Can SMS be used as evidence? Because they don't answer the phone or meet?

You can submit short messages as evidence, but it should prove the reliability of the method of generating, storing and transmitting data messages provided by mobile phone short messages; Reliability of methods for maintaining content integrity; By investigating the reliability of the method used to identify the sender, the authenticity of the mobile phone short message as evidence can be determined. According to the relevant provisions of the rules of evidence, audio and video materials and data messages can be used as evidence, but data messages are directly used as evidence for ascertaining facts and should be supported by other written evidence.

The core content of electronic signature law is to give data message, electronic signature and electronic authentication corresponding legal status. The concept of data message is very broad, which basically covers all documents, records, documents and contracts in electronic form. We can understand it as the basic form of all electronic information in the information age. Before the promulgation and implementation of the Electronic Signature Law, we lacked the most basic provisions on the legal effect of data messages, such as whether data messages meet the requirements of written form, whether they can be used as originals, and what kind of evidence effect they have under what circumstances, which is very unfavorable to the development of China's information industry. It can even be said that due to the lack of provisions on the basic legal effect of data messages, the information society we have built lacks the most basic legal protection.

According to Article 8 of China's Electronic Signature Law, the factors that should be considered in examining the authenticity of data messages as evidence are: "the reliability of the method of generating, storing or transmitting data messages; Reliability of methods for maintaining content integrity; Reliability of the method used to identify the sender. " That is to say, to examine the authenticity of data messages as evidence, we should mainly consider the following aspects: the operator of the system, the operating procedures, the security and reliability of the information system itself, and so on. For example, whether the system transmitting data messages has considerable stability, how likely it is to be illegally invaded and tampered with, whether it is operated in strict accordance with the prescribed procedures, and whether it can effectively identify the sender.

In this case, for the main evidence-SMS, the judge examined the authenticity of the evidence according to Article 8 of the Electronic Signature Law and related regulations. Under the condition that the information source, sending time, transmission system are basically reliable and the file content is basically complete, the judge determined the evidential force of these SMS, and there was no evidence to the contrary to deny the probative force of these evidences. We believe that the applicable law is appropriate and accurate, and the judgment method is scientific and reasonable, which meets the requirements of the Electronic Signature Law.

Before the introduction of electronic signature law, there were many similar cases, mainly focusing on whether e-mail can be used as evidence. Due to the lack of direct legal provisions, the Shanghai High Court has also issued relevant explanations. With the promulgation of the Electronic Signature Law, this situation has been fundamentally changed. According to relevant reports, this case is the first case decided by the court according to the electronic signature law after the implementation of the electronic signature law in China, which is of great significance. It means that China's electronic signature law has really begun to enter the judicial process, and the legal effect of data messages, electronic signatures and electronic authentication has been fundamentally guaranteed. Through the implementation of the electronic signature law, basically all activities related to informatization have their own corresponding judgment standards at the legal level.