"Mike" wrote in message
ton.net...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:35:06 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

AFAIK emails have the same legal status as a letter. It's arguably more
difficult to tamper with an email.

From a technical POV, it's very easy indeed to tamper with the content
of an email message unless it's been signed by a cryptographically
secure method.


From a technical POV it is difficult to achieve, particularly for the lay
person. I am a Chartered Computer Engineer, and I couldn't do it, but I
suspect certain of my colleagues could. However, having BCC'ed it to other
people, it adds further strength to the evidence.

And as I said previously, unless they get proof of delivery, it is very hard
for some one to prove that a letter was received by the intended recipient,
much less what the content was.

martin wrote:
TimB wrote:
On 24 Jul, 23:10, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:10:04 +0100, Invisible Man

wrote:
Is email accepted as readily as paper by courts and tribunals?
Possibly, however it is trivially easy for either you or the company
to alter a local e-mail records which leaves them open to challenge.
If you feel there is a possibility that documents may be tampered with
or that the company may suggest you are altering them yourself it may
be in your interest to use only paper mail as the company are.

However, the beauty of email is that there are two seperate copies -
the one you sent, and the one the recipient received. If one is
altered, it is trivial for the opposing party to produce their copy,
which cannot have been altered, at least not by the same person.

In which case you still couldn't tell which one had been altered, just
that one of them had been.

You can however digitally sign the email, then you'd know which one was
amended.

Paper copies can be relatively easily altered with skill and good scanners.
The sender can always make a different version and claim that it is the
original and that the one the receiver produced is a forgery especially
if he sends a "doctored" version in the first place !!

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:05:04 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
ston.net...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:35:06 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

AFAIK emails have the same legal status as a letter. It's arguably more
difficult to tamper with an email.

From a technical POV, it's very easy indeed to tamper with the content
of an email message unless it's been signed by a cryptographically
secure method.

From a technical POV it is difficult to achieve, particularly for the lay
person. I am a Chartered Computer Engineer,

I'm not sure what one of those is. I don't see merit in parading my
qualifications but I've been intimately involved with computers and
software since the 1960s.

and I couldn't do it, but I
suspect certain of my colleagues could.

Perhaps it depends on what one means by "tamper". The recipient could
simply load the email into a word processor, change a few words and
print it out. I'd find it trivial to to edit the email in transit by
directly editing the mail spool on one of the MTAs through which it
passes (assuming access). With access to one of the routers, one
could even intercept the protocol stream and replace it.

However, having BCC'ed it to other
people, it adds further strength to the evidence.

Indeed. That's a good idea if you want to bolster the record.
Cryptographic signing and encryption is really the way to go because
that guarantees that the sender sent it, that only the recipient can
read it and that it's not been changed by anyone.

And as I said previously, unless they get proof of delivery, it is very hard
for some one to prove that a letter was received by the intended recipient,
much less what the content was.

No dispute there either.

Mike.

Mike wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:05:04 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

From a technical POV it is difficult to achieve, particularly for the lay
person. I am a Chartered Computer Engineer,

I'm not sure what one of those is.

The individual is a member of an appropriate Institution, e.g. the
British Computer Society, and that Institution is a member of the
Engineering Council UK (ECUK). The Individual has also attained the
standards of education, training and experience, required by the ECUK
and, through his Institution, has been assessed as competent by his peers.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Old Codger wrote:
Mike wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:05:04 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

From a technical POV it is difficult to achieve, particularly for the
lay person. I am a Chartered Computer Engineer,

I'm not sure what one of those is.

The individual is a member of an appropriate Institution, e.g. the
British Computer Society, and that Institution is a member of the
Engineering Council UK (ECUK). The Individual has also attained the
standards of education, training and experience, required by the ECUK
and, through his Institution, has been assessed as competent by his peers.

Many thanks for everyone's comments.

My employer is a FTSE top 100 company and I doubt whether they would
tamper with emails. I keep all read receipts and replies so they would
have difficulty denying they received something they had acknowledged.

I was just concerned because when they were sending anything important
it was by hard copy rather than email. Perhaps they do not trust me!

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:15:09
uk.legal.moderated Invisible Man

Many thanks for everyone's comments.

My employer is a FTSE top 100 company and I doubt whether they would
tamper with emails. I keep all read receipts and replies so they would
have difficulty denying they received something they had acknowledged.

I was just concerned because when they were sending anything important
it was by hard copy rather than email. Perhaps they do not trust me!

Are your concerns about big changes or small ones?

For example would and could are only a letter different. Saying
something happened on a Monday when it was actually Wednesday would be
of a different scale.

Would I be correct in guessing there is a bit more going on than you
have told us (perhaps because you have a genuine concern that your
postings are being monitored). If I am surmising correctly I think you
might need to speak to a lawyer rather than seeking help, other than
opinions, here.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wm... wrote:
Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:15:09
uk.legal.moderated Invisible Man

Many thanks for everyone's comments.

My employer is a FTSE top 100 company and I doubt whether they would
tamper with emails. I keep all read receipts and replies so they would
have difficulty denying they received something they had acknowledged.

I was just concerned because when they were sending anything important
it was by hard copy rather than email. Perhaps they do not trust me!

Are your concerns about big changes or small ones?

For example would and could are only a letter different. Saying
something happened on a Monday when it was actually Wednesday would be
of a different scale.

Would I be correct in guessing there is a bit more going on than you
have told us (perhaps because you have a genuine concern that your
postings are being monitored). If I am surmising correctly I think you
might need to speak to a lawyer rather than seeking help, other than
opinions, here.

No, no real conspiracy theories. Just that I was originally concerned
about acceptability of emails in legal situations given that the
important stuff being sent to me always seemed to be in hard copy.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:30:10 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:

snip


No, no real conspiracy theories. Just that I was originally concerned
about acceptability of emails in legal situations given that the
important stuff being sent to me always seemed to be in hard copy.


Would you not rather that the HR department typed up letters and sent
them Royal Mail to your home address?

The alternative is internal mail - which anyone could open - or e-mail
which anyone (with sufficient permissions) in the IT Systems
department could read.

I bet if you worked in the IT Systems department and it was all quiet
- there would be nothing better than browsing through emails going
to/from the HR department. I bet the night shifts on support fly by!!

judith wrote:

I bet if you worked in the IT Systems department and it was all quiet
- there would be nothing better than browsing through emails going
to/from the HR department. I bet the night shifts on support fly by!!

lol you'd think so, wouldn't you? If you knew how busy it is to work in
IT, under resourced, over-worked you'd know there isn't the time for that.

I know everyone thinks the same thing. After saying that, I had to sack
someone once for doing something very similar to that.

judith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:30:10 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:

snip


No, no real conspiracy theories. Just that I was originally concerned
about acceptability of emails in legal situations given that the
important stuff being sent to me always seemed to be in hard copy.


Would you not rather that the HR department typed up letters and sent
them Royal Mail to your home address?

The alternative is internal mail - which anyone could open - or e-mail
which anyone (with sufficient permissions) in the IT Systems
department could read.

I bet if you worked in the IT Systems department and it was all quiet
- there would be nothing better than browsing through emails going
to/from the HR department. I bet the night shifts on support fly by!!

I wondered what IT do. The support is certainly rubbish.

The email is to my home address and I do not think there is a great deal
in it that the people out in India would find of value.

Besides which Royal Mail used to deliver my mail regularly to the wrong
address. Fortunately we were both quite good at forwarding it promptly
and were only a couple of hundred yards apart. Similar house numbers but
different road names and postcodes.