Interesting that the justice system should now be questioning the move to digital for evidence. For years, I understood that a (film-based) photograph would not be admitted unless the negative was also available to support any print offered to the court as part of an argument, or that an affidavit was sworn as to it's genuineness. Now perhaps digital evidence will only be accepted in Raw format? Is this incapable of alteration, or can it too be manipulated?
John Coyle Brisbane, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:18 AM Subject: Re: film vs digital for history > Now here's a problem . . . > > http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/02/10/digital.evidence.ap/index.html > > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
