Title: Complying with the Law:
Author: xxxxxx
Last saved by: David Bearman
Company: Archives & Museum Informatics

Electronic Records Research 1997: Resource Materials
Compilation Copyright, Archives & Museum Informatics 1998
Article Copyright, Author

P-WORM, E-WORM, S-WORM
 
Is a Sausage a Wienie? 

by
Robert F. Williams
For decades, it has been an ongoing debate: is a sausage a wienie?  Now, electronic imaging has its own counterpart question.  It deals with the WORM (write once, read many) attribute of optical storage media and its impact on the legality of optical storage media.
Today, there are seven primary methods by which information can be recorded on optical media.  They are: (1) ablative, (2) alloying, (3) bubble-forming, (4) moth-eye (Plasmon), (5) phase-change, (6) dye/polymer and (7) magneto-optic.  There are WORM versions of all the above methods.  All of these WORM recording methods are durable and secure.  My Cohasset associate, Dick Fisher has categorized WORM recording methodologies into three types: P-WORM, E-WORM and S-WORM.
P-WORM: Physical - Write Once Read Many.  Information that is written using this recording method creates a permanent physical change in the surface of the disk in such a way that the specific area can not be restored to its original state.  Since optical media first began storing larger volumes of business records in the mid-1980’s, P-WORM has been viewed by many as synonymous with the term WORM -- because for many years the primary methodologies that were sold for recording records on optical media (ablative and alloying-forming) were P-WORM -- they were permanent and non-reversible.
E-WORM: Coded - Write Once, Read Many.  Although it uses rewritable media (currently magneto-optic), this recording method has a factory pre-recorded write once code in the media itself.  The code that is pre-recorded in the media by the manufacturer is then recognized by the firmware embedded in the optical drive controller, signaling the controller to prevent any overwrite of previously recorded data.  Thus, the information recorded on the optical disk using E-WORM is non-rewritable and may be considered as secure as any recorded on P-WORM.
S-WORM: Software - Write Once Read Many.  This method uses software to implement revision protection.  In essence the software does not allow a logical string of information with the same filename as a previously recorded string of information to be written in the same location.  Instead, the software creates a “version” suffix (or similar file name extension) and writes the “new version” of the file in a different media location.  S-WORM is media independent although it presumably would be rewritable optical or magnetic media.
A key distinction between P-WORM, E-WORM and S-WORM is that the WORM attribute of P-WORM and E-WORM is defined by the media manufacturer and can not be reversed by the user.  In contrast, the write-once attribute of S-WORM is defined by the software developer and, although records can not be surreptitiously modified by the software that created the record, an appropriately skilled user could delete those S-WORM records with other software.
WORM and the Legality of Optical Storage
In many statutes and regulations relating to records stored on optical media, reference is made to the WORM attribute in a variety of different ways.  For example:
	California: “. . . does not permit additions, deletions or changes to the original documents. . .”
	Idaho: “. . . does not permit undetected additions, deletions or alterations of documents. . .”
	Nuclear Regulatory Commission: “. . .does not allow deletions or modifications of record images. . .”
	Securities and Exchange Commission: “. . .preserves records in a non-writable, non-erasable format. . .”
Are all WORM versions of the different methods referenced above legally equivalent?  This is the document imaging industry’s counterpart to the Sausage/Wienie debate.  Dick Fisher’s P-WORM, E-WORM, S-WORM classifications clearly identify three distinctly different technical types or categories of WORM.  However, as Dick Fisher would be the first to note, their functional/technical equivalency does not necessarily reflect legal equality.  Legal equality has two parts: (1) admissibility in a court (admissible WORM) and (2) compliance with regulations (compliant WORM).  
Admissible WORM:
Most statutes and all versions of the all important Rules of Evidence are media non-specific and therefore media independent.  They apply to all types of storage media -- for digital records, magnetic as much as optical.  In fact, in the great majority of all statutes dealing with the admissibility of optically stored records as well as the Rules of Evidence, there are not even any references to the records storage media needing to have a WORM attribute in order to have the records admissible.  Accordingly, the WORM version of every method of recording information on optical storage can be considered admissible WORM.
Compliant WORM
The situation, however, regarding compliant WORM is not quite as simple.  Based on the optical storage regulations promulgated to date, recording records on WORM media is going to be very important to regulatory authorities, i.e., required in most instances.  This is because the regulators have two constituencies:  1) the entities under their regulatory jurisdiction and 2) the public -- through the legislative branch of government.  It is this second constituency which compels regulators to be very conservative and “play it safe.”  Accordingly, they will opt for WORM -- but, in my opinion, not any and all types of WORM.  Because someone with sufficient knowledge of the software code could defeat the revisions protection capability of S-WORM, it seems almost inconceivable that the regulators would accept S-WORM as being compliant equivalent to P-WORM and E-WORM in its intrinsic capability to imbue accuracy, reliability and trustworthiness.  P-WORM and E-WORM should be considered by users as the only compliant WORM.  Thus, although a sausage is not a wienie, a wienie is a hot dog!