For investigators, it is not necessarily easy, as the agreement does not require CSPs to provide data in a readable format or to decipher data, and the CSP is also able to challenge the OPO and its conditions in a UK court (just like the subject if they have been denounced). And of course, an increase in the amount of electronic data to be analyzed represents its own challenges in terms of resources and case progress. In the UK, national legislation creates a new procedure for data requirement with a separate application procedure, the Overseas Production Order. Under the OPO Act, law enforcement can apply to crown Court for an injunction requiring a communications provider in the U.S. to provide certain data14 The deal will accelerate dozens of complex investigations each year into suspected terrorists and pedophiles, such as Matthew Falder, who was convicted of 137 offenses in 2018 after an 8-year campaign of child sexual abuse on the internet. Blackmail, forced labour and the sharing of indecent images. His case highlights the need to speed up these investigations. The requirements of an existing executive agreement are codified in 18 U.S.C§ 2353 and must be certified by the Attorney General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs for such an agreement to enter into force. Compliance with these requirements can be met either by the national law of the partner country or by the language of the executive agreement, since any request for information („injunction“) under the law derives its authority from the national laws of the country it issues.  This requirement does not apply where the data for which the OCT is requested is intended for the purposes of a terrorist investigation Data protection issues need to be carefully considered, particularly when data is stored in a country outside the UK or the US. While COPOA does not ask a recipient to do something that would be contrary to UK data protection law, the data protection laws of other jurisdictions, such as France, may prevent the disclosure of data in the absence of an international treaty such as the treaty concluded by that country. Only by addressing the problem of timely access to electronic evidence for crimes committed in one country that are stored in another country can we hope to follow the threats of the twenty-first century.
In the opinion of the Prosecution, UK law enforcement authorities, including the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), should, once set up, find that they have much faster access to data stored by CSPs in the US, as well as their US counterparts on data stored by CSPs in the UK. This should, for example, speed up SFO investigations, often hampered by the lengthy MLAT process, reduce the number of SFO investigations that have sometimes been abandoned due to the inability to access data and evidence abroad, and perhaps speed up the process of removing suspects from investigations. Until now, if UK law enforcement authorities wanted to obtain data from a US communication service provider, they depended primarily on the Mutual Legal Assistance Procedure (MLA).  At GwG, the UK authorities formally request the assistance of an executing authority in the country to which the request is addressed. If the evidence requires a coercive measure, it is sanctioned by the judicial authorities of the overseas jurisdiction. GwG`s requests from the United States to the United States for data stored in the United States are therefore subject to review by U.S. courts and may be subject to appeal in the United States, subject to U.S. law and procedure. Data protection obligations, before and after the expiry of the transitional period at the time of the UK`s withdrawal from the EU – will be essential. .