Back by popular demand, this is Part Four in our ongoing series, Legal Implications of Cloud Computing. This installment will focus on digital evidence and e-discovery, and follows up on Part One (the Basics), Part Two (Privacy), and Part Three (Relationships). After all, what better topic than the cloud to tackle on the day after Thanksgiving, recovering from tryptophan and wine? As with many other areas previously discussed in this series, the cloud does not necessarily change the legal analysis, it just highlights the need to think through and anticipate the many areas of legal concern that could/are likely to arise when using the cloud. As a litigator, when I think about the challenges posed by the cloud, the one that seems most intuitive is e-discovery/digital evidence. It is always difficult to fully appreciate and digest the scope and volume of information that may be called for in litigation or in an investigation. The presence of corporate data in the cloud multiplies those considerations.
Some, but by no means all, of the digital evidence issues that should be considered in negotiating cloud arrangements and contracts (whether you are putting data in the cloud or designing and marketing a cloud offering), are as follows:
1.) preservation/retention/disposal;
2.) control/access/collection;
3.) metadata;
4.) admissibility; and, cutting across all of the foregoing
5.) cost.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: infolawgroup.com
By: Tanya Forsheit
Monday, November 30, 2009
2010 Will be the Year of Deletion
As organizations enter 2010, IT administrators will continue struggling to balance between the growth of information and the low IT spending. The last time storage technology kept up with information growth was 2002. However, this time around to keep up, storage administrators will need to start deleting information. The 'delete' mentality will lead to a shift from using backup as the long term storage location. Backup will return to its intended use and recovery while archiving will step in to manage the long term retention and disposition of information. This was one of the storage trends outlined by Symantec's storage trends to watch for in 2010.
Apart from labeling 2010 as the 'Year of Deletion", the study also revealed other significant storage trends for 2010 such as
Organizations can no longer procrastinate 'going green': In 2009, organizations began to shift from implementing "green" technologies primarily for cost reduction purposes, to a more balanced awareness of also improving the organization's environmental standing. In 2010, these two drivers will push most enterprise organizations to implement a 'green' strategy. IT decision makers are increasingly justifying green IT solutions by more than cost and IT efficiency benefits. They are now looking to a number of factors such as reducing electricity consumption, cooling costs and corporate pressure to be 'green.'
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: CXO Today
By: Sharon Lobo
Apart from labeling 2010 as the 'Year of Deletion", the study also revealed other significant storage trends for 2010 such as
Organizations can no longer procrastinate 'going green': In 2009, organizations began to shift from implementing "green" technologies primarily for cost reduction purposes, to a more balanced awareness of also improving the organization's environmental standing. In 2010, these two drivers will push most enterprise organizations to implement a 'green' strategy. IT decision makers are increasingly justifying green IT solutions by more than cost and IT efficiency benefits. They are now looking to a number of factors such as reducing electricity consumption, cooling costs and corporate pressure to be 'green.'
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: CXO Today
By: Sharon Lobo
Friday, November 27, 2009
When Clients Waive Privilege
If Justice Louis Brandeis was right and sunshine is indeed the best disinfectant, think of attorney-client privilege as sunscreen. When applied properly, it protects against the effects of overexposure. More precisely, it can help keep clients who take a lot of heat from getting burned.
Unfortunately, the strength or shelf life of the protection conferred by the attorney-client privilege is not listed on any bottle. The privilege permits both attorneys and clients to prevent their confidential communications from being revealed in a lawsuit or an investigation, but it is ultimately the client's privilege. And because the scope of the privilege often depends on the client's actions in litigation, it usually ends up being defined and conscribed by a court. A privilege that used to be inviolate, once invoked, has evolved into such a standard litigation pawn that the Supreme Court is presently considering, in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, whether a party may immediately appeal a court order to disclose materials the party believes are privileged. So, depending on what a client or a court does, lawyers may find themselves having to brace the elements sans protection.
Back in its heyday, the attorney-client privilege was viewed as a godsend by clients who needed to be shielded from liability. Big Tobacco, for instance, used to pass all research through lawyers so that bad data became "privileged." Courts recognized the abuse and refused to safeguard information couched in attorney-client communications. As the privilege continued to be put through the wringer, clients began to waive the privilege to say they were acting on advice of counsel when it served them.
