On the Relationship Between Traditional Criminalistics and Digital Forensics

The article provides a comparative analysis of the structure, methodology and terminology of classical criminalistics as a humanitarian discipline and digital forensics as a technical discipline, identifying their similarities and differences. The Russian system of criminalistics, based on a hierarchical model including general provisions, special and special parts, and its difference from Western systems, in particular American and European, which are organized according to the chronological principle, are considered. It is noted that a similar difference in structural approach is observed in digital forensics, where traditional branches (such as, for example, forensic photography, ballistics, and traceology) are replaced by modules such as computer forensics, mobile forensics, network forensics, hardware forensics, and forensic data analysis. Particular attention is paid to analyzing the conceptual apparatus, in particular the definitions of “trace” and “identification” in the context of classical criminalistics and digital forensics. The author notes that in Russian science there is still no single established term for traces investigated by digital forensics, while in foreign studies a single concept is more widely used. A comparative analysis of operations performed within both disciplines is given: traditional criminalistic methods (detection, fixation, seizure, investigation) are compared with digital methods (access, extraction, analysis, visualization, presentation). It is concluded that there is a need for further integration of digital technologies into forensic science and practice. Modern trends of digitalization require mastering new methods, tools and technologies for effective investigation of crimes, including those committed using digital technologies.