lear@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) (01/22/86)
How admissible is EMail as evidence in the court? I was under the impression that it was considered too easy to forge mail for it to be considered valid evidence. Is this the case? eliot lear
doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) (01/24/86)
> How admissible is EMail as evidence in the court? I was under the > impression that it was considered too easy to forge mail for it to > be considered valid evidence. Is this the case? > > eliot lear Depends... I imagine it would be considered a "document", subject to the same rules applicable to any other document, and vulnerable to the same challenges. In particular, there is a real problem of establishing a chain of custody. Normally, the more hands a piece of paper passes through on its way to the courthouse, it's probative value is diminished, as there are more opportunities to alter it, etc. Email, being easy to alter, would have a real problem here.
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (01/27/86)
> How admissible is EMail as evidence in the court? I was under the > impression that it was considered too easy to forge mail for it to > be considered valid evidence. Is this the case? Any super-user, and any user who finds a security hole in the OS, can forge E-mail. Anyway, the proper forum for complaints about electronic defamation or plagiarism is the Net itself, not the civil courts. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: csdsicher@sunyabva
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/29/86)
>> How admissible is EMail as evidence in the court? I was under the >> impression that it was considered too easy to forge mail for it to >> be considered valid evidence. Is this the case? > Any super-user, and any user who finds a security hole in the OS, > can forge E-mail. You don't need to be super-user.