So are you saying it's sensible that we're stuck with emails printed on reams of paper because it's too hard to define a better spec? There is really no reason for digital files not to be mandated in 2017 except "lol bureaucracy." Frankly, if someone only has access to paper files they should be required to scan them. As is, at least as much work is being done in the opposite direction (printing tons of paper) which is just ridiculous.
> So are you saying it's sensible that we're stuck with emails printed on reams of paper because it's too hard to define a better spec?
Oh, it's not sensible but I do appreciate the huge gap between a tossed out "lol, use digital" and reality that people blithely ignore. As a trivial example, marking up emails printed on paper can be a lot easier than doing it digitally.
> Frankly, if someone only has access to paper files they should be required to scan them.
How do you prove the scans are correct? Presumably the paper files have some kind of chain of custody going on - how do you enforce that for digital files? What resolution do you enforce? What colour settings? Or B&W? Or shades of grey, even? What happens to the forensic dots that printers add when you scan a document? They might be vital evidence.
It's fine to just "scan them" in an office but you really want to avoid any kind of potential data loss when you're talking about evidence in a court case.
And dipping into the wilder reaches of fantasy, how do you guard against things like steganography being used to pass information secretly? Or avoid viruses / trojans / zipbombs / whatnots?
