Will some expert confirm my belief that digital images are not accepted as evidence in courts? I think I read it somewhere. In any case, all pictures have to have supporting evidence. The argument that digital images are more secure would make them less believable. It's like the argument that secure ID's are safer. The harder they are to detect the more "safe" the fraud is.
As with all new technologies, the courts take their time accepting new methods of evidence. Here is a quote on a photography forum from a prosecutor:
"Under the U.S. federal rules of evidence (which are generally used by the several states, with some changes here and there), a photograph may be authenticated by anyone, doesn't even have to be the photographer. As long as someone can come into court and say yes, I've been to that place or seen that person or thing, and yes, I've had the change to examine this person/place/thing and am familiar with it, and yes, I recognize that person/place/thing in this photograph, and yes, this photograph is a fair and accurate representation of the person/place/thing, then the photograph is authenticated and may be admitted as evidence. It's called laying foundation, and as long as a proper foundation is laid for any piece of photographic evidence, it should come in. "
The thing to remember is that much evidence is digital and most evidence can be tampered with. Email, for example, is used in court. DNA tests rely on digital output and can be altered. Blood samples can be switched. What matters, as stated in the quote above, is that the evidence is authenticated.
(The quote is by Christian Deichert and comes from http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Ykw)
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com
