“Revolutionizing Crime Scene Investigations”: Drone Forensics by - Vanshita Srivastava
“REVOLUTIONIZING
CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS”: DRONE FORENSICS
AYTHORED BY - VANSHITA SRIVASTAVA
ABSTRACT
As the use of unmanned aerial vehicles
(“UAVs”) becomes more widespread in civilian settings, it is of the utmost
importance to be aware of and address the inherent vulnerabilities that these
vehicles possess. It’s important to assess the systematic forensic framework
for the purpose of acquiring and assessing evidence from drones. Additionally,
the need of keeping data integrity and adopting standard methods.
This research paper
investigates drone forensics, which is a dynamic field of digital forensic science
that is now in the process of development The emphasis is placed on the need of
standardized methods and collaborative efforts in order to overcome challenges
associated with data gathering and administration of drones. This research
paper will also reflect upon on the importance of ‘diverse approaches’ and
‘technological advancements’ in order to advance the field of drone
forensics.
KEYWORDS
Drone forensics, UAVs, Data
integrity, Standardized protocols, Interdisciplinary approaches
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India had stated[1]
that the current era is characterized by technological advancements and
progress. High-tech advancements are occurring at an accelerated rate. It is
imperative to exercise caution when admitting electronic evidence due to the
possibility that manipulation has occurred.
Cyber or digital forensics is the forensic science area that
studies occurrences and gathers evidence from digital devices. One small
component of it is “drone forensics.” It is the study of drones for
investigative purposes; its main components are the drone that was retrieved
from the crime scene and the devices it was linked to. UAVs or drones have
become more and more popular for civilian purposes include patrolling, police,
search, and rescue, aggrotech and videography, and arresting poachers, mostly
because of the widespread digital lifestyle[2].
Drone that might be in running or
functioning states at the scene are an essential instrument. Among their
intricate constructions are ‘recording devices,’ ‘wireless RF antennae,’ and
‘high-resolution cameras[3].’
Depending on the gadget, sensors might be temperature, GPS, or camera. Both
directly on the device and on an SD memory card may hold the data gathered.
Drones may be controlled remotely or
independently by use of onboard computers. Their connection with the Ground
Control System (GCS) is made possible via a network of actuators and sensors
that communicate wirelessly. Because of this vulnerability, drones may be
targeted by attacks directed against their physical and/or cyber components,
the interface between them, the wireless connection, or even a combination of
many components.[4] Importance of drone culture in forensic
science is also being recognized in india as in August 2021, Kerala came up with
India’s first ‘Drone Forensic Lab& Research centre[5].’
WORKING OF A DRONE
Drone forensics use Wi-Fi signal
connection to enable communication between a drone and a controller/mobile
phone[6].
Data transmission allows a drone to fly under control, and during the drone’s
control phase, Wireshark packets locate the network interface cards MAC address
when a drone connects to a mobile phone. There is use for this idea in digital
and physical forensics[7].
Controlled flight of the drone is made possible via data transmission.[8]
DRONE FORENSIC FRAMEWORK
This framework explains a systematic
process for an investigator collecting evidence. Part of the first stage of the forensic
procedure is determining the devices’ existence, location, and storage as well
as their identification and tagging.
An alternative method to prevent
tampering with digital evidence is to restrict access to the collected devices.
Memory cards and hard drives are separated and forensically inspected in order
to protect and prevent data tampering of the original media. And last, a
significant area of research and development that requires a comprehensive
approach to gather data from various digital devices is drone forensics[9].
The collection stage is
followed by the examination of the raw data from devices. At this point, memory
cards, GSC, mobile devices, and drones have to be located and data collected.
Event logs are a chronologically arranged compilation of recorded events, while
flight logs include a plethora of information in several formats, including the
location, speed, flight duration, gimbal angle, and camera shooting time[10].
The analysis stage
involves comparing the examined data to extract information—such as controller
commands, GPS coordinates, sensor metadata, and hardware failures. Useful
Exchangeable Image Format (EXIF) data is included in media files, such as
photos and videos, and may be obtained using tools like Exiftool[11].
