Legal Web Resources—Official vs. Authentic

Jessica Mathewson-Library Media Technical Asst.-jessica.mathewson@law.csuohio.edu | April 03, 2008 – 09:37

How trustworthy are legal resources on the web? Are they trustworthy just because they are hosted by the government? Last March, the Access to Electronic Legal Information Committee part of AALL, released a report on the authentication of online state-hosted legal resources. According to the report, the “official version” of a statute or court opinion means it is government prepared or government authorized.

Content that is “authentic” must be verified by the government as complete and unaltered from its original context. An authentic text has a mark or certification, meaning that the document in question has been validated. Marks of authenticity may be digital watermarks or signatures. Official print versions are automatically authentic, but official on-line versions are not, because they can be tampered with or subject to data corrosion.

The report concluded that only 10 states and the District of Columbia have one or more of their primary online sources deemed “official”. Eight more states have online sources with “official traits”. None of the state online resources are “authentic” or capable of easy authentication.

Does this mean we should stop using government-hosted primary law websites? Not necessarily. But be aware that if a discrepancy arises, the official, authenticated version of the legal document will prevail over the unofficial and/or unauthenticated.

GPO took a step in remedying the problem on the federal level. Recently, they announced that beginning with the 110th Congress, Public and Private Law on GPO Access will be digitally signed and certified, making the documents official and authentic.

Thanks to Sue Altmeyer for her input.