The emerging workflow for bringing in born digital media to an archival collection seems to be converging on creating forensic disk images, that is bit-for-bit copies of the entire disk. This sort of copy would capture forensic traces of previous use of the contents of the drive.
There is considerable value in these kinds of copies, but they also have the possibility of making those offering their materials to an archive feel rather exposed. In general, individuals giving their papers to a library have had the ability to review exactly what it is they are handing over. The possibility to read overwrite sectors of disks can creep out a potential individual offering up their papers.
In contrast to forensic disk images, there is the possibility of creating logical disk images. Instead of being a bit-for-bit copy, these images are simply copies of the contents of the directories on a disk. The logical image captures the organization of the disk but does not capture the considerable additional information that a forensic image would capture.
Given these differences, in what cases should archives go with the logical images vs. the forensic ones? On the one hand, the forensic disks seem to be more in keeping with not changing the object and in a sense with the ideals of original order. On the other, the agreements between those offering their papers to an archive frequently involve discussing what's in and what is out. How should archives go about weighing these different values in their decisions to create forensic or logical images?