Examiners also decide whether the material they have collected is relevant to
the ongoing case and, if necessary, they may rewrite some of it.
At the reporting phase,
the information gathered is compiled and transformed into evidence, which is
subsequently delivered as a report. This article should include a detailed
account of the research techniques followed as well as comprehensive details on
the examined evidence, interpretation, and crediting. The two important
considerations when writing the such report are: (1.) verifying the
facts first; and (2) that the activities are ‘clear’, ‘simple’, and ‘repeatable’.
Along with this, ‘Route
maps’ and ‘log visualizations’ must also be included in drone forensics
documentation. Route charts are graphical depictions of GPS and flight data
shown on ‘2D or 3D maps’ created using applications like ‘WebFlightPath’, ‘GPS
Visualizer’, and ‘GeoPlayer’.
EFFICIENCY OF FORENSIC DRONES
GPS enables drones to self-localize
and navigate; therefore, flight path data for off-site criminal scenes can be
admissible in court. Their enhanced precision and rapidity of detection
surpasses those of on-foot field teams, rendering them more effective when
operating in areas exceeding ‘1,500 square meters’. Light Detection and Ranging
(LiDAR) technology and drones that calculate distances with lasers and generate
accurate maps could be utilized to reconstruct the crime scene in three
dimensions (‘3D’).
Drone photogrammetry enables
‘higher-resolution images’ of the crime scene, which provide accurate
topographical data and distance measurements between individuals, which are
considered evidence. In order to record postmortem remains, the forensic pathology
division makes use of portable scanners that incorporate digital cameras and
stereophotogrammetry. In order to locate forensic evidence, one must be
cognizant of time-sensitive hues and minute external interferences. Their
integration with analysis of textures at a high resolution could potentially
yield these tints.
LITERATURE REVIEW
According
to the present literature on Drones forensic, Firstly, this type of forensic science has
become far more necessary at crime scenes in present time as it supplements
important information about possible suspects due to its vast reach, however,
drone surveillance provides a pattern analysis of who was where and when,
without distinguishing between different zones[12].
It applies the “Locard Exchange Principle[13],”
which says material is transmitted reciprocally when two items come into touch.
Therefore, its difficult to filter out places, the ones that has to be surveyed
and the others that need not be surveyed[14].
Moreover, challenges such as legal issues, ethical procurement and partnerships
in a UAV industry, privacy issues, and community engagement needs to be
addressed for it to become a viable source of information. Drone surveillance
gives rise to a new information environment, new risks, new obligations and new
informationist conceptions of peace and peacekeeping[15].Secondly,
drones, which have the ability to continuously monitor individuals at a close
and personal level, are largely a subject of controversy due to concerns around
‘privacy and civil rights’ because although drones may seem to enhance flight
safety, they are fundamentally aerial devices equipped with cameras and
sensors. However, in US, the public’s widespread acceptance of surveillance
cameras in public areas seems to also apply to drones, as shown by the use of
shop security camera footage by law enforcement to identify the perpetrator of
the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013[16]. Lastly,
three things come into play in digital forensic investigations: (1.) ‘Standards’,
(2.) ‘Program Accreditation,’ and (3.) ‘Practitioner
Certification’[17]. A set
standard is the main obstacle in forensic drones as there is no set regulation
or act binding it[18].
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Viability/Reliability
of the Data Collected From Drones
The most common problem, when it
comes to forensic science is faulty convictions[19],
and therefore, to be administered as forensic evidence, the information
collected from drones should be both, viable and reliable. A digital forensic
study was carried[20]
which revealed that there is no way to get information on the process of
proving ownership of a drone in situations when the drone was abandoned without
the controller. Since anybody may be the owner of such information and use it
to shape the thoughts of law enforcement officials, it is a difficult scenario.
When the owner is absent, what credibility will the evidence have?
When a picture is presented as evidence, the
environment in which the image was taken and the degree to which it matches the
original recording are both called into question. Typically, the individual who
took the snapshot is the one who delivers testimony on the date, time, and
place of the photograph. There is a possibility that the unmodified status of
the image will also need the testimony of experts. On the other hand, the fact
that digital images may be altered with relative simplicity has discouraged
their usage in situations where a photograph is likely to be used as evidence.
