Cyber-Evidence and the Epistemology of Proof: Re-Evaluating Evidentiary Standards in Digitally Mediated Litigation

Abstract

The digital transformation of contemporary societies has fundamentally altered the conditions under which legal proof is produced, evaluated, and legitimized. This article examines how the emergence of cyber-evidence reshapes the epistemological foundations of adjudication and challenges the adequacy of traditional evidentiary doctrines. Through a narrative review employing a descriptive–analytical method, the study synthesizes interdisciplinary scholarship from legal epistemology, evidence law, and cyberforensics to trace the conceptual evolution of proof from classical models grounded in human perception and material continuity to contemporary regimes of technologically mediated fact-production. The analysis demonstrates that cyber-evidence constitutes a distinct evidentiary category whose properties—volatility, algorithmic generation, platform dependency, and cryptographic validation—destabilize established doctrines of authentication, admissibility, probative value, and standards of persuasion. The article further explores the institutional consequences of this transformation, including the growing epistemic asymmetry between courts and technical experts, the reconfiguration of judicial authority, and the erosion of traditional mechanisms of adversarial testing such as cross-examination in algorithmic contexts. Building on this critique, the study proposes a reconceptualization of legal proof grounded in an updated epistemology that integrates technological mediation while preserving the normative commitments of procedural justice, transparency, and contestability. The article concludes that without systematic doctrinal recalibration and institutional reform, the legitimacy of adjudication in digitally mediated litigation remains at risk, and that the future of evidence law depends on the development of coherent normative principles for digital evidentiary governance.