A recent spate of litigations has showcased the ugly side of what happens when clients "waive goodbye" to both the privilege and their counsel, in efforts to protect themselves. In the much discussed Qualcomm matter, involving claims of litigation misconduct, finger pointing started when the client accused outside counsel of responsibility for the discovery violations.
Controversy intensified when the court pierced the attorney-client privilege and allowed outside counsel to testify against their client under the self-defense exception to the privilege. When attorneys find themselves having to invoke this exception to protect themselves against accusations of wrongdoing by the client, it's safe to say things have already taken a turn for the worse. The issue of whether counsel was misled by its former client or vice versa is now being argued in rounds of public briefing. A legal malpractice claim is also likely.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm
Unfortunately, the strength or shelf life of the protection conferred by the attorney-client privilege is not listed on any bottle. The privilege permits both attorneys and clients to prevent their confidential communications from being revealed in a lawsuit or an investigation, but it is ultimately the client's privilege. And because the scope of the privilege often depends on the client's actions in litigation, it usually ends up being defined and conscribed by a court. A privilege that used to be inviolate, once invoked, has evolved into such a standard litigation pawn that the Supreme Court is presently considering, in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, whether a party may immediately appeal a court order to disclose materials the party believes are privileged. So, depending on what a client or a court does, lawyers may find themselves having to brace the elements sans protection.
Back in its heyday, the attorney-client privilege was viewed as a godsend by clients who needed to be shielded from liability. Big Tobacco, for instance, used to pass all research through lawyers so that bad data became "privileged." Courts recognized the abuse and refused to safeguard information couched in attorney-client communications. As the privilege continued to be put through the wringer, clients began to waive the privilege to say they were acting on advice of counsel when it served them.
A recent spate of litigations has showcased the ugly side of what happens when clients "waive goodbye" to both the privilege and their counsel, in efforts to protect themselves. In the much discussed Qualcomm matter, involving claims of litigation misconduct, finger pointing started when the client accused outside counsel of responsibility for the discovery violations.
Controversy intensified when the court pierced the attorney-client privilege and allowed outside counsel to testify against their client under the self-defense exception to the privilege. When attorneys find themselves having to invoke this exception to protect themselves against accusations of wrongdoing by the client, it's safe to say things have already taken a turn for the worse. The issue of whether counsel was misled by its former client or vice versa is now being argued in rounds of public briefing. A legal malpractice claim is also likely.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Migration, deletion, Stockpiling in 2010 bytes
Symantec outlines the storage trends to watch in 2010
As organizations migrate to new Microsoft platforms over the next year, they will need various storage management and data management technologies in place. While upgrading is not always a priority for IT organizations, given tight budgets and the resources needed to manage the process, newer versions can offer significant technological advancements and performance enhancements that can help organizations better meet their SLAs.
This could be termed as a year of migration as per a Symantec'strend watch on storage. As organizations migrate, they will likely make technology improvements across the board to provide improved protection and management that will support all Microsoft applications in the most efficient way. However, it is important that organizations not treat these new applications in a silo manner and apply platform level backup, deduplication, archiving, retention, and E-Discovery solutions. A trusted platform can address both new and old applications in a centralized way.
The company also points 2010 as the 'Year of Deletion'. Next year, enterprise IT administrators will continue to struggle with the continuing growth of information, while budgets continue to lag. The InfoPro says 2010 overall storage spending will improve over 2009, but many respondents are still expecting flat or even decreasing budgets. The last time storage technology kept up with information growth was 2002. In order to keep up, storage admins will need to begin to lose their 'pack rat' mentality and start deleting information. The 'delete' mentality will lead to a shift from using backup as the long term storage location. Backup will return to its intended use and recovery while archiving will step in to manage the long term retention and disposition of information.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: CIOL
As organizations migrate to new Microsoft platforms over the next year, they will need various storage management and data management technologies in place. While upgrading is not always a priority for IT organizations, given tight budgets and the resources needed to manage the process, newer versions can offer significant technological advancements and performance enhancements that can help organizations better meet their SLAs.