It is possible to decode a digital image that has been subjected to the
auto-notary encode procedure in order to demonstrate the context of the shot
and provide evidence that it has not been changed. In addition, images that
have been transformed via the process of derived from the original may be shown
alongside the original photograph, which guarantees the authenticity of the
photograph[21].
Furthermore, in light of the fact
that any drone is capable of being attacked, it is vital to carry out audits
and forensic investigations of the devices’ internal operations.
As per Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh,[22]
the electronic evidence must be “preserved properly.” In
accordance with some findings[23],
drones are susceptible to three distinct types of assaults: attacks on their
integrity, attacks on their secrecy, and attacks on their ability to access
information without authorization. Integrity attacks may be made feasible by
modifying current data or creating new data on the drone storage, while
confidentiality attacks include unauthorized access to information by
compromising or intercepting data transferred between the drone and its
controller. Additionally, confidentiality attacks can be carried out by
compromising or intercepting data. This makes the information of drones
unreliable.
ISSUE OF PRIVACY
The issue at hand is not whether the
heightened use of drones by law enforcement is infringing upon our right to
privacy. From a commercial standpoint, the use of drones in the private
industry is becoming widespread. The issue at hand is the misuse of law
enforcement powers, wherein the government gathers video and images via drone
surveillance under the pretence of a lawful objective, but then employs this
data for malicious or unauthorized intentions.
The expansion of objectives and the
portrayal of drones as aggressive robots in military operations further
complicate the acceptance of unmanned and optionally-piloted aircraft
technology by some politicians and public, who may see it differently from
other machines that provide aural and visual proof[24]. Drones have ‘potential’ to improve legal
process significantly by boosting the quality of evidence that may be submitted
to a court. For instance, drones that capture footage of a damaged property
will provide compelling evidence in any legal proceeding.
Instead of completely prohibiting
UAVs or requiring a probable cause warrant and/or involvement of national
security or terrorism for any drone use, integrating dependable drone
technology into current procedural and evidentiary regulations would support the
goal of the fact-finder. Integrating drones into legal procedures is
challenging due to the fact that conventional tort principles, such as
trespass, might apply to UAV activities.[25].
The case of Guille v. Swan[26]
was a significant legal precedent in New York City, involving a property owner
who filed a lawsuit against an air balloonist for the act of trespassing.
Subsequently, legislation specifically tailored to the aviation industry have
been established, nevertheless, issues over privacy and the Fourth Amendment
persist. The growing use of drones in criminal activities poses difficulties
for forensic digital investigations, since there is a lack of set protocols or
norms. Drones provide distinct challenges in terms of data acquisition and
storage, requiring digital investigators to possess comprehensive expertise.
Primary concerns include the gathering of data, retrieval of information, and
validation of drone possession.
Though the law has not yet specified
what reasonable privacy expectations, if any, attach to unmanned aircraft
operations, cases of Ciraolo[27]
and Riley[28]
seem to permit UAV flights for analogous law enforcement reasons. References to
the “naked eye,” made by Riley and Ciraolo, also pertain to manned aircraft
and, almost by definition, do not apply to surveillance systems that operate
outside of the operators’ line of sight. More recent decisions by the country's
highest court have also expanded Fourth Amendment protections to
sense-enhancing technology, which may have a big effect on drone operations.
The Supreme Court barred searches in the physical trespass case Kyllo v.
United States[29]
utilizing precisely the kind of technology that may be used on a drone,
including radio transmitters, receivers, high-definition digital video cameras,
navigation, and global location tracking systems.
STANDARDIZED
PROCEDURES FOR DATA COLLECTION FROM DRONES
Firstly, in criminal investigations, judges
are required to pay more attention to digital evidences. In order to
enhance the minimum criteria for such evidence, one approach to do so is to
take into consideration whether or not the software that generates it has been
verified at some point in time[30].
