The issue here appears to be whether the electronic documents in question 
retain their integrity and authenticity, and therefore would be admissable 
as evidence.  The following are extracts from a lengthy judgment in the 
New South Wales Supreme Court in 2005, which referred extensively to the 
'properties pages' of Microsoft documents.  It is interesting to note the 
statement that 'prerequisites for tender and admissabiliity can be 
established in other ways - not necessarily via the properties metadata. 

Here are some slightly edited extracts that might be of interest:

... Mr Bannister ... said that Microsoft Windows automatically generates 
and updates "properties" information for computer files created using 
Windows applications such as Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word). He 
continued: "The 'properties' information includes time and date 'stamps' 
which automatically record when a particular file is created, modified, 
accessed or printed by reference to the setting of the relevant computer's 
internal electronic clock. The date a file is 'created' refers to the date 
that a file is saved under a particular name or the date that a particular 
file is copied. Thus the file properties may show that a file was 
'created' after it was 'last modified'. A user may view the 'properties' 
of a file by navigating to a 'properties' page for that file...".

... In the case of (one particular page), a different kind of property 
page was produced, entitled "Summary", which identified the "author". Mr 
Bannister did not explain whether the "author" is the person who "created" 
the document or "modified" it or "last saved" it.

... It seems to me that, although the "created" and "author" boxes are 
problematic for reasons given, and the "modified" box is unhelpful to the 
extent that the author of the modifications and the nature and content of 
the modifications are not indicated by it, the "last saved by" box is some 
utility for documentary tender purposes, provided there is evidence 
linking the properties page containing that box with the document in 
question. I have taken it into account in those cases where the link 
between the properties page and the document is apparent. But the 
prerequisites for tender and admissibility can be established in other 
ways, where the properties pages do not assist or have not been tendered.

... If, hypothetically, ASIC tenders a document which on its face, 
purports to be a budget for (organisation name) for 2001, and adduces 
provenance evidence showing that the document was printed out from a 
computer hard-drive copied by the liquidators from (the) hard-drive, and 
establishes a file path through the finance directory to a subfile called 
"Budget 2001", the court would be able to conclude on the balance of 
probabilities ... that the document had been adequately authenticated. 
Such evidence does not show who created the document (although the 
properties page, if in evidence, might assist in that respect), or how the 
document was used within the organisation, or even whether it is the only 
version or might have been a draft. But it is sufficiently well 
authenticated to be received, provided it is properly tendered ... and is 
admissible. There is evidence, not confined to inferences from the 
document itself, showing on the balance of probabilities ... that the 
document came from (the organisation's) financial records where it was 
classified as a 2001 budget, which is what it purports to be.

... The business records policy is supplemented by the idea that, once a 
document is in evidence, it is open to the other party to give evidence to 
contradict, undermine or explain the document .... Thus, it is open to the 
other party to challenge the accuracy of the document ... or to seek to 
show that was only a draft and was never treated as final or relied on. It 
is thought fair to cast the tactical burden of proof of such matters on 
the other party once the authenticity of the document has been established 
- that is, once it has been shown to the requisite evidentiary standard 
that the document is what it purports to be.

 (full version is at 
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/nsw/supreme_ct/2005/417.html)
Andrew Warland
Senior Consultant, Information and Records Management
CONVERGA PTY LTD / Outsource Australia
Ph: +61 2 9268 2348 M: 0413 043 934 
Level 31, BT Tower, 1 Market Street, Sydney NSW 2000 | PO Box 536 QVB Post 
Office Sydney 1230
For more information about Converga or Outsource Australia see 
www.converga.com.au





George Despres <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
17/02/2007 04:04 AM



To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
[RM] Microsoft Properties Metadata






All,

We have identified two disturbing issues with Microsoft (MS) file 
Properties metadata.

(text snipped)


George Despres
Mgr., Corporate Records & Archives
The MITRE Corporation

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

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