A photo carries one date inside it, the device records another, and the service it passed through logs a third. Each belongs to a different owner, and each owner answers to a different law. That is why serious digital evidence is always correlation — and why serious correlation leaves a judicial paper trail.
Screenshot, file, timestamp, location: the reader calls all of it "evidence," while the law has a separate name for each one. Five of those names are defined by statute. The rest are forensic vocabulary. Knowing which is which is what separates what you present from what actually holds up.
In July, the STJ held that banks are not automatically liable for the fake call-center scam. Nine months earlier, the same panel had ruled against a bank. The contradiction is only apparent — what shifted was not the doctrine, but the burden of proof.
What determines whether a case has anywhere to go is rarely what happens the following week. It's what gets preserved — or unwittingly destroyed — in the first hours, by someone who doesn't yet know they'll need it.
A bureau tells you what someone is today. An investigation tells you what they did, with whom, and how it can be proven. The difference isn't one of depth — it's one of kind.