Secondly, DroneGun can cause drones to return
to their place of origin, law enforcement can monitor drones in operational
states using devices like DroneShield. Obtaining drone images, reassembling
flight data to show flight routes, and connecting a drone to a suspicious
C&C device should be the primary goals of this technical investigation with
digital interference[31].
Thirdly, Law enforcement officials can also
ascertain that if the drone-shot images violate privacy or were taken in
sensitive locations, they can be removed and recovered as per the need of
evidence and the legal proceedings.[32].
For instance, in 2014, the Singaporean government addressed the increasing
issue of recreational drone usage, especially that which was capable of digital
pictures and proposed giving police more
authority to manage drones from “rogue” operators and provide them weapons to
destroy them[33]
CONCLUSION
The major issue in performing drone
forensics is that obtaining clean picture files from aerial cameras and flight
data from microcontrollers calls for certain protocols and permissions[34]
that are often out of the purview of law enforcement. Extracting consistent
data across several UAV models is made more challenging by the absence of
standardized software, hardware, and firmware. Flight data is transient, as
shown by the need on volatile memory, and encryption of flight data adds even
another level of complication.
Another issue is that, drone
forensics has ‘gaps’ in knowledge and approaches since most research focuses on
commercial drones with proprietary software[35].
Overcoming these obstacles will necessitate creative ideas along with
‘multidisciplinary’ teamwork. Moreover, Special user permission via the
wireless controller is often necessary to access flight data via onboard
aircraft microcontrollers; security agencies and forensic investigators are
unlikely to have this access of these. The absence of a remote controller
further complicates forensic investigation, since most flight data obtained
from the flight microchip is encrypted.
Furthermore, UAVs mostly depend on
volatile memory, hence if the battery dies, the flight data stored there will
be lost. A substitute like a backup memory is needed to overcome this issue and
to make drones more reliable as evidences for forensics.
Precisely, the wide variety of digital
components and the lack of technical know-how found in UAVs makes digital
forensics quite difficult to perform and development in the field is needed,
understanding the demand of today’s “technologically advanced” time.
REFERENCES
RESEARCH PAPERS
1.
A.Y. Javaid et. al., ‘Cyber security threat analysis and modeling of
an unmanned aerial vehicle system,’ In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE
Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), Waltham, MA, USA, 13–15
585–590 (2012).
2.
Cyber Forensics and
Admissibility of Digital Evidence, (2012) PL January S-23
3.
Da-Yu Kao et al., Drone Forensic Investigation: DJI Spark Drone
as A Case Study, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 159,1890-1899,ISSN
1877-0509, (2019)
4.
Evangelos Mantas &
Constantinos Patsakis, ‘Who watches the new watchmen? The challenges for
drone digital forensics investigations,’ Array, Vol. 14 (2022), 100135,
ISSN 2590-0056
5. Graeme Horsman, Unmanned aerial
vehicles: A preliminary analysis of forensic challenges, Digital
Investigation, Vol. 16, 1-11 (2016), ISSN 1742 2876
6. H. Bouafif et. al., ‘Drone
forensics: Challenges and new insights,’ In Proceedings of the 2018 9th
IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
(NTMS), Paris, France, 26–28 February 2018; IEEE:Piscataway, NJ, USA. 1–6.
(2018)
7.
Sihag, et. al., ‘Cyber4Drone: A Systematic Review of Cyber Security
and Forensics in Next-Generation Drones,’ Drones 7, Vol. 7, 430 (2023)
8.
The Regulatory Framework for Aerial Imaging by
Recreational Users of "Drones" in Singapore, (2017) 29 SAcLJ 126
BOOKS
1.
J.
Kävrestad, ‘Fundamentals of Digital Forensics Theory Methods and Real-Life
Applications’, Springer International Publishing AG (2018).
2.
Stephenson,
P., & Gilbert, K. (2013), Investigating Computer-Related Crime (2nd
ed.), Routledge.
JOURNALS
1.
Adam Smith, Drones as Techno-Legal Assemblages,
4 LAW, TECH. & HUM. 152 (2022).
2.
