Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2021.32.3.217

A Study on Securing the Quality of Trusted Digital Records as Evidence: Focusing on Analysis of Quality Concept and Requirements for Records and Evidence Respectively Covered in Records Management and Judicial Domain  

Lee, Gemma (행정안전부 국가기록원)
Oh, Kyung-Mook (숙명여자대학교 문헌정보학과)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science / v.32, no.3, 2021 , pp. 217-246 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the quality concepts and requirements of digital records as evidence and to find an implication to develop requirements for trusted digital records with securing authoritative qualities. To this end, this study compared requirements of records domain linking records process, records metadata and records systems with judicial domain on digital evidence, and identified the records requirements to secure the legal admissibility linking records and judicial domain. This study analyzed the relationship of quality concepts between digital records and digital evidence, found the legal admissibility is highly related to the reliability, and derived that it needs the measure to secure the reliability at the stage of records creation and capture. To prove authenticity of digital evidence, this study identified importance of records process, records metadata and records system, and proposed the necessity of measurement to secure records' evidence.
Keywords
Digital Records; Evidential Quality of Digital Records; Authoritative Records; Digital Evidence; Trusted Digital Records; Legal Admissibility;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Lee, S. & Seol, M. (2017). A study of redesigning electronic records management policies. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 52, 5-37. https://doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2017.52.005   DOI
2 Lee, S. Y. (2017). The Admissibility of Digital Evidence. The Justice, 161, 164-199.
3 Lee, Y. J. & Lee, S. Y. (2009). A policy framework for the long-term preservation of authentic digital records: based on InterPARES studies. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 19, 193-249.
4 Seol, M. W. (2005). Quality criteria for measuing authenticity, reliability, integrity and usability of records. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 11, 41-90.
5 Youn, E. (2019). A study on the concepts of record from a legal perspective. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 60, 89-121. https://doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2019.60.089   DOI
6 Duranti, L. & MacNeil, H. (1997). The preservation of the integrity of electronic records: an overview of the UBC-MAS research project. Archivaria, 42, 46-67. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12153
7 Duranti, L. & Rogers, C. ed. (2019). Trusting Records in the Cloud. London: Facet Publishing.
8 Duranti, L. (1995). Reliability and authenticity: the concepts and their implications. Archivaria, 39, 5-10. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12063
9 Duranti, L., Eastwood, T., & MacNeil, H. (2002). Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10 Electronic records as documentary evidence. Canadian General Standards Board(CGBS): 2017.
11 Federal Rules of Evidence.
12 Information and documentation - Records management - Core concepts and vocabulary. ISO 30300:2020.
13 Lee, S. W. (2012). Electronic evidence and best evidence rule. Contemporary Review of Criminal Law, 36, 50-104. https://doi.org/10.23026/crclps.2012..36.002   DOI
14 Duranti, L. (2001). The impact of digital technology on archival science. Archival Science, 1, 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435638   DOI
15 Duranti, L. (1989). Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science(Part I). Archivaria, 28, 7-27.
16 Duranti, L. & Eastwood, T. (1995). Protecting electronic evidence: a progress report on a research study and its methodology. Archivi and Computer, Roma, 3, 213-50.
17 Jansen, A. (2015). Object-oriented diplomatics: Using archival diplomatics in software application development to support authenticity of digital records. Records Management Journal, 25(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-04-2014-0022   DOI
18 Shepherd, E. & Yeo, G. (2003). Managing Records: a handbook of principles and practice. London: Facet Publishing.
19 Criminal Procedure Act. No. 17572.
20 Law Dictionary (2021, January 15). Hearsay Evidence. Available: https://terms.naver.com/entry.naver?docId=3654451&cid=42131&categoryId=42131
21 Enforcement Degree of the Public Records Management Act. No. 31380.
22 Public Records Management Act. No. 16661.
23 Information and documentation - Records management - Part 1: Concepts and principles, ISO 15489-1:2016.
24 Choi, Y. M. (2018). Archival Analysis on Requirements for Admissibility of Evidence of Electronic Records. Master's thesis, PUSAN National University, Korea.
25 Judicial Policy Research Institute (2015). Research on Determining the Admissibility of Digital Evidence.
26 InterPARES 2 Project (2008). Terminology Cross-domain Task Force Report(including Appendix 22).
27 Lee, K. (2019). A study on authentication model using blockchain. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 59, 47-79. http://doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2019.59.047   DOI
28 Information and documentation - Records management processes - Metadata for records: Part 1: Principles. ISO 23081-1:2017.
29 InterPARES 1 Authenticity Task Force (2002). Requirements for Assessing and Maintaining the Authenticity of Electronic Records(Appendix 2).
30 MacNeil, H. & Gilliland-Swetland, A. (2005). Authenticity Task Force Report. In Duranti, L. ed. The Long-Term Preservation of Authentic Electronic Records: http://www.interpares.org/book/
31 Rogers, C. (2016). A literature review of authenticity of records in digital systems: from 'machine-readable' to records in the cloud. acervo, rio de janeiro, 29(2), 16-44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320593846