The easiest way to answer this question is; in effect, no. 99% of all issues pertaining to a circumstance where it is said that the information doesn’t exist, is actually a problem of who has access to that information and the cost of obtaining it, rather than an honest circumstance where the data actually does not exist to substantiate a circumstance.
Whilst it took many years to convince leading, high-value organisations that the internet was a useful and worthwhile investment; their investments now, similarly to their investments in past, instigate controls over the internet that make it very difficult to genuinely do anything without leaving traces of those actions on the internet somewhere.
The bigger problem; is that this information is not available to the majority of victims who have been harmed by the unlawful behaviours of others; and in many circumstances, it’s illegal to collect that information for the purposes of participation in rule of law fully; as a subset of the guiding principles that operate our society.
These problems are thereafter not technical in nature; but rather, socio-political. If public servants are found to be doing the wrong thing; that would cost the government, if they were easily able to provide that information to a court of law in a manner required by that court to effectively evaluate a circumstance. If powerful married men with families want to engage in sex with those who are not their wives, and their wives at times do the same; then whilst the ‘data’ may exist, it’s not available, regardless of the subsequent harm an acrimonious relationship may cause children.
Most organisations use sophisticated computing systems to manage their accounting, stock-management and related business records; yet we are still provided thermally printed paper receipts that fade in sunlight.
Mobile phones continuously track the whereabouts (and speed of travel) of it as a device; but this is not available for the purpose of dealing with traffic infringements. New vehicles can tell whether someone is wearing a seatbelt; but a special device is needed to get that information.
Our web-usage is continuously tracked, the websites we use can figure out when we sleep (due to lack of activity on mobile devices, et.al.) and whilst these things all form part of what is used for crimes that pertain to significant financial loss of government entities, it is more often than not suggested ‘not to exist’, and save particularly ‘special circumstances’ are not made available to a citizen seeking lawful remedy.
Whilst it is true that some, particularly skilled, dedicated and well-financed individuals can form circumstances in which their actions are made ‘anonymous’ or unable to be identified; this is simply not reality for the vast majority living in our modern ‘connected’ age.
So, whereas whether living in a democracy or otherwise; we seek ‘lawful remedy’ the question becomes how exactly it is that we go about achieving this, when we may be discouraged by others to do so.