This could be termed as a year of migration as per a Symantec'strend watch on storage. As organizations migrate, they will likely make technology improvements across the board to provide improved protection and management that will support all Microsoft applications in the most efficient way. However, it is important that organizations not treat these new applications in a silo manner and apply platform level backup, deduplication, archiving, retention, and E-Discovery solutions. A trusted platform can address both new and old applications in a centralized way.
The company also points 2010 as the 'Year of Deletion'. Next year, enterprise IT administrators will continue to struggle with the continuing growth of information, while budgets continue to lag. The InfoPro says 2010 overall storage spending will improve over 2009, but many respondents are still expecting flat or even decreasing budgets. The last time storage technology kept up with information growth was 2002. In order to keep up, storage admins will need to begin to lose their 'pack rat' mentality and start deleting information. The 'delete' mentality will lead to a shift from using backup as the long term storage location. Backup will return to its intended use and recovery while archiving will step in to manage the long term retention and disposition of information.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: CIOL
IT doesn't understand why legacy data must be destroyed
Many IT departments are leaving their companies exposed to unnecessary cost and legal risk by not complying with data retention policies laid down by the business.
Their actions could result in expensive e-discovery procedures to produce data for evidence and risk the company being found liable based on legacy data.
Alex Dunstan-Lee, director forensic technology at KPMG, says, "The biggest problem for in-house legal teams is the lack of awareness of data policies and record management."
He says the culture in IT departments is sometimes at odds with the requirements set by company lawyers. "It is hard to match data polices with day-to-day IT."
A KPMG Forensic and Harris Interactive survey found that 21% of legal departments had never been consulted by their IT departments about changes in storage capabilities within the organisation, and 25% were "rarely or never" consulted about the adoption of new technologies for dealing with electronic evidence for e-discovery.
Dunstan-Lee warns that the business is required to provide all relevant data when it is the subject of litigation. This can be time-consuming and expensive if the company retains information indefinitely. It also opens up the company to the risk of long forgotten archived data exposing the company's liability. "If the data is no longer available, then it cannot be produced. If it is still available, then it cannot be destroyed because it is evidence."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: Computer Weekly
By: Cliff Saran
Their actions could result in expensive e-discovery procedures to produce data for evidence and risk the company being found liable based on legacy data.
Alex Dunstan-Lee, director forensic technology at KPMG, says, "The biggest problem for in-house legal teams is the lack of awareness of data policies and record management."
He says the culture in IT departments is sometimes at odds with the requirements set by company lawyers. "It is hard to match data polices with day-to-day IT."
A KPMG Forensic and Harris Interactive survey found that 21% of legal departments had never been consulted by their IT departments about changes in storage capabilities within the organisation, and 25% were "rarely or never" consulted about the adoption of new technologies for dealing with electronic evidence for e-discovery.
Dunstan-Lee warns that the business is required to provide all relevant data when it is the subject of litigation. This can be time-consuming and expensive if the company retains information indefinitely. It also opens up the company to the risk of long forgotten archived data exposing the company's liability. "If the data is no longer available, then it cannot be produced. If it is still available, then it cannot be destroyed because it is evidence."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: Computer Weekly
By: Cliff Saran
Google cloud computing OS may complement Windows
The forthcoming Google Chrome cloud computing operating system may complement Microsoft Windows rather than compete with it, because both platforms will have different specialties, one technology analyst wrote in an article on Wednesday.
Chrome OS does not assume that people will give up traditional personal computing entirely in favor of the cloud, but rather merely assumes that many functions users want, including web browsing and email, are cloud-based, technology journalist Bill Snyder wrote in a recent article for InfoWorld.
"Right now, it appears that the Chromebook won't even boot when it's not connected to the internet," Snyder noted.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: edlconsulting.com
By: EDL Consulting
Chrome OS does not assume that people will give up traditional personal computing entirely in favor of the cloud, but rather merely assumes that many functions users want, including web browsing and email, are cloud-based, technology journalist Bill Snyder wrote in a recent article for InfoWorld.
"Right now, it appears that the Chromebook won't even boot when it's not connected to the internet," Snyder noted.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: edlconsulting.com
By: EDL Consulting
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Is Cloud Computing Part of Enterprise 2.0?
