Microfilm is evidentiary by statute is every court in the land and it
will stand up in court provided the original does not exist upon which
time the film is deemed the copy of record. The media is persistent, not
subject to technological changes and has national standards to protect
it's integrity.

My understanding is that the post-WWII world was inundated with
relatively extreme volumes of paper records. The reality was that
microfilm was the best technology available at the time to deal with
this volume. The courts accepted the fallacy that microfilm was
"eye-readable" and thus equivalent to paper. There was also the "myth"
that microfilm could not be altered undetectably.  

The standards that protect microfilm have been long in development and
remains embedded due to its deep integration into the standard business
practices. These practices have been altered significantly over the last
twenty years and no longer represent current operations
 

Digital images are being accepted as evidentiary by case law at this
time and it is recommended that you maintain the original hard copy or
film it as your copy of record while using the digital image for your
working copy. 
Digital media is not persistent, subject to technological changes and
there are no national standards to protect it's integrity.

There are no national standards, in part, because there is not a body in
this country strong enough to develop and write into legislation the
requirements. We have a couple of law firms working to write these
tidbits but it is currently a long row to hoe. The changes have
occurred, we have lost incredible volumes of our historical memory due
to a wide range of reasons. 
 

Why? As Kathleen discussed, the migration of the data due to software or
hardware changes is not being done with diligence.  The images can be
changed easily and there are no national standard for digital format and
probably won't be due to the potential of creating a monopoly in this
high growth market.  So the only thing for the market to do to assure
the ability to share information is to decide for itself what formats it
is going to support but that has no lasting bearing on the courts. 

 The changes are not being done due to "due diligence". Historically
auditing firms have not required that organizations develop and adhere
to defined practices. CoBit and COSO are getting there. We have long
relied on the courts to tell us what is admissible and what is not. It
is time that we, as a profession begin to tell others.

So what is so wrong with the digital information being accepted by
courts but not supported with a statute - Remember the recent uproar
over the death penalty where it was determined by the Supreme Court that
our constitution provided that a person could only be sentence to death
by a jury of their peers which threw over 800 current death row cases
back into the court system because the person had been sentence to death
by a judge? What happens once a case is being argued with digital images
and someone can prove the image had been altered and no longer
accurately represented the original document - we stand the chance in
the Records Management industry that all our hard work to create and
protect our information digitally is no longer acceptable to defend our
positions - looks pretty risky to me!  

The world is not waiting on us. We need to develop and adhere to
standards we create. In the absence of our involvement, others IT,
business managers, and lawyers and auditors, define the process. We are
to slow.
 

Until AINSI is willing to set standards I am unwilling to deem those
images anything but convenient. 

ANSI is not the sole answer. We need to define for ANSI the processes
required. These processes need to be dynamic in nature and adaptable to
the real business needs. 
 

I applaud the hybrid solution as the optimal solution at this time to
create evidentiary archival microfilm to address the storage problems in
that film saves 95% of the space required by hard copy and allows for
the destruction of the hard copy while using digital images to aid in
the efficient retrieval and distribution of high volumes of information.
When we know the industry statistics are that only 5-15% of information
will ever be accessed again I still balk at mass conversion of backlogs
to digital media preferring to suggest that a digital microfilm reader
printer that allows for on-demand digitizing of records on film is more
cost effective over the life cycle of the information.  Digital
conversion only saves an additional 4% of space but carries a
significantly higher cost to create due to the meta-data required for
retrieval, the on-going never ending cost of migration to the new
technologies in order to assure retrieval and lack of persistence in the
storage media resulting in a much higher risk on all fronts.  

How often do you wind your archival microfilm tape after storage? You
should do it every year. It is recommended that this is done by hand. Is
this factored into the cost? The level of knowledge associated with
creating, maintaining and preserving archival microfilm is becoming
increasingly arcane. How long before these historical tapes are lost to
the world?

 

Once again it is a case of our technology evolving faster than we have
the ability to manage it!

I disagree. I believe that with interest, awareness and knowledge we can
have a significant impact on managing information being created today. 

 
Chris Flynn

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance