Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:47:25 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
eVisory |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>
> Is anyone aware of countries that do not allow records to be retained in
> an electronic format (including images)? Or countries that specify that
> the original, paper document, must be maintained in addition to the
> image?
There are numerous examples. In Bolivia, for example, some documents
are not even accepted as photocopies. There is an entire cottage
industry of portable typerwriters used by people to recreate certain
legal documents.
In very general terms, countries that operate under English Common Law
(such as the US) operate under the 'best evidence rules' and allow just
about anything to be produced if that is what is available. Other
countries do not have this approach. French Napoleonic law, for
example, operates under a basic premise that 'rights' are only those
that are specifically granted by the government. That means that
documents cannot be produced from image unless the law expressly permits
it. These very issues have been a concern over ISO standards that are
meant to be used world-wide: the laws just don't work the same everywhere.
As you might guess, this is one reason multi-national corporations have
a tough time: compliance with the records-keeping requirements of one
nation may conflict with another nation. In rare situations,
multi-nationals have used the legal differences as a form of protection.
For example, there is some evidentiary support to show that some
tobacco companies kept sensitive records stored in foreign countries
where the laws were more favorable to protecting information or not
producing the information under discovery rules.
-Dan
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
|
|