I recently was talking with David Linthicum, author of a recently published work entitled Cloud Computing and SOA Convergence in Your Enterprise: A Step-by-Step Guide, which discusses the business case for considering cloud. In talking about cloud computing, our chat moved to Web 2.0, to which Dave made the observation that many in Web 2.0 circles do not see cloud computing as part of that paradigm. Why not? Dave says to some degree there are political/turf reasons, as some Web 2.0 proponents see cloud as a threat to their established order.
Add to that the fact that cloud and Enterprise2.0/Web 2.0 (I’ll address them as one in the same for this post) address problems at different levels. Namely, cloud addresses access to IT-centric services, such as storage capacity on demand, processing capacity on demand, and infrastructure on demand. For example, one of the key business values seen with cloud is the ability to scale up applications by adding off-site processors. The “private clouds” that are now being discussed arise out of virtualization solutions deployed on top of IT systems.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: fastforwardblog.com
By: Joe McKendrick
Add to that the fact that cloud and Enterprise2.0/Web 2.0 (I’ll address them as one in the same for this post) address problems at different levels. Namely, cloud addresses access to IT-centric services, such as storage capacity on demand, processing capacity on demand, and infrastructure on demand. For example, one of the key business values seen with cloud is the ability to scale up applications by adding off-site processors. The “private clouds” that are now being discussed arise out of virtualization solutions deployed on top of IT systems.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: fastforwardblog.com
By: Joe McKendrick
Data-leak lessons learned from the 'Climategate' hack
In case you've missed it, someone recently dumped a large cache of e-mail files and documents from the University of East Anglia University's prestigious Climactic Research Unit onto the 'Net. The CRU is one of the leading climatology research institutions, and its data and models provide much of the infrastructure on which the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based.
Many of the files and e-mails discuss hiding or manipulating data, which has disturbing connotations for the credibility of AGW overall. (In one document, a researcher explicitly acknowledges making up data sources.) For a relatively unbiased look at some of the issues, please click here.
Leaving aside the political hot potato of AGW itself, there are several lessons for networkers to take away from the exposure of the CRU's internal data.
Lesson 1: Don't let users put passwords in their signatures. Yep, you got that right: One of the scientists included both on his e-mail signature — which means that anyone receiving an e-mail from this guy had access to his files. This may have been the source of the hack; in fact, some folks have theorized that a recipient of the e-mail was the source of the data dump. (Watch a slideshow of what to do to get your identity stolen.)
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerworld.com
By: Johna Till Johnson
Many of the files and e-mails discuss hiding or manipulating data, which has disturbing connotations for the credibility of AGW overall. (In one document, a researcher explicitly acknowledges making up data sources.) For a relatively unbiased look at some of the issues, please click here.
Leaving aside the political hot potato of AGW itself, there are several lessons for networkers to take away from the exposure of the CRU's internal data.
Lesson 1: Don't let users put passwords in their signatures. Yep, you got that right: One of the scientists included both on his e-mail signature — which means that anyone receiving an e-mail from this guy had access to his files. This may have been the source of the hack; in fact, some folks have theorized that a recipient of the e-mail was the source of the data dump. (Watch a slideshow of what to do to get your identity stolen.)
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerworld.com
By: Johna Till Johnson
IT Owns E-Discovery
Organizations realizing technological expertise is just as essential as sharp legal analysis when it comes to e-discovery.
IT groups are getting more e-discovery responsibility according to results from two surveys.
Thirty-five percent of respondents give IT and in-house counsel duel responsibility for creating and enforcing corporate discovery strategies, while the CIO and IT takes full ownership for another 20 percent. That’s according to an annual ESI trends report from Kroll OnTrack. Three years ago, e-discovery belonged entirely to in-house counsel says the company, which sells discovery software and consulting services. Kroll surveyed 231 IT and legal professionals in the U.S. You can find the survey here, but registration is required.
Meanwhile, large organizations are bringing more of the e-discovery process in house, according to a new survey from Clearwell and the Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG). Forty-eight percent of companies surveyed have projects in place to bring e-discovery components inside the organization, and another 36 percent plan to do so in the next 12 months. Clearwell, which sells e-discovery software, surveyed over 100 organizations in the Fortune 2000. A copy of the report is available here (registration also required).
