Seems to me that this as an implementation issue, not a dtd/schema
standards issue.
If for example County X decides to set up a way to issue such orders to
their Sheriff's dept. for instance, at the time of system design, they
could require such a hash verification.
Since not every use of the dtd/schema standard would require such
thorough verification, it cannot be required on all uses of the
dtd/schema.
Allen Jensen
Orange County Superior Court
Internet Development / EFiling
949.472.6946 Tel.
714.647.4805 Fax
>>> "John Greacen" <john@greacen.net> 04/15/03 09:03PM >>>
On the last conference call, John Messing insisted that the work of
this
subcommittee could not proceed further until the issue of the security
of judges' orders was adequately addressed. John is concerned that
electronic judicial orders will be forged and criminals will be
released
from jail or prison as a result.
The federal court efiling system, and most state and local systems,
have
solved this problem by treating the electronic record contained in the
court's data base to be the official judge's order. The system can
guarantee the authenticity of these electronic orders because it will
not accept orders coming from any address except the judge's chambers.
Persons wishing to verify the legitimacy of a purported order can go
online, access the court's electronic data base and view the official
order there. The court advises law enforcement and correctional
personnel to check orders in that fashion; they should not rely on a
transmitted or printed copy of such an order. This process provides
security far exceeding anything available in the paper world today.
The
only way in which to circumvent this system is by bribing a member of
the judge's staff to submit a forged order to the system. That risk
is
minimal.
I believe that the issue John is so concerned about is adequately
addressed by this process.
John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC
HCR 78, Box 23
Regina, New Mexico 87046
505-289-2164
505-780-1450 (cell)