Sentences with phrase «proof of integrity»

Nevertheless, the «system integrity» requirement of the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts is completely ignored — admissibility of an electronic record requires proof of the integrity of the electronic records system in which it is recorded or stored; e.g., s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act.

The first project of the program concerns «Proof of the integrity of a digital document introduced as evidence.»

For example, the following are ignored by lawyers and judges: (1) the «system integrity concept» of the e-records provisions of the Ontario and Canada Evidence Acts; (2) the National Standards of Canada for e-records management, which are based upon the same concept; and, (3) the fact that the work of experts in e-records management systems (ERMS's) is based on that very same concept, which states: proof of e-records «integrity» requires proof of the integrity of the ERMS in which the records are stored: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) OEA & s. 31.2 (1) CEA.

John: This should have been dealt with as electronic records management system issue (ERMS issue), i.e., requiring proof of the integrity of the ERMS in which the e-records in question were stored or created.

But the onus of proof of integrity and purity of motivation and action beyond a reasonable doubt, should rest upon those who would so benefit.

When engineers use the term non-repudiation in an engineering sense, they mean that there is a high degree of probability that the protocol can demonstrate a document or message was sent or received by a particular computer, or to put it another way (perhaps more accurately), «Nonrepudiation provides proof of the integrity and origin of data that can be verified by a third party.»

And s. 31.5 CEA, and s. 34.1 (8) OEA, state that NSCs may be used in determining the admissibility of electronic records in accordance with the «systems integrity» concept set out in s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA, and 34.1 (5), (5.1) OEA, i.e., the integrity of an electronic record depends upon proof of the integrity of ERMS by or in which the electronic record was recorded or stored.

Not exact matches

«We have found proof of material breaches of FDA data integrity requirements in Akorn's operations, including product development,» Fresenius said in its statement on Sunday, adding that Akorn also violated other requirements of the merger agreement.

The key to maintaining the integrity of that system is a digital ledger that time - stamps transactions by logging them into an ongoing chain of record, providing proof of all transactions on the network.

Since when is it fair and reasonable for people to throw out accusations that ruins the integrity of others without providing proof.

Job seekers should be able to offer some sort of proof of their personal integrity as well as logical arguments that prove the soundness of their ideas.

i see no proof of your statements, at least science has the integrity to admitt to whatever being only a theory and not fact — your BELIEF is nothing but a thought you hold on to like a baby and there special blanky... sceince attempts to prove or even to disprove itself, you just go on believing what some silk covered so called humble man with gold in his pockets tells you.

Anyone can predict bad things will happen, and be almost certain to be right at some time in the future, since so much stuff happens.Either present a fulfilled prophecy that had exact dates in it, with events that later did happen on those dates, or show some integrity by retracting any claims of «proof» of prophecy that you might be making.

«A proof of even a single scanned staple pin - marked still photo is enough to compromise the integrity of the register and the blame placed squarely at the door of the EC», it said, to which end it said «a single and definitive voter identification is a necessary step to modernizing our elections.»

The truth is, even if he somehow magically discovered a mathematical proof of all things CAGW, his «argument» was crap, and was simply attached as an excuse for his gratuitous insults to Dr. Curry's integrity.

Results of a process without integrity MAY or MAY NOT be comprimised But, demonstrating that the science has been comprimised is getting the burden of proof wrong and MORE IMPORTANTLY it sets a horrible precedent for the future.

Sedona Canada does not analyze: (1) the meaning and consequences of the «system integrity concept» in the e-records provisions of the Evidence Acts — proof of «records integrity» requires proof of «records system integrity»; (2) the National Standard of Canada for e-records management, Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 («72.34»); and, (3) the need of the parties to exchange verifications of compliance, provided by records management experts, of their electronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the national standard.

And it ignores the requirement in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts that admissibility of electronic records requires proof of the «integrity of the electronic records system» in which the records are stored.

Also, the 2nd edition will not direct sufficient attention to: (1) the serious, common defects of records management and of software, and their considerable worsening of the difficulty of determining the adequacy of disclosure made in discovery proceedings; and, (2) the fact that the admissibility of records is dependent upon proof of the «integrity» of the records systems in which they are stored, which requires proof of the compliance of such records systems with the National Standards of Canada for electronic records management.

Showing compliance with them may assist in achieving admissibility, whereas compliance with the national standards should definitely satisfy the «proof of records system integrity» requirement of the admissibility rule in s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act.

Therefore the Evidence Acts require proof of «system integrity,» but they purposely don't define «integrity» — e.g., s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the (Ontario) Evidence Act (OEA) Therefore a standard for measuring «integrity» is needed.

For example, s. 8 of the Ontario Electronic Commerce Act (being a provincial equivalent of Part 2 of PIPEDA, «Electronic Documents»), makes necessary, proof of the «integrity» of the information in an electronic document that is to be provided as an original document.

