These are very good points. The systems easily alter and morph what we think
are records into what the systems recognize, capture, or process. The " What
about when your email system converts my rich-text email to ASCII?" is a
very good example that occurs a gazillion times daily. What does one
consider to be the record - the originally sent object still residing on the
sender's disk drive or the actually received object that the receiver's
computer captured, INTERPRETED, and stored? Each has their own legitimate
record for their own legitimate record-keeping purposes.

Here is another one. When the email below says "Sent: Saturday, February 28,
2009 1:02 PM' it does not tell you from what time zone it was sent. Did my
email system (East Coast Time Zone) interpret for me that the sender is in
another time zone (probably Mountain Time Zone) and then altered the
time/date stamp so I can understand when the email was sent RELATIVE TO MY
TIME ZONE? Probably not. It is probably the time/date as expressed from
within the time zone of the sender. But the sender could be anywhere on the
planet!

The email's detailed metadata will probably reveal the time zone of the
sender. Which brings us back to the importance of - metadata!

I am over and out for the weekend.

John


****************************
John Phillips
Information Technology Decisions
www.infotechdecisions.com
865-966-9413


-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Jesse Wilkins
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Metadata in the courts

I don't know that I agree with that. What if the added attachments are
present but the image of the organisation's logo in the signature doesn't
come through for some reason? That's of course incomplete - but does that in
and of itself render it inauthentic and therefore not a record? I submit it
does not. It may be considered slightly *less* authentic, but it still
represents the best copy of the record.
Or what about organisations that either haven't standardized or do not
effectively enforce such standardization with regards to use of logos? In
other words, my email to you has it, someone elses's email to you had it but
it didn't come through, and someone else's yet didn't have it at all.

Here are some even more problematic examples. What about some translation
routine that translates my PNG logos to GIFs? What about the one where I use
some type of animation in my signature that your security software strips
out? What about when your email system converts my rich-text email to ASCII?
Etc. In all of these cases the email you receive is demonstrably different
from the one I sent. Which one demonstrates more integrity and is therefore
more authentic?

My point here is that electronic information objects can be so complex that
I think we think of them in such binary terms to our peril. There are
degrees of integrity, and to assume that only 100% integrity can =
authenticity is I think untenable today and will only become more so as
files become still more complex.

Respectfully submitted,

jesse
[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]

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]