Taking into account the possibility of manipulation of digital files with relative ease, and on the other hand, the existence of frame data as characteristics that constitute the digital evidence in which manipulation can be traced, Hiva Vaki agreed: "Specifically with regard to such evidence, the rule of best evidence as a rule of admissibility must apply. In other words, it should be determined that where it is a document (in the sense of the law of evidence) that is of digital origin, the party seeking to rely on it will be obligated to submit to the court a digital copy (as opposed to a copy) of it." [My emphasis is L.B.] (Ibid. on page 1110). Following this, Waki clarified the difference between an original, a copy, and a copy in the context of digital vision (on pages 1110-1112):
"Source is the initial document in its purest form that bears the technological characteristics of the file. The source is the document from which you can make copies. A copy is a duplicate of the original. According to Klinger's definition, this is: the fixed expression of the source. The fixation of any source creates copies: each of the copies is equally original and can be used as evidence. A copy of a computer file is capable of doing everything that the source file can, because it has not gone through any process. Therefore, every copy of a file is original. In addition, files that are copies have a "digital fingerprint" which may vary depending on the uses made of the file, so that the copy will also change in relation to the original. A copy, on the other hand, is not an original file and it is also not a copy of the original. A copy is a file that has irreversibly fixed a copy at a certain point in time in such a way that it is prevented from becoming the original again.
The same "digital fingerprint" that we are talking about above is an alpha-numeric code generated in relation to each particular file, according to its unique characteristics, and is known as a "hash value". Any changes made to the file will cause the "Hash Value" to change. In most cases, the "hash value" will not have an independent proactive value. However, as noted above, in addition to changing the "Hash Value", copying and using the files may change the frame data of the file, thus impairing the visual value. This can be done in two ways: first, there may be cases in which the data in the framework are - they are the evidence - so, for example, one of many, with regard to a "recently changed" figure where the date of the change is the object of proof in the trial. The second method concerns cases where the content of the file is the object of proof, but the damage to the data in the framework raises a concern - it could have been prevented with regard to the reliability of the file.