Comment: How will the judiciary change when encountering blockchain? | indo6d hadiah, situs slot zeus, 2 slot ram beda kapasitas

Nowadays, when talking about hot words related to the Internet, "blockchain" must be mentioned. Since the concept of blockchain was proposed in 2008, this technology has been developed for more than 10 years. Blockchain’s technical features such as decentralization, consensus mechanism, and distributed accounting, as well as its intelligence and extremely difficult to tamper with, have application value in various scenarios such as information management, supply chain management, copyright management, Internet finance, and government affairs management. Especially in the judicial field, it may become another practical application field of great significance for blockchain.

At present, the application of blockchain technology in the judicial field can be mainly divided into two aspects. On the one hand, litigants use blockchain technology to protect their rights before and during litigation; on the other hand, the judicial authorities themselves manage the application of blockchain technology to the litigation process. Judging from the application of blockchain technology by parties, it is currently mainly reflected in electronic certificate deposits. Deposit and collect evidence on ownership certificates, rights certificates, transaction processes, infringements, etc. on the blockchain to achieve rights protection. For the parties involved, the cost of using blockchain to store and collect evidence is lower. When evidence needs to be stored or collected, it can be discovered and fixed immediately, and rights protection is easier to achieve.

For example, in a number of copyright infringement cases heard by the Beijing Internet Court, the defendants began to take a tough stance, refusing to admit the infringement and requiring offline verification of evidence. After that, the court delivered evidence materials through the electronic litigation platform, and the relevant evidence of the infringement was collected and fixed on the blockchain evidence storage platform. At the same time, this evidence storage platform has also been connected with the "Tianping Chain" developed by the Beijing Internet Court, and the consistency of the evidence involved in the case has been verified by the background. This means that the evidence has not been modified after being deposited, and the authenticity is very high. After receiving the evidence, the defendant took the initiative to contact the court and quickly resolved the dispute. From not admitting the fact of infringement to actively requesting mediation, evidence plays a major role, and this role is inseparable from the credit-enhancing function of blockchain technology. The security and credibility of the evidence storage platform connected to the court's blockchain are reviewed in advance. After qualification review, system security testing and evidence collection rule evaluation, evidence storage platforms that meet relevant standards can be accessed. The consistency of the evidence on the chain passes the background inspection, and the verification process is faster and more efficient, which not only promotes the efficient operation of judicial procedures, but also enhances the professionalism of judicial trials.

It should be noted that the blockchain industry is currently developing rapidly, and there are many platforms that use blockchain technology for evidence deposit. Although the underlying technology uses blockchain technology, not all evidence deposit platforms can play the above-mentioned role in litigation. Many factors such as the security of the evidence deposit platform, technical reliability, evidence storage and evidence collection process, number of nodes, and evidence collection process must be considered. There are also judicial precedents that do not recognize the evidence stored in the blockchain. It can be seen that not all blockchain evidence storage platforms can achieve the effect of technological blessing. To solve this problem, it is urgent to issue corresponding technical standards and management regulations. On January 10, 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China issued the "Blockchain Information Service Management Regulations", which requires blockchain information service providers to register as required. It also requires service providers to perform security assessments, cooperate with supervision and inspections, and handle complaints. However, for different application scenarios, it is necessary to formulate corresponding management specifications and basic technical consensus based on specific fields.

From the perspective of the application of blockchain technology by judicial agencies, it mainly applies blockchain technology to data generated in the judicial process.Bank management, confirming and saving relevant information through the blockchain, which cannot be modified, has played a role in enhancing judicial credibility to a certain extent. Taking the Beijing Internet Court as an example, all materials submitted by the parties through the electronic litigation platform are deposited through the "Tianping Chain". Currently, there are nearly 200,000 evidence materials, and more than 300 evidence documents have been verified, achieving full-process recording of electronic data, full-link credibility, and full-node witnessing. The judicial blockchain of Hangzhou Internet Court solves the authentication problem of data "generation" through six dimensions: time, place, person, before, during and after the event. These are specific applications of blockchain technology in justice.

We can also find that the application of blockchain technology in trials is closely related to the Internet trial model. For Internet courts that adopt the Internet trial model, the cases under their centralized jurisdiction have outstanding Internet characteristics and are suitable for online trials. The evidence involved in the case is mainly generated and stored on the Internet, making it easy to use Internet technology to carry out litigation procedures. When cases involving blockchain are tried offline, defendants usually question the qualifications of the certificate depository institution. The court requires all parties to the litigation to be present at the same time, and may even introduce expert witnesses to conduct on-site inspections of the electronic data extraction process. The entire procedure is relatively complex and cumbersome. In the Internet trial mode, through node mutual trust and cross-chain verification, the system automatically compares the on-chain data to verify whether there has been tampering, assisting the judge in identifying evidence, shortening the trial cycle and improving trial efficiency.

In the long run, blockchain technology has the characteristics of decentralized trust mechanism, non-tampering and traceability, which can open up a large application space in the judicial field and objectively promote the establishment of Internet trust system. For example, in terms of evidence, judging from the behavior of the parties, in the traditional trial model, it is very common for the parties to not recognize the authenticity of the evidence. A relatively high proportion of cases will request identification, which to a certain extent is transformed into a strategy to delay litigation. Under the Internet trial model, parties have a high degree of recognition and trust in evidence verified by the judicial blockchain, and rarely apply for appraisal or inspection procedures. The parties' litigation performance is more honest and has a higher degree of goodwill. Through the pre-positioning of rules, full-chain participation, and joint endorsement by social institutions, embedding fair and just rules into Internet litigation through the power of technology is an expected outcome of the application of blockchain in the judicial field.

(Source: Guangming Daily)