Hi, I have some personal experience similar to this from a civilian's standpoint. In my other life as an IT person I was at one time in charge of the financial systems at a company I worked for here in England. One of the employees was prosecuted for stealing large amounts of cash. Computer-based accounts were used as evidence, and had to be accompanied by a signed statement that they accurately reflected the state of the business at the time indicated. There is quite a good analogy here between computerised accounts and Bob Cratchet-style ledger books, and digital photos and film.
Incidentally, we had quite a long discussion here on this subject some months ago. The recent thread on whether or not to have a FAQ could profitably be extended to include a FAC - Frequently-Argued Crap. We could then adopt a UK parliamtary practice, and write 'I refer the honourable member to our previous correspondence on this subject'. It would have saved me some time dealing with the 505 messages that were awaiting me after a mere 2 days absence from the list. --- Bob Wednesday, October 23, 2002, 8:08:29 PM, you wrote: > My husband is a police investigator, and he has NEVER had to "swear" he > didn't manipulate an image, film OR digital, and that includes photos > generated from scanned negatives. If the officer has not compromised his > credibility previously, such a thing isn't necessary. If he has compromised > his credibility in ANY way, I guarantee you he won't be testifying in a > court of law, period. Judges will simply kick all the cases out with which > that officer is involved if there aren't other credible witnesses whose > testimony can be used. When that happens, that officer won't be employed for > very long. An officer whose testimony won't be accepted in court is useless. > When your credibility in one area is damaged, it calls everything else > you've done into question. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:05 AM > Subject: Re: law and image >> As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this distinction will become even more >> blurred when it becomes easier to create a film-based image from a >> digital one. as I understand it, even now you need someone to swear >> that the photo was not manipulated, which diminishes its value as >> something closely tied to reality. Even CCTV images are ultimately >> going to depend on someone vouching for their authenticity. >> >> >> Steven Desjardins >> Department of Chemistry >> Washington and Lee University >> Lexington, VA 24450 >> (540) 458-8873 >> FAX: (540) 458-8878 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>
