Analisis Kepatuhan Forensik Elektronik dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Siber di Indonesia
Keywords:
electronic evidence, digital forensics, compliance, authentication, criminal procedureAbstract
This study formulates parameters for electronic forensic compliance and examines their consequences for proving cybercrimes in Indonesia. It employs doctrinal legal research through statutory, conceptual, and judicial decision analysis, supported by a limited functional comparison with international scholarship. Legal materials are examined through systematic interpretation and prescriptive reasoning. The findings identify four assessment dimensions: lawful acquisition, integrity and authentication, methodological reliability, and meaningful opportunities to challenge evidence. The 2025 Criminal Procedure Code expressly recognizes electronic evidence and requires authentication, making the mere existence of digital files or expert reports insufficient. Hash discrepancies and documentation deficiencies must be evaluated according to their objects, stages, and consequences; neither independently establishes an offender’s guilt. The study proposes continuous documentation, task-specific validation, peer review, and adversarial testing as quality safeguards. These measures distinguish evidence that cannot legally be used from evidence requiring a more cautious assessment of probative weight.
Downloads
References
Ab. Halim, M. A., Amni, S. Z., & Maulana, M. (2023). Legal system in the perspectives of H.L.A Hart and Lawrence M. Friedman. Peradaban Journal of Law and Society, 2(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.59001/pjls.v2i1.83
Ariffin, K. A. Z., & Ahmad, F. H. (2021). Indicators for maturity and readiness for digital forensic investigation in era of industrial revolution 4.0. Computers & Security, 105, 102237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102237
Arisandy, Y. O. (2021). Penegakan hukum terhadap cyber crime hacker. Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (IJCLC), 1(3), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.18196/ijclc.v1i3.11264
Awuson-David, K., Al-Hadhrami, T., Alazab, M., Shah, N., & Shalaginov, A. (2021). BCFL logging: An approach to acquire and preserve admissible digital forensics evidence in cloud ecosystem. Future Generation Computer Systems, 122, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2021.03.001
Beckett, J., & Slay, J. (2011). Scientific underpinnings and background to standards and accreditation in digital forensics. Digital Investigation, 8(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2011.08.001
Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers, and the Internet (3rd ed.). Academic Press. https://shop.elsevier.com/books/digital-evidence-and-computer-crime/casey/978-0-08-092148-8
Casey, E. (2019). The chequered past and risky future of digital forensics. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(6), 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2018.1554090
Casey, E. (2020). Standardization of forming and expressing preliminary evaluative opinions on digital evidence. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 32, 200888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2019.200888
Cooper, G. S., & Meterko, V. (2019). Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review. Forensic Science International, 297, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016
Efendi, T. F., Rahmadi, R., & Prayudi, Y. (2020). Rancang bangun sistem untuk manajemen barang bukti fisik dan chain of custody (CoC) pada penyimpananan laboratorium forensika digital. Jurnal Teknologi dan Manajemen Informatika, 6(2), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.26905/jtmi.v6i2.4177
Friedman, L. M. (1975). The legal system: A social science perspective. Russell Sage Foundation. https://doi.org/10.7758/9781610442282
Garfinkel, S. L. (2010). Digital forensics research: The next 10 years. Digital Investigation, 7, S64–S73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2010.05.009
Garfinkel, S., Farrell, P., Roussev, V., & Dinolt, G. (2009). Bringing science to digital forensics with standardized forensic corpora. Digital Investigation, 6, S2–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2009.06.016
Habibi, M. R., & Liviani, I. (2020). Kejahatan teknologi informasi (cyber crime) dan penanggulangannya dalam sistem hukum Indonesia. Al-Qanun: Jurnal Pemikiran dan Pembaharuan Hukum Islam, 23(2), 400–426. https://doi.org/10.15642/alqanun.2020.23.2.400-426
Hargreaves, C., Nelson, A., & Casey, E. (2024). An abstract model for digital forensic analysis tools - A foundation for systematic error mitigation analysis. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 48, 301679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301679
Harichandran, V. S., Breitinger, F., Baggili, I., & Marrington, A. (2016). A cyber forensics needs analysis survey: Revisiting the domain's needs a decade later. Computers & Security, 57, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.10.007
Hartono, M. S., & Yuliartini, N. P. R. (2020). Penggunaan bukti elektronik dalam peradilan pidana. Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH), 6(1), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.23887/jkh.v6i1.23607
Horsman, G. (2018). Framework for Reliable Experimental Design (FRED): A research framework to ensure the dependable interpretation of digital data for digital forensics. Computers & Security, 73, 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2017.11.009
Horsman, G. (2019a). Formalising investigative decision making in digital forensics: Proposing the Digital Evidence Reporting and Decision Support (DERDS) framework. Digital Investigation, 28, 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2019.01.007
Horsman, G. (2019b). Tool testing and reliability issues in the field of digital forensics. Digital Investigation, 28, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2019.01.009
Horsman, G. (2020a). Part 1: Quality assurance mechanisms for digital forensic investigations: Introducing the Verification of Digital Evidence (VODE) framework. Forensic Science International: Reports, 2, 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsir.2019.100038
Horsman, G. (2020b). Part 2: Quality assurance mechanisms for digital forensic investigations: Knowledge sharing and the Capsule of Digital Evidence (CODE). Forensic Science International: Reports, 2, 100035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsir.2019.100035
