It is often a difficult task to determine the truth in a courtroom. Technology has played its part in making it a little easier.
The introduction of DNA evidence took a lot of guesswork out of the identification of one or another parties in the proceedings. Its use has advanced justice and prevented or corrected injustice.
Developments in the use of electronic media have changed the way we live. One can no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The cell phone has made it possible and common to video any incident.
The use of recorded conversations in litigation once carried the stigma of the government eavesdropping on criminals and foreign governments. It generally required an order from a judge. A bias against the use of recordings, legally obtained still lives on in the minds of some judges.
I have had judges express negativity to this kind of evidence. The law in Canada requires only that one party to the communication consents. That means that any time you find yourself in a conversation you can record it without advising the other person.
What better evidence could you have of a conversation than a recording. One would think this would be embraced by fact finder’s as it makes their job so much easier.
Recorded conversations have come to my aid on many occasions when someone else has a “alternate perception” of the facts. I most certainly record all calls with institutions and service people. It helps when they don’t live up to their promises and try to deny them.
We live in the 21st century. One must recognize that almost anything you say or do could be recorded. All you can do is live your life and hope that one day you do not wake up to find that something you regret is now trending on YouTube.