Research going back to 2008 has shown that a vast majority of the people never read privacy policies (AM McDonald and LF Cranor, 'The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies' (2008) 4A JLPI 543). Since then, not a lot has changed (F Schaub and others, 'Designing Effective Privacy Notices and Controls' (2017) 99 IEEE 70). Most people formally consent to privacy policies without knowing what happens to their personal data. This odd situation is called the privacy paradox: while people highly value their fundamental right to privacy, they do not act accordingly, especially when it concerns new technologies (M Taddicken, 'The "Privacy Paradox" in the Social Web' (2013) 19 JCMC 248). Since more and more people use apps on their mobile phones and wearables to measure their health, it is important to do research in this area. Nowadays, privacy is a popular news item; this might be why more and more companies use privacy both in their business models and as a marketing tool. This raises the question whether people really give 'informed consent' to privacy policies, as they seem to rely on marketing statements rather than reading the actual privacy policies themselves.

Research going back to 2008 has shown that a vast majority of the people never read privacy policies (AM McDonald and LF Cranor,

No abstract

The contributions describe the final Road Map for the realization of the harmonized framework on Electronic Evidence Treatment and Exchange. It is against a complex background that this "Roadmap" needs to be understood as it takes all challenges, including legal, operational, technical and data protection, forward and proposes ways to take action on a national and on a European level while taking into account various important aspects such as the actors involved. It is important to reiterate that no one action alone will solve the ensemble of challenges as regards the collection, preservation, use and exchange of electronic evidence. The actions need to be taken together for changes to be more effective. The Roadmap is aimed at showing the way forward for creating a Common European Framework for the systematic, aligned and uniform application of new technologies in the collection, preservation, use and exchange of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Currently, the leading legal instrument for the exchange of digital evidence within the European Union (EU) is the European Investigation Order (EIO), which will be digitised within the eEDES system. The EIO Directive 2014/41/EU was implemented to create a simpler, unified European framework on the collection of evidence within the EU, backed by the appropriate procedural and fundamental rights standards. In spite of this, there is still a lot of fragmentation in the legal framework as regards digital evidence, especially considering that the EIO does not apply to all countries equally or to the collection of all types of evidences equally. For EU states that have opted out of the EIO Directive, such as Ireland and Denmark, traditional Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) legal instruments need to be relied upon.The fragmentation is a result of a scattered legal framework which consists of national, European and international laws and regulations, bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements which all play a role in regulating the gathering, analysis and exchange of digital evidence. Countries cooperate by way of MLA in crossborder criminal cases and exchange digital evidence based on these instruments. The choice of instrument depends on the countries involved and the type of information needed. With the EIO now being the leading legal instrument for exchanging evidence, the choice of legal instrument for requesting evidence seems to be clearer. However, uncertainty about this legal instrument and the fact that some Member States have opted out of the EIO Directive are still challenging the exchange of evidence and leading to Member States relying on traditional MLA legal instrument. These MLA legal instruments are slower as they can take a long time to be executed. This can be problematic considering the volatile nature of digital evidence, which can easily be moved, altered or even deleted.This Chapter is devoted to understanding the current legal framework for the exchange of digital evidence, including data protection considerations, and the challenges that come with it in the post-EIO implementation era. The focus of this M. Tudorica ( ) • J.