Horsman, G. (2022). That tool is rubbish!…or is it?. Science & Justice, 62(5), 515–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.07.006
Horsman, G. (2023). Digital evidence strategies for digital forensic science examinations. Science & Justice, 63(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.004
Horsman, G., & Sunde, N. (2020). Part 1: The need for peer review in digital forensics. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 35, 301062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.301062
International Organization for Standardization & International Electrotechnical Commission. (2012). Information technology—Security techniques—Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence (ISO/IEC 27037:2012). https://www.iso.org/standard/44381.html
Kent, K., Chevalier, S., Grance, T., & Dang, H. (2006). Guide to integrating forensic techniques into incident response (NIST SP 800-86). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-86
Kohn, M. D., Eloff, M. M., & Eloff, J. H. P. (2013). Integrated digital forensic process model. Computers & Security, 38, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2013.05.001
Lone, A. H., & Mir, R. N. (2019). Forensic-chain: Blockchain based digital forensics chain of custody with PoC in Hyperledger Composer. Digital Investigation, 28, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2019.01.002
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2016). Putusan Nomor 20/PUU-XIV/2016 (7 September 2016). https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/20_PUU-XIV_2016.pdf
Medeline, F., Rusmiati, E., & Ramadhani, R. H. (2022). Forensik Digital dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Ujaran Kebencian di Media Sosial. PAMPAS: Journal of Criminal Law, 3(3), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.22437/pampas.v3i3.19691
Ng, M., James, J., & Bull, R. (2024). “What you say in the lab, stays in the lab”: A reflexive thematic analysis of current challenges and future directions of digital forensic investigations in the UK. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 51, 301839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2024.301839
OliveiraJr, E., Zorzo, A. F., & Neu, C. V. (2020). Towards a conceptual model for promoting digital forensics experiments. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 35, 301014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.301014
Page, H., Horsman, G., Sarna, A., & Foster, J. (2019). A review of quality procedures in the UK forensic sciences: What can the field of digital forensics learn?. Science & Justice, 59(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.09.006
Park, S., Akatyev, N., Jang, Y., Hwang, J., Kim, D., Yu, W., Shin, H., Han, C., & Kim, J. (2018). A comparative study on data protection legislations and government standards to implement Digital Forensic Readiness as mandatory requirement. Digital Investigation, 24, S93–S100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2018.01.012
Quick, D., & Choo, K. K. R. (2014). Impacts of increasing volume of digital forensic data: A survey and future research challenges. Digital Investigation, 11(4), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2014.09.002
Quick, D., & Choo, K. K. R. (2018). Digital forensic intelligence: Data subsets and Open Source Intelligence (DFINT+OSINT): A timely and cohesive mix. Future Generation Computer Systems, 78, 558–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2016.12.032
Ramiyanto. (2017). Bukti elektronik sebagai alat bukti yang sah dalam hukum acara pidana. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 6(3), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.6.3.2017.463-486
Republik Indonesia. (1981). Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1981 Nomor 76, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 3209. https://www.jdih.kemenkeu.go.id/api/download/fullText/1981/8TAHUN~1981UU.HTM
Republik Indonesia. (2008). Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/37589/uu-no-11-tahun2008
Republik Indonesia. (2016). Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/37582/uu-no19-tahun-2016
Republik Indonesia. (2024). Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/274494/
Republik Indonesia. (2025). Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/337302/uu-no-20-tahun-2025
Silva, T. J., Mazur, A. H. B., OliveiraJr, E., Zorzo, A. F., & Barcellos, M. P. (2025). An ontology for promoting controlled experimentation in digital forensics. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 52, 301845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2024.301845
Stoykova, R. (2021). Digital evidence: Unaddressed threats to fairness and the presumption of innocence. Computer Law & Security Review, 42, 105575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105575
Stoykova, R., Andersen, S., Franke, K., & Axelsson, S. (2022). Reliability assessment of digital forensic investigations in the Norwegian police. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 40, 301351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2022.301351
Stoykova, R., & Franke, K. (2023). Reliability validation enabling framework (RVEF) for digital forensics in criminal investigations. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 45, 301554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301554
Sunde, N., & Dror, I. E. (2019). Cognitive and human factors in digital forensics: Problems, challenges, and the way forward. Digital Investigation, 29, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2019.03.011
Sunde, N., & Horsman, G. (2021). Part 2: The Phase-oriented Advice and Review Structure (PARS) for digital forensic investigations. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 36, 301074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.301074
Vanessa, V., & Firmansyah, H. (2025). Analysis of the validity of electronic evidence in criminal trial proceedings and the implementation of its admissibility (judgment study). Indonesian Journal of Law and Economics Review, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.21070/ijler.v20i4.1395
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Harison Tutu Tumanggor, Hilbertus Sumplisius M. Wau (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in the Deli Journal of Law, Development, Economics, Values & Institution (DJLDEVI) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
As long as appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the journal.
© Author(s) retain copyright of their work.
More info: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
