David asked: "Are you suggesting that document integrity is an absolute
value -- either documents have this or they do not? Or am I misreading
your recent postings."
Actually, no (well, at least with respect to the impact of integrity on our
presumption of the authenticity of a record). But, in retrospect, I can see
how what I wrote in my previous message could easily be interpreted as
suggesting that that is the case. Perhaps I should instead have said that a
document that lacks *sufficient* (or the necessary) integrity cannot be
considered authentic. And, as I alluded to in my original e-mail yesterday,
the test of what constitutes "sufficient" integrity will vary according to
the requirements set by the creator and/or by the relevant juridical system.
Having said that, it is important to understand that, although integrity is
not an absolute measure (again, with respect to its impact on authenticity,
anyway), authenticity is absolute: either a record is authentic or it is
not. Instead, what varies in this respect is the degree to which we can
*presume* a record to be authentic. Which, in turn, highlights the fact
that, in most cases (especially in the digital environment), we do not
actually *verify* the authenticity of a record, we instead base our actions
on a presumption about its authenticity.
To quote directly from page 3 of the InterPARES 1 Project's "Requirements
for Assessing and Maintaining the Authenticity of Electronic Records"
(available at http://www.interpares.org/book/interpares_book_k_app02.pdf),
regarding this presumption of authenticity: "A presumption of authenticity
is an inference that is drawn from known facts about the manner in which a
record has been created and maintained. The evidence that supports the
presumption that the record creator created and maintained them authentic
are enumerated in the Benchmark Requirements Supporting the Presumption of
Authenticity of Electronic Records (Requirement Set A). A presumption of
authenticity will be based upon the number of requirements that have been
met and the degree to which each has been met. The requirements are,
therefore, cumulative: the higher the number of satisfied requirements, and
the greater the degree to which an individual requirement has been
satisfied, the stronger the presumption of authenticity. This is why these
requirements are termed "benchmark" requirements."
And regarding the verification of authenticity, also from page 3: "In any
given case, there may be an insufficient basis for a presumption of
authenticity, or the presumption may be extremely weak. In such cases,
further analysis may be necessary to verify the authenticity of the records.
A verification of authenticity is the act or process of establishing a
correspondence between known facts about the record and the various contexts
in which it has been created and maintained, and the proposed fact of the
record's authenticity. In the verification process, the known facts about
the record and its contexts provide the grounds for supporting or refuting
the contention that the record is authentic. Unlike the presumption of
authenticity, which is established on the basis of the benchmark
requirements, this verification involves a detailed examination of the
records themselves and reliable information available from other sources
about the records and the various contexts in which they have been created
and maintained. Methods of verification include, but are not limited to, a
comparison of the records in question with copies that have been preserved
elsewhere or with back-up tapes; comparison of the records in question with
entries in a register of incoming and outgoing records; textual analysis of
the record's content; forensic analysis of the medium, script, and so on; a
study of audit trails; and the testimony of a trusted third party."
I should also point out that, by default, the same basic process of
"presumption" vs. "verification" process typically applies to an assessment
of the integrity of a digital record, which is most often carried out by
*inference* (based on consideration of the issues noted above for the
presumption of authenticity) and is not actually assessed for each record;
in this case, the integrity of a digital record is presumed until proven to
the contrary.
Regards,
Randy
--
Randy Preston
Project Coordinator, InterPARES Project
The University of British Columbia
Suite 470, 1961 East Mall
Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Canada
tel: +1(604)822-2694 fax: +1(604)822-6006
[log in to unmask]
www.interpares.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of David Gaynon
Sent: February 27, 2009 14:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Metadata in the courts
Randy
Are you suggesting that document integrity is an absolute value -- either
documents have this or they do not? Or am I misreading your recent
postings.
If this is your position I would suggest that it is an interesting
theoretical construct but one of limited use in the world in which I live.
It seems to me that anything including documents can be evidence (whether
they are strong or weak evidence is another matter). This is an issue that
confronts museum curators establishing provenance, historians seeking
evidence in support of their position, and attorneys and judges on a day to
day basis.
It may be useful to remember that we are not seeking absolute truth or
validity in the Platonic sense (unless there are theologians reading this
note) but that we are seeking to support the self interested positions of
our employers. We largely operate within the confines of a rule based
system and like any system it has its own inherent weakness. One may find
nearly identical cases where US Courts came to different conclusions about
document authentication with nearly identical set of circumstances.
It is my observation (not a product of research) but simply observation that
records professionals have an inherent aesthetic prejudice toward an orderly
universe. Often this meets the needs of their employers -- though not all
the time.
David Gaynon
[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
