Yes, usually. I have produced documention that included very sensitive data and was therefore sealed under court order. In those cases, I don't have a choice. If you were the HDOH’s DBA in Hawaii would you be shaking in your boots if a law was passed that would eventually require you to disclose in court the history of Obama’s birth record there? If you were the DBA of the Passport Office would you be shaking in your boots?
If I knew they had been tampered with, yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't care.
There really isn't a way to protect IT when they must disclose data.
You’d hope that if the records have been tampered with the person wouldn’t run for election.
But then, we already know that Obama’s passport file has been illegally accessed, and insiders say it was to sanitize the record. The DOS says they can’t know whether the records have been altered or not, which to me says that when they investigated they only looked at the access logs and not at the detailed record history (using the terminology you used).
Am I just nuts, or does that seem like wilfully closing your eyes - to say that a record has been illegally accessed but we aren’t going to bother to see if it has been illegally altered? What kind of investigation would just assume that it was harmless “idle curiosity” on a matter of that kind of significance, without even checking to see if anything had been altered?