Al-Room Khalifa et. al, ‘Drone Forensics : A Case Study of Digital
Forensic Investigations Conducted on Common Drone Models’, International
Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics, 13(1), (2021).
3.
Andrew M. Lemieux, Geotagged
Photos: A Useful Tool for Criminological Research? 4 CRIME SCI. 1
(2015).
4.
Brandon L. Garrett & Peter J. Neufeld, “Invalid forensic science
testimony and wrongful convictions” Virginia Law Review 1-97, (2009)
5.
Claude Roux, et al., ‘The End of the (Forensic Science) World as We
Know It? The Example of Trace Evidence, Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences, vol. 370(1674), 2
(2015), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24505153
6.
Janice Castelino, Drones and Future Feasibility
of Drones in India, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN.
1062 (2021).
7.
Jennifer Mnookin, Excerpt from Transcript of
Proceedings: Experts and Forensic Evidence, 37 SW. U. L. REV.
1009 (2008).
8.
Jutta Weber, ‘Keep Adding. On Kill Lists, Drone Warfare, and the
Politics of Databases,’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34, 1
107-125 (2016)
9.
K. Iqbal et. al., ‘Drone forensics: A case study of digitalforensic
investigations conducted on common drone models’, Int. J. Digit. Crime
Forensics (IJDCF) 13, 1–25 (2021)
10. Lisa Portmess & Bassam Romaya, ‘Digital
Peacekeepers, Drone Surveillance and Information Fusion: A Philosophical
Analysis of New Peacekeeping,’ Theoria: A Journal of Social and
Political Theory, vol. 62(145), 15-16 (2015), http://www.jstor.org/stable/24719928
11. P. R.
Stephenson, Digital Forensic Science: An Oxymoron,
6 LEGAL ISSUES J. 95 (2018).
12. Stephen E.
Henderson, Fourth Amendment Time Machines (and What They Might Say
about Policy Body Cameras), 18 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 933 (2016).
13. Timothy M.
Ravich, Courts in the Drone Age, 42 N. KY. L. REV. 161
(2015).
ONLINE
SOURCES
1. PTI, Kerala Police comes up with
India's first Drone Forensic Lab and Research Centre, Deccan Herald (2021),
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/kerala-police-comes-up-with-indias-first-drone-forensic-lab-and-research-centre-1019297.html.
2. You,
Il Sun, et al., ‘Method for verifying drone included in industrial internet
of things system, by using petri-net modeling’ U.S. Patent No. 11,914,720.
(2024), US11914720B2
- Method for verifying drone included in industrial internet of things system,
by using petri-net modeling - Google Patents
3. Matyszozyk, C. (2016, October 26).
Judge rules man had right to shoot down drone over his house. Retrieved April
22, 2017, from CNET (2017) https://www.cnet.com/news/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shootdown-drone-over-his-house4
CASE LAWS
INTERNATIONAL CASES
1. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207
(1986).
2. Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 43 F 3d 1311 (9th Cir 1995)
3. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 448
(1989).
4. Guille v. Swan, 19 Johns. 381 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. 1822).
5. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27
(2001).
INDIAN
CASES
1. Hardam Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019
SCC OnLine P&H 6373
2. Ram
Singh v. Col. Ram Singh , AIR 1986 SC 3
3. Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao
Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329
[1] Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate,
(2010) 4 SCC 329
[2]
Hardam Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6373
[3] Janice Castelino, Drones and Future
Feasibility of Drones in India, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN.
1062 (2021).
[5]
PTI, Kerala Police comes up with India's first Drone Forensic Lab and
Research Centre, Deccan Herald (2021), https://www.deccanherald.com/india/kerala-police-comes-up-with-indias-first-drone-forensic-lab-and-research-centre-1019297.html.
[6]
Stephenson, P., & Gilbert, K. (2013). Investigating Computer-Related Crime
(2nd ed.). Routledge.
[7]
G.M. Jones & S.G. Winster, ‘Forensics Analysis on Smart Phones Using
Mobile Forensics Tools.,’ International Journal of Computational
Intelligence Research 8(13) , 1859-1869 (2017)
[8] J.
