• DJDarren@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 months ago

    We do that to our MD all the time.

    A paint booth gets condemned because the filtration isn’t working, the MD asks the paint manager to just carry on anyway. The paint manager says sure, send that to me in an email and I’ll crack on. The email never arrives. The booth gets repaired.

    • MonkderVierte
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Nitpicking, but, e-mail aren’t judicially approved, just so you know.

      edit: i think this was in german IT legal stuff where i read that?

      • InputZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        2 months ago

        You are technically correct, e-mails aren’t judicially approved. They are hearsay, a statement made outside of court. They absolutely can be used as evidence. Lionel Hutz was on the money when he said that ‘hearsay is a kind of evidence’. Depending on the hearsay it can be quite strong evidence. That evidence can be used to make a testimony and that is judicially approved. There is strong hearsay, such as a series of emails which details the crime, and there is weak hearsay, like ‘everyone knows Joe did it’. One of those examples of hearsay you can take to court, the other, well you can take what everyone is saying to court but it won’t get you very far.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        What do you mean by that? If you received an email, you are the witness that testifies about the email when it’s introduced as evidence. Generally also not covered by hearsay when it’s directly the issue of the entire case.

        • Fox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 months ago

          Very definitely not, emails (and texts and a bunch of other electronic comms) are discoverable as evidence and routinely used to bury people under the jail

          • user134450@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            The situation isn’t that different in Germany: emails can be used as evidence in court, though they aren’t as strong as evidence as say: a signed letter. There is also the issue with proving that an email actually arrived, but i would assume that in this case that is already covered.

            • MonkderVierte
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              No, it was because sender can be easily forged, etc. Or was it swiss? Anyway.

              • user134450@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                senders can only be easily forged if you control the senders mail server or if they don’t use best practices for running a mail server.
                See also:

                there are cryptographic signatures on almost all mails sent by large mail providers these days, which makes it very hard to just forge an email that will hold up to closer examination with the help of the provider. so basically the IT techs of the company would need to be on board with whatever the perpetrator is doing, for them to get away with it.