And because such «systems integrity» is a very complex collection of
ERMS principles and practices, which collection is too big to put into a definition section in such Evidence Acts, compliance with the following NSC is the necessary test as to the existence of that required «systems integrity»: Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 (72.34).
Not exact matches
Therefore it is well entrenched in the
principles and practices of
ERMS experts for whose field 72.34 and 72.11 were created.
And therefore, how can the Sedona Canada
Principles — Addressing Electronic Discovery be an adequate text, given that it completely ignores the importance of electronic records management, and the critical dependence on an electronic record upon its
ERMS, and also the provisions of the Evidence Acts?
Such is also true of their legal departments, as is shown by the absence of
ERMS issues in almost all case law and guidelines concerning the use of electronic records as evidence, including the four Sedona Canada
Principles texts; see: Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 17 (pdf).
The text, The Sedona Canada
Principles — Addressing Electronic Discovery is based upon the former, but the latter is required by the nature of electronic records and their
ERMS technology and its consequences for the law.