In my opinion, the current default is that the digital recording devices, including those installed in mobile phones, are in good working order for the purpose of recording (for a similar default, with regard to the integrity of a computerized system, where a party wishes to submit computer outputs as evidence in a criminal trial, see the rule in common law Dennis, at p. 521). It should also be assumed, as long as it is not proven otherwise, that the holder of the mobile phone, which may be, at times, very young in age, is "qualified" to record using the device, which also serves it as a means of recording. In my opinion, and on the basis of the above, it is appropriate to reformulate the main conditions for the admissibility of a recording, in such a way that the courts will insist, precisely, on the existence of two main conditions: proof of the reliability of the recording, as reflecting what was said between the parties to the conversation at the time of the recording; and proper identification of the speakers in that conversation. At the stage of examining the reliability of the recording, it is also possible to require changes and deletions that may have been made to it, and the extent of their impact on the relevant content for which the recording was submitted. I believe that a careful examination of the reliability of the recording may provide a solution to the concern that it is precisely due to technological innovations that it is easier to falsify the software of a recording, without leaving tangible traces." [My emphases L.B.]
- And from here back to our matter, which revolves around the admissibility of the output of Skype correspondence. Should the leniencies that have occurred over the years regarding the admissibility of recordings - which are also digital vision - also apply where the output is concerned? I am of the opinion that this question should be answered in the negative. With regard to this, I will begin by noting - without expanding the scope in this context, since this is not required for our purposes - that even in the context of recordings, it is possible that the development of AI technology - which is the fruit of the recent period - and the relative ease with which it is possible to make recordings while imitating speakers - will lead to a reversal of the trend and a return to greater rigor with regard to the rules relating to the admissibility of a recording.
As for the outputs, Vaki discussed the evidentiary challenges posed by the submission of digital vision as a rule in his book on page 1100: