Searching and seizing voluminous data is a challenge that Indonesian law enforcement authorities should resolve. Indonesia does not have a comprehensive regime on personal data protection. The absence of a coherent legal framework on personal data protection does not negate the obligation of Indonesian law enforcement authorities to protect personal data of Indonesian subjects. However, the absence of the framework may lead to uncertainties or ambiguities on how the authorities should protect personal data. Against the uncertainties and ambiguities, Indonesian law enforcement authorities should resolve issues of voluminous data in obtaining e-information with the prevailing legislation. This article attempts to answer the question: how may Indonesian law enforcement authorities interpret the current law to establish a coherent legal framework to protect personal data in searching or seizing voluminous data? The interpretation is instrumental in supporting the development of the Indonesian regime on personal data protection. It proposes that the Indonesian criminal procedure law should emphasise the active role of the chief judges of competent district courts and should incorporate specificity and proportionality as conditions and safeguards in the execution of search and seizure of electronic evidence.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v9n3.582

I appreciate comments that you send to josua.sitompul@cyberlaw.id. I will try to respond to them.

This article attempts to scrutinize the role of an expert under the Indonesian Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) and examine how Indonesian courts have interpreted and applied relevant rules and principles of the expert in selected cybercrime cases. It finds that the main role of an expert in such cases is providing the courts with opinions on the legal and technical meanings of the legal provisions at stake and their contextualization in the cases. This raises the question whether law enforcement agencies comprehend the execution of the provisions. It also shows that law enforcement agencies are not always interested in getting digital forensic examination from which electronic evidence may be produced. It emphasizes that role of an expert under KUHAP is equivocal and views the need to improve the role and principles. In order to improve the role of experts under Indonesian criminal law, the article describes and explains the salient features of expert evidence under Dutch law. The article concludes by making a series of recommendations.

For further reading:

Improving the Role of Experts Under the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Law

If you have comments, you may send them to josua.sitompul@cyberlaw.id. I would try to respond to them.