The PDF list is a service provided by PDFzone.com | http://www.pdfzone.com __________________________________________________________________
Copies of documents, whether analog or digital copies, are generally admissible in most courts these days, provided, however, that they still need to be authenticated by a witness with personal knowledge of the document. In short, the way this normally plays out is that (i) if the parties to litigation don't dispute the content of the copy of the document to be introduced, then there's simply not an issue and the copy should thus be admitted as it would if it were an original, and (ii) if the parties *do* dispute the content of the document (i.e., "That's not the agreement I signed."), then the issue revolves around the credibility of the witnesses rather than the technology used to bring the document to court. Under the Rules of Evidence (except in Utah??), the issue is the same regardless of the means used to copy the document -- If you present a piece of paper to a court as an accurate copy of the original, how does the court know you didn't digitallly scan it first, alter it in photoshop, and then print it and call it a photocopy? You always need a person to authenticate the document. Use of a WORM drive therefore shouldn't make any difference at all. If you start with an electronic copy on magnetic media, you can modify it to your heart's content prior to copying it to the WORM drive. The fact that the WORM itself is unalterable doesn't change the fact that the evidence could have easily been modified prior to copying it to the WORM. >> The PDF list is a service provided by PDFzone.com | http://www.pdfzone.com >> __________________________________________________________________ >> My father uses digitally signed PDFs in state and federal courts all the >> time. Typically he will just burn a CD. Our corporate council here uses >> digitally signed PDFs on CD-R. >> On 11/6/03 7:00 AM, "Atul Sanghi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 don’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 >> > >> > >> Matt Beals >> Director of Manufacturing and Production >> Paizo Publishing, LLC >> (425) 289-1343 >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://www.paizo.com >> To change your subscription: >> http://www.pdfzone.com/discussions/lists-pdf.html To change your subscription: http://www.pdfzone.com/discussions/lists-pdf.html
