Sentences with phrase «electronic legal records»
I have gone on at length about it in «Electronic Legal Records: Pretty Good Authentication?»
http://www.slaw.ca/ Not exact matches
Further, any signature recorded on the blockchain would be equated to a legal signature under Arizona law and would be «considered to be in an electronic format and to be an electronic record.»
Under proposed terms, the county would cover the hospital for any legal liability, and commit about $ 12.2 million for equipment and construction related to updating jail medical devices and facilities, along with the cost of converting to electronic records.
He steered his Private Member's Bill onto the Statute Book where it became the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003, extending the concept of legal deposit to electronic records; the Bill was strongly promoted by the British LibrarLegal Deposit Libraries Act 2003, extending the concept of legal deposit to electronic records; the Bill was strongly promoted by the British Librarlegal deposit to electronic records; the Bill was strongly promoted by the British Library [1]
Other sessions focused on electronic health records, reimbursement, education of patients and their care givers, and such ethical, legal, and policy issues as privacy, patients» responsibility for their own health, and direct to consumer testing, among others.
You may withdraw consent for electronic delivery of our legal disclosures, agreements, instructions, and communications, but doing so will not affect the legal effectiveness, validity or enforceability of electronic records that were made available to you prior to the implementation of your withdrawal of consent for electronic delivery.
The E-consent allows third party lenders we work with to accept and use electronic signatures, notices, records, contractual documents, and legal disclosures while transacting business with you.
The most frequently used kind of evidence in all legal proceedings comes from electronic technology, particularly records.
My part is to write legal opinions as to the ability of clients» ERMSs to satisfy the legal requirements of, discovery and admissibility proceedings, and of various statutes for electronic records, and those of 72.34 as well.
My experience in working with experts in electronic records management systems since 1978, and being a legal advisor in the drafting of the National Standards of Canada that provide the principles and practices by which they should be regulated, leads me to believe that there is no records system that does not have some serious errors.
In cities with a population of one million or more, information that establishes the personal identity of an individual who has been stopped, questioned and / or frisked by a police officer or peace officer, such as the name, address or social security number of such person, shall not be recorded in a computerized or electronic database if that individual is released without further legal action; provided, however, that this subdivision shall not prohibit police officers or peace officers from including in a computerized or electronic database generic characteristics of an individual, such as race and gender, who has been stopped, questioned and / or frisked by a police officer or peace officer.
Going from paper to electronic records will require as much change in our legal infrastructure as going from horses to motor vehicles.
For many years he has worked with such experts by providing legal opinions in relation to their servicing the electronic records management systems of large institutions.
The corresponding increases in legal infrastructure necessitated by electronic records and information management technology will be much greater and develop much faster.
People can not deal with their legal problems without the help of lawyers because, the law is now too voluminous, complex, often based upon technology that must be understood, and requiring one to cope with the large volumes of electronic records made possible by the great automating power of electronic records technology (being the very technology that has created the prohibitively high cost of electronic discovery proceedings).
Although its «legal section» is out of date, 72.11 is still the foundation of the imaging industry — the large industry that converts pre-electronic paper records into electronic records.
Since 1978 he has been a legal advisor in the development of the National Standards of Canada for electronic records management.
Therefore, 72.34 is an extremely important national standard, particularly so because electronic records and information management technology enables every electronic interaction, communication, and movement of information to automatically produce an electronic record, any one of which could be related to a legal service or proceeding, and become a piece of evidence, records now being the most frequently used kind of evidence.
Large or complex ERMSs should be certified once per year as being in compliance with 72.34, and whenever significant changes are made; see: «A Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems.»
I know from my experience: (1) as a legal advisor since 1978, in the creation of national standards for records management; and, (2) working with such experts since 1988, to provide legal opinions that accompany such experts» certifications of compliance of institutional clients» ERMSs with records management standards, how very prevalent, bad and inadequate electronic records management is.
Electronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andElectronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic records management systems (ERMS's), and... [more]
Since 1978, I have acted as a legal advisor in the creation and updating of 72.34 and the other records management national standard, Microfilm and Electronic Images as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.11-93 («72.11»), derived from which, more than 50 compliance tests are applied.
See these articles (pdf): (1) «Admissibility of Electronic Records Requires Proof of Records Management System Integrity»; (2) «The Sedona Canada Principles are Very Inadequate on Records Management and for Electronic Discovery»; (3) «A Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems»; (4) «Electronic Records as Evidence»; and, (5) «Solving the High Cost of the «Review» Stage of Electronic Discovery».
But they will have to catch - up soon because: (1) electronic records are the most frequently used kind of evidence; and, (2) every interaction, formal and semi-formal action, communication, and transmission automatically produces an electronic record, which means more records connected to more legal services than there are pieces of paper still in file drawers.
«Public media, such as a telephone directory, legal directory, newspaper or other periodical, billboards and other signs, radio, television and recorded messages the public may access by dialing a telephone number, or through written or electronic communication.»
«Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review» 17 (U.K.)(this article is written for related professions as well as for lawyers).
«Written, recorded, internet, computer, e-mail or other electronic communication, including public media, such as a telephone directory, legal directory, newspapers or other periodicals, billboards and other signs, radio, television and other electronic media, and recorded messages the public may access by dialing a telephone number, or through other written or recorded communication.»
The ESIGN Act implements a national uniform standard for all electronic transactions that encourages the use of electronic signatures, electronic contracts and electronic records by providing legal certainty for these instruments when signatories comply with its standards.
The Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to providing free, public access to primary legal materials, has announced plans to download all of the free opinions and order available on PACER, the federal courts» system for electronic access to court records.
[8] See for example this article: Ken Chasse, «Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 17, a U.K. «open source» journal, i.e., providing free downloading of articles (click «Archives» to access the contents of volume 9).
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 (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 Reviewelectronic 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 17records 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 (Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law ReviewElectronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 17Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law ReviewElectronic Signature Law Review 17 (pdf).
(3) the legal consequences of electronic records management systems changing as their organizations and operations change; and,
In summation, «records management law» will bring these necessary innovations as part of the legal infrastructure controlling the use of electronic records technology:
NOTE: Practice Pro, the Law Society of Upper Canada's risk management organization, has a reading list on electronic discovery issues, including legal holds and record retention, with many useful sources.
Electronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence ActsElectronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts (e.g. ss.
Now, instead of the legal profession providing such legal services, the records management profession is providing general legal information, including information on the «legal requirements» of the national standards for electronic records management, and not involving lawyers in their work.
No law firm has the necessary degree of specialization of staff, legal materials used, re-use of previously created work - product, or scaled volumes of production, to be able to cope with rapidly expanding volumes of laws, complexity of laws based upon technology, and the masses of records created by the automating of records by electronic technology — every interaction, communication, and transmission that we have now, produces a record, which could be related to some legal service, and records are now the most frequently used kind of evidence in legal proceedings.
(4) the consequences of more laws based upon technology; and the fact that almost every electronic communication, interaction, and service automatically creates a record that is potentially evidence and relevant to some legal service.
Numerous legal precedents support the fact that electronic records are a perfectly valid and supportable audit trail.
The attorneys» — and, thus the law firms» — entrenched attachment to paper exemplifies yet again the legal industry's resistance to the mandate of market forces to migrate toward electronic and digital records.
Re: lawyers practising in association with non-lawyers: - Absolutely necessary because: (1) technology will be the basis of almost all laws, therefore we will have to practice with other experts in that technology; (2) records management law will be a major area of practice because, records are the most frequently used form of evidence and e-records depend for everything on their e-records management systems (ERMSs), and they must be compliant with the National Standards of Canada for e-records management, which standards require legal opinions, and every significant change to an ERMS requires a legal opinion re ability to produce records able to satisfy laws as to e-discovery, admissibility of evidence, privacy & access to information, electronic commerce, tax laws, and compliance with National Standards of Canada for e-records management; (3) all new technologies require a legal framework, which means more work for lawyers; and, (4) otherwise, other professions and service providers who now provide «legal information,» will begin to provide «legal advice» and other services that only lawyers should be providing.
And it is the foundation concept of the National Standard of Canada for electronic records management: Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005, which is largely ignored by the legal profession and the caselaw of e-discovery and admielectronic records management: Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005, which is largely ignored by the legal profession and the caselaw of e-discovery and admissirecords management: Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005, which is largely ignored by the legal profession and the caselaw of e-discovery and admiElectronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005, which is largely ignored by the legal profession and the caselaw of e-discovery and admissiRecords as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005, which is largely ignored by the legal profession and the caselaw of e-discovery and admissibility.
The legal profession must be constantly improving its services, in the form of maintaining their high quality in a situation wherein there is a need to provide increasingly more time delivering each service - more time because of: （ 1 ） the rapidly increasing volume of laws; （ 2 ） their greater complexity due inter alia, to the complexity of the technology upon which they are based and impacted; （ 3 ） the greater volume of technology to be understood; and, （ 4 ） the much greater volume of relevant electronic records to be coped with.
That is the result of: （ 1 ） our lives becoming more technology - dependent, especially electronic records dependent, which requires more legal infrastructure to control the use of that technology; and, （ 2 ） demands that the rule of law be made to apply in many new areas such as, the great expansion of the scope of rights and freedoms caused by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which now produces issues in every field of law, and by environmental, privacy, and electronic commerce laws, and a greatly expanded Criminal Code.
Better to increase the attractiveness of legal services by enabling lawyers to provide related services accompanying their legal services, e.g., family law lawyers providing financial planning advice, and law firms providing accounting and tax advisory work, and litigation lawyers working with experts who improve and maintain their clients» electronic records management systems, because records are the most frequently used kind of evidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free doelectronic records management systems, because records are the most frequently used kind of evidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downlrecords management systems, because records are the most frequently used kind of evidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downlrecords are the most frequently used kind of evidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downlrecords management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free doelectronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downlrecords provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free doElectronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downlRecords as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downlrecords as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free download ） 。
Our counseling services include preparing IT employees for depositions and providing advice and counseling about the myriad of legal and / or IT services required to «bridge the gap» between the purchase of software programs and the organization of electronic records that will facilitate easier compliance with the e-discovery rules.
Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (adopted by 47 states), transactions may be conducted by electronic means, such that the act gives legal recognition to electronic signatures, records and Electronic Transactions Act (adopted by 47 states), transactions may be conducted by electronic means, such that the act gives legal recognition to electronic signatures, records and electronic means, such that the act gives legal recognition to electronic signatures, records and electronic signatures, records and contracts.
Because of the volume and complexity of laws and the great volumes of relevant electronic records, people can not deal with their legal problems by themselves.
Electronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facElectronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facelectronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1)...
The shift from paper to electronic records, with the accompanying greater flows of sensitive health information, thus strengthens the arguments for giving legal protection to the right to privacy in health information.