Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:71056 comp.org.eff.talk:2647 Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,comp.org.eff.talk Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!portia!stanton From: stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) Subject: Re: Growing MJ (Advice sought) In-Reply-To: rogue@cellar.UUCP's message of 11 Jun 91 22:49:32 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News) Organization: Stanford University References: <1991Jun7.102950.1658@elevia.UUCP> <0wFe44w164w@cellar.UUCP> Date: 13 Jun 91 13:20:01 Lines: 38 In article <0wFe44w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: Electronic media can have the relative permanency of printed matter by being saved on disk, much as speech can be preserved on tape. Tape recordings, however, are often barred from court proceedings depending how the taped evidence was obtained. Computer files are more volatile and malleable than print and audio - Anyone may design a file that looks genuine but is actually corrupt. An important distinction between audio tape and electronic media is that the audio tape is barred as evidence not because it is unreliable or suspect, but rather because it was obtained by methods the court wishes to discourage. Unlike an audio recording which requires considerable effort to forge, an unencrypted electronic document is trivial to forge given currently available technology. Thus, any case involving electronic documents furnished as proof should be subject to corroboration and analysis. If someone alleges libel against a user on a bulletin board, for example, the evidence presented by both parties could be different, even though they are allegedly the same post/article. One copy of an electronic document (even if it has been printed) should not be considered sufficient evidence. I wholeheartedly agree with you here, but I would take it further. I would want there to be some proof beyond a simple account id on the message that the article did in fact originate from the defendant. And I would also like to see laws akin to the wiretapping prohibitions that would rule inadmissable electronic evidence secured improperly (e.g. by hacking a user's password and looking at their private email). Rachel K. McGregor -- --Scott Stanton (stanton@cs.stanford.edu) --