The PDF list is a service provided by PDFzone.com | http://www.pdfzone.com __________________________________________________________________
I'm a lawyer in New Orleans. The short answer to your question is that you are right and the lawyers you consulted are wrong. This is a fascinating question, though, because establishing why electronic signatures and records are valid is harder than it should be. I plan to address this with a post at my weblog www.pdfforlawyers.com, but for now you might read this to satisfy yourself that you are actually correct - http://www.nga.org/common/issueBriefDetailPrint/1,1434,369,00.html
Take care
On Nov 6, 2003, at 9:00 AM, Atul Sanghi wrote:
The PDF list is a service provided by PDFzone.com | http://www.pdfzone.com
__________________________________________________________________
All,
We are considering using 128 bit encrypted PDF to secure digital images and other key electronic records. Our lawyers insist on using optical Write Once Read Many (WORM) drives to preserve the ╲legal admissibility╡ of these records via the unalterable nature of optical WORMs.
I donâ•˙t want optical WORMs (expensive, slow, obsolete) but cannot convince the lawyers that PDF security is plenty to ensure the document was not altered in a court of law. Any advice to get these lawyers off my back would be greatly appreciated. Is there any legal precedent for the admissibility of secured PDF?
Thanks in advance, Atul
To change your subscription: http://www.pdfzone.com/discussions/lists-pdf.html
To change your subscription: http://www.pdfzone.com/discussions/lists-pdf.html
