innovation team at the Cabinet Office recently held a meeting where the possibility of using DLT was discussed.
Head of the Digital Architecture and Cyber Security team at HMCTs as well as the author of the bloc, stated that the Service is exploring new ways of applying emerging technologies to the aforementioned traditional services.
In attendance at the meeting was Dr Sadek Ferdous, a Technology Policy Fellow and Research Associate at Imperial College, who presented his work on both public and private DLT systems. He also explained the various challenges that presented themselves such as ensuring the provenance of digital evidence, as well as the importance of an audit trail.
“It provides a chronological record of system activities which capture how digital evidence has been created/accessed/modified by which entity, from what location, in such a way to enable the reconstruction and examination of the sequence of events, and actions leading to the current state of the digital evidence.”
Blockchain and DLT are being widely adopted in the UK and the government is looking to position the country as a global leader within the crypto community. Just last month, the Big Innovation Centre, DAG Global, and Deep Knowledge Analytics conducted extensive research that demonstrated the UK has become one of the leading crypto-jurisdictions in the world.
UK Minister Eddie Hughes has publicly encouraged the government to show leadership by making blockchain technology policy a priority.
“The state should focus its attention on using blockchain to enable social freedom, to increase efficiency, and to rebuild societal trust. The state should not be allowed to use such technology to intrude into the lives of individuals—but rather the technology should be used to empower individuals in their necessary engagements with the state.”