Who Chunk That Rock?
In the civil context as described and wanted by certain individuals, companies, lawyers, etc., it is whoever the computer printout says it is. No if ands and buts about it, guilty! Where monetary value is of concern, one is apt to lie, lie and lie to protect their monetary value. To avoid lying in a civil action, it appears as that those who place value upon a computers word are attempting to protect themself from criminal prosecution. Following such civil logic criminal defense attorneys would have an impossible time proving a client innocent if such reliance of guilt relied upon the letters on a piece of paper printed out by a printer, for it is not the word of the computer but a reaction to an inquiry. In criminal context, one would have to inquire of the computer what input did the computer intake to produce such printout. Serving discovery upon a computer in a criminal case is not a logical possible and a physical impossibility and in civil action serving discovery upon a computer would also be an impossibility. Reflections, people faces and images stored upon mechanical devices in fact reproduce an intangible commonly used in a criminal trial. Discovery as to operation of the equipment could be served upon the maker of the equipment as to whether or not the capture capability of data is valid but not to the validity of the data captured. Actually, discovery as to the validity of the data captured has no party that discovery could be served