[soundhaspriority]

"dE|_" wrote in message
...
Can anyone give me a lead for this;

As the audio comes in to drive, the stream itself needs to be encrypted to
be made tamper-proof, not just read-only. If anyone does as much as change
a meta value or cut a sample, it must ring alarm bells. (It's a
security/evidence thing)

I'm not getting far on google with this, have you been here before?

--
dE|_
The courts are not leading edge as far as technology is concerned. It is
established by lengthy precedent. Even if something like this did exist, it
would just instigate a battle of expert witnesses. By contrast, certain
forms of technology are admissible, having become part of common law. An
example of this is the taking of depositions via video conferencing.
Attorneys from both sides must be present, and the operator of the equipment
must be approved by the court.

In an actual trial, even words in the courtroom are not admissible unless
they have been taken down by an official court reporter. The reporter has a
little audio recorder, but only for his own use, to double check. He
frequently interrupts to ask for clarification of words just spoken. What he
takes down then becomes the official transcript of the trial. The trial
recordings are never used.

So, as you can see, admissible evidence is not an issue of technology. It
has been established over many centuries. It varies according to the type of
evidence. If the evidence is testimony, but, say, collected from a crime
scene, the issue would be to establish a chain of custody of the evidence
encompassing the time it was collected, the storage of the evidence under
lock and key (and who possessed the key), and who accessed it before it was
presented to the court.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511