That is the «system integrity» concept of records reliability, i.e., «records integrity» requires proof «records systems integrity,» which is the admissibility rule of the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts (e.g., s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act).

(A problem that could easily be solved for legal proceedings by amending subsections such as, s. 31.5 CEA and s. 34.1 (8) OEA, and s. 41.6 of the Alberta Evidence Act (AEA), to state that «systems integrity» can be established by proof of compliance with 72.34.)

Such proof of «systems integrity» is necessary because of the many seriously defective and very common records management practices that are described in the articles listed at the end of this post.

Like a drop of water in a pool of water, it is dependent upon its electronic records management system (its ERMS) for everything, i.e., records integrity requires proof of records system integrity.

And the addition in 1999 - 2000, of the (still ignored) electronic records provisions» required proof of «systems integrity» in the Evidence Acts, was not simply another chapter added to the same old story, but rather a very different story requiring different rules and practices for discovery and admissibility proceedings.

Such proof of «systems integrity» provisions are in 11 of the 14 Evidence Acts in Canada, including Book 7 of the Civil Code of Quebec, see: articles 2820, 2838 - 2842, and 2860, and, An Act to Establish a Legal Framework for Information Technology, ss.

The admissibility of an electronic record requires proof of its records management «system integrity»; e.g.: Canada Evidence Act (CEA) s. 31.2 (1)(a); and, Ontario Evidence Act (OEA) s. 34.1 (5), (5.1).

In regard to best evidence rule issues, admissibility of electronic records requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the electronic records management systems (ERMSs) in which the records are recorded or stored; see for example: Canada Evidence Act (CEA) s. 31.2 (1)(a); Ontario Evidence Act (OEA) s. 34.1 (5), (5.1); Alberta Evidence Act s. 41.4 (1), (2); and the, Nova Scotia Evidence Act s. 23D (1).

But rules as to the preparation of discovery plans (e.g., Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure 29.1.03 (4)-RRB- do not require production of such records management information, even though adequate proof of «systems integrity» for admissibility, and adequate and «in good faith» production on discovery, can not be assured without it.

In regard to best evidence rule issues, admissibility of electronic records requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the electronic records management systems (ERMSs) in which the records are recorded or stored; see... [more]

(But the case law still ignores that «proof of system integrity» requirement of admissibility.)

Therefore: (1) the «prime directive» of the national standards states: «an organization shall always be prepared to produce its records as evidence»; and, (2) the proof of «records system integrity» required by the electronic records provisions is very necessary.

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 Acts (e.g. ss.

The «system integrity» concept that is in the electronic records provisions in 11 of the 14 Evidence Acts in Canada, [2] dictates that the use of an e-record as evidence requires an assessment of the records management of the ERMS in which it is stored — «records integrity» requires proof of «systems integrity.»

Judicial decision - making provides five advantages not adequately provided by administrative agencies: (1) a clear and exact burden of proof; (2) an opportunity to rigorously test the evidence for accuracy, integrity, and persuasiveness; (3) a thorough debate as to the correct interpretation and application of the law for the issues and evidence involved; (4) a decision by a truly impartial and competent adjudicator; and, (5) the right to a jury trial, in situations allowed by law.

«Such presumptions may shift the burden of proof on origin, integrity, time of dispatch and receipt, etc.» (para. 36.)

And so it turned out in this case: the accused not having brought any proof to the contrary, the product of their Blackberries was presumed to have integrity and to satisfy the best evidence rule.

In regard to «best evidence rule» issues, admissibility of an electronically - produced record requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the ERMS in which the electronic record was recorded or stored, as stated in s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), or a provincial or territorial Evidence Act in civil proceedings.

Sedona Canada 2d, like its predecessor, shows a lack of understanding of the ERMS technology, i.e., no understanding of the need for standards to ensure the adequacy of electronic discovery, and its connection to proof of «systems integrity,» as is required by the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts.

If you hold a commercial driver's license and need to present a proof of driver's integrity, order your Oklahoma personal driving history report.

Your Nevada driving record report is proof of your personal driving integrity.

A clean drivers record report is not only proof of your personal integrity, but also shows that you can deal with the increased accountability that comes along with the profession, such as driving large number of people or transporting valuable goods.

In this case, Microsoft will leverage technology provided by Tierion, which would link data to a blockchain to generate proof of the data's integrity.

Stratumn (the company where I work) has built a protocol called Proof of Process which allows large organizations to collaborate in a way that is secure, which guarantees traceability and data integrity, and allows for transparency when necessary (with regulators or auditors for instance).

All these data are recorded in the blockchain, which integrity is protected by Proof - of - Work (PoW).

This can be used as proof to vouch for an employee's integrity and as proof of employment that said employee has been gainfully employed by another employer prior to being hired to his new position.

Ultimately, what this will be about will be making the body «government proof» so that the dictates of any particular government can not destroy the integrity of the representative body with the stroke of a pen and a slash of the budget.