originality

While surfing, I came across a very interesting and amusing blog entry. To quote it in full:

left behind

I recently submitted some conference expenses for reimbursement. I transmitted the information electronically as the conference program, the airline ticket receipt and the lodging invoice were all electronic. I received a phone call that afternoon:

“I’m sorry, but we need the original documents.”
“These are the original documents.”
“I can’t take copies of conference programs and accounting will not accept these for your lodging and travel. I need the originals.”
“What do you mean?”
“They have to be original.”
“Can you define that? I’m not trying to be difficult but I really don’t know what you need because these are the originals. I don’t have original credit card receipts or anything like that.”
“Well, you’ll have to call the airline and get them to send you something. And this receipt
for the lodging, it needs to be in color or have a signature or something.”
“Ok, I’ll see what I can do.”

Later, me on the phone with Northwest Airlines:

“Yes, my institution needs an original receipt for my travel.”
“Don’t you have the e-ticket and receipt we sent you?”
“Yes, but that’s not original enough for them. Can you send me out something in paper?”
“We can but it will be exactly the same document and you will be assessed a fee.”
“Oh screw it. Thanks, though. I think I’ll just print what I have and fold it like it was in an envelope.”

(http://thethirdattempt.blogspot.com/2006/05/left-behind.html; 26
June 2006)

_______________

Whoever posted this blog entry probably isn’t the only person who has had this kind of a problem. All over the world, transactions are becoming more and more complex, and yet the actual processing of those transactions take significantly less time than before – all thanks to electronic commerce, more popularly known as e-commerce. Because technology is improving at an amazingly fast pace, in theory, people should be able to transact business with considerable ease… however, as the blog above has shown, there are extant gaps and discrepancies, especially in the implementation of the rules on e-commerce, which prevent business transactions from proceeding in the desired pace.

In this field, the quintessential question has been, “What is an original document?” The concept of originality with respect to documents used to be simple… since there were no copiers back then; every document had to be executed by the person himself – making each and every document an original. Probably during this time, little dispute arose as to whether a document was original or not. When the copier was invented, the concept of originality of a document became more contentious, and distinction was made between the “original” and a mere “copy” of it. This distinction, however, could be easily made, since it can be readily seen whether the document is indeed an original or a copy – the original was written or executed in the “original medium (usually ink, typewriter ribbon), while the copy/ies were either carbon copies, or photocopies (with the birth of the photocopier). It was relatively easy to tell which was which. Now, with electronic documents, the distinction is again, blurred. True, with electronic documents, transacting is made so much easier due to the speed ad convenience it offers, but a problem arises as to originality and authenticity – and as illustrated by the blogger’s dilemma above, it can also hamper commercial transactions.

Originality as a concept may vary. The more common conception of originality is illustrated in the above discussion, which is strict in a sense because there is no flexibility in it; it’s either original or not. Another conception of originality can be as to identity of content. This is the conception used in our Rules of Evidence. The Rules state that “the original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry [Rule 131, Section 4(a)]. Given this definition of an “original” document, for evidentiary purposes, a copy can actually be an original, since the basis of originality is the content of the document.

Basically, the problem is that despite advances in technology and communication, specifically in business transactions, the idea of people with respect to what “original documents” are has still not progressed. Yes, the technology is already there, ready and available to be utilised, but its use is not being maximised precisely because of this problem. At this point in time, though there are already laws and Rules recognising and protecting electronic documents, it still does not have the same “trust value” which paper documents possess. When it comes to safety and authenticity, I guess paper documents appeal more to the senses.

What is really needed here is time; time for people to adapt to the idea of totally doing business electronically, with almost no paper transactions.