Kävrestad, ‘Fundamentals of Digital Forensics Theory Methods and Real Life
Applications’, Springer International Publishing AG (2018).
[9] Da-Yu Kao et al., Drone Forensic
Investigation: DJI Spark Drone as A Case Study, Procedia Computer
Science, Vol. 159,1890-1899 (2019)
[10] You, Il Sun, et al., ‘Method for verifying drone
included in industrial internet of things system, by using petri-net modeling’
U.S. Patent No. 11,914,720. (2024), US11914720B2 - Method for verifying drone included in
industrial internet of things system, by using petri-net modeling - Google
Patents
[11] Andrew M. Lemieux, Geotagged Photos: A Useful
Tool for Criminological Research? 4 CRIME SCI. 1 (2015).
[13] Claude Roux, et al., ‘The End of the (Forensic
Science) World as We Know It? The Example of Trace Evidence, Philosophical
Transactions: Biological Sciences, vol. 370(1674), 2 (2015), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24505153
[14]
Jutta Weber, ‘Keep Adding. On Kill Lists, Drone Warfare, and the Politics of
Databases,’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34, 1 107-125
(2016)
[15] Lisa Portmess & Bassam Romaya, ‘Digital
Peacekeepers, Drone Surveillance and Information Fusion: A Philosophical
Analysis of New Peacekeeping,’ Theoria: A Journal of Social and
Political Theory, vol. 62(145), 15-16 (2015), http://www.jstor.org/stable/24719928.
[18]
H. Bouafif et. al., ‘Drone forensics: Challenges and new insights,’ In
Proceedings of the 2018 9th IFIP International Conference on New
Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS), Paris, France, 26–28 February 2018;
IEEE:Piscataway, NJ, USA. 1–6. (2018)
[19] Jennifer
Mnookin, Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings: Experts and Forensic
Evidence, 37 SW. U. L. REV. 1009 (2008); Brandon L.
Garrett & Peter J. Neufeld, “Invalid forensic science testimony and
wrongful convictions” Virginia Law Review 1-97, (2009)
[20] Graeme Horsman, Unmanned aerial vehicles: A
preliminary analysis of forensic challenges, Digital Investigation, Vol.
16, 1-11 (2016)
[21]
Cyber Forensics and Admissibility of Digital Evidence, (2012) PL January S-23
[23] A.Y. Javaid et. al., ‘Cyber security threat
analysis and modelling of an unmanned aerial vehicle system,’ In
Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security
(HST), Waltham, MA, USA, 13–15 585–590 (2012).
[25]
K. Iqbal et. al., ‘Drone forensics: A case study of digitalforensic
investigations conducted on common drone models’, Int. J. Digit. Crime
Forensics (IJDCF) 13, 1–25 (2021)
(PDF) Drone Forensics: An Innovative Approach to the Forensic Investigation of Drone Accidents Based on Digital Twin Technology. Available from:
(PDF) Drone Forensics: An Innovative Approach to the Forensic Investigation of Drone Accidents Based on Digital Twin Technology. Available from:
[26] Guille
v. Swan, 19 Johns. 381 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1822).
[27] California
v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).
[28] Florida
v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 448 (1989).
[29] Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
[30] Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals Inc., 43 F 3d 1311 (9th Cir 1995)
[31]
Matyszozyk, C. (2016, October 26). Judge rules man had right to shoot down
drone over his house. Retrieved April 22, 2017, from CNET: 2017.
https://www.cnet.com/news/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shootdown-drone-over-his-house4
[32] Al-Room Khalifa et. al, ‘Drone Forensics : A Case
Study of Digital Forensic Investigations Conducted on Common Drone Models’,
International
Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics, 13(1), (2021).
[33] The
Regulatory Framework for Aerial Imaging by Recreational Users of “Drones” in
Singapore, (2017) 29 SAcLJ 126
[34]
Evangelos Mantas & Constantinos
Patsakis, ‘Who watches the new watchmen? The challenges for drone digital
forensics investigations,’ Array, Vol. 14 (2022), 100135, ISSN 2590-0056,
[35] Supra
note 1