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Andrew Conry-Murray
IT groups are getting more e-discovery responsibility according to results from two surveys.
Thirty-five percent of respondents give IT and in-house counsel duel responsibility for creating and enforcing corporate discovery strategies, while the CIO and IT takes full ownership for another 20 percent. That’s according to an annual ESI trends report from Kroll OnTrack. Three years ago, e-discovery belonged entirely to in-house counsel says the company, which sells discovery software and consulting services. Kroll surveyed 231 IT and legal professionals in the U.S. You can find the survey here, but registration is required.
Meanwhile, large organizations are bringing more of the e-discovery process in house, according to a new survey from Clearwell and the Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG). Forty-eight percent of companies surveyed have projects in place to bring e-discovery components inside the organization, and another 36 percent plan to do so in the next 12 months. Clearwell, which sells e-discovery software, surveyed over 100 organizations in the Fortune 2000. A copy of the report is available here (registration also required).
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Andrew Conry-Murray
Rulings Address Defamation on Interactive Sites, in E-Mail
Interactive Web site communications can run the gamut from disparaging others to exchanging information about both good and bad business experiences. Misuse of an interactive site or a social network, however, may create liability in New York for such wrongful conduct. Counsel should be aware of such potential liability, even for an anonymous blogger who wants to hide his identity on an out-of-state site, as well as the limitations thereon, certain of which may be found in the Communications Decency Act of 1996.[FOOTNOTE 1]
Also, prospective litigants should be reminded that a defamation claim can flow from electronically disseminated information, which communications may also form the basis for alleging a tortious interference with contract cause of action.
In Finkel v. Facebook,[FOOTNOTE 2] a defamation action against the social networking site Facebook, the court dismissed the cause of action against it predicated upon the CDA, where plaintiff failed to claim that Facebook "had any hand in creating the [allegedly defamatory] content."
Plaintiff alleged that four fellow high school classmates, also individually named as defendants, created a "group" on Facebook in which they posted defamatory comments about plaintiff that had negative sexual and medical connotations. The court found that the CDA:
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Mark A Berman
Also, prospective litigants should be reminded that a defamation claim can flow from electronically disseminated information, which communications may also form the basis for alleging a tortious interference with contract cause of action.
In Finkel v. Facebook,[FOOTNOTE 2] a defamation action against the social networking site Facebook, the court dismissed the cause of action against it predicated upon the CDA, where plaintiff failed to claim that Facebook "had any hand in creating the [allegedly defamatory] content."
Plaintiff alleged that four fellow high school classmates, also individually named as defendants, created a "group" on Facebook in which they posted defamatory comments about plaintiff that had negative sexual and medical connotations. The court found that the CDA:
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Mark A Berman
Cloud security front and centre
Cloud computing is the latest trend that has the industry abuzz. Everywhere you go, there are cloud services for every functionality imaginable.
Many believe that cloud computing can deliver massive business and operational efficiencies. There is even a movement at the national level: Vivek Kundra, the US’s recently named federal CIO, is being tasked to push the adoption of cloud-based services across the federal IT landscape.
Cloud computing differs from traditional outsourcing because in the latter model, it is still very much standalone computing — either you take your server and put in someone else’s datacentre, or you have a MSP managing your devices. In many cases, you know exactly where your data/host is and what resources, if any, you share with others.
Cloud computing decouples data from infrastructure and obscures low-level operational details, such as where your data is and how it’s replicated. Multitenancy, while it is rarely used in traditional IT outsourcing, is almost a given in cloud computing services.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerworlduk.com
By: Chenxi Wang
Many believe that cloud computing can deliver massive business and operational efficiencies. There is even a movement at the national level: Vivek Kundra, the US’s recently named federal CIO, is being tasked to push the adoption of cloud-based services across the federal IT landscape.
Cloud computing differs from traditional outsourcing because in the latter model, it is still very much standalone computing — either you take your server and put in someone else’s datacentre, or you have a MSP managing your devices. In many cases, you know exactly where your data/host is and what resources, if any, you share with others.
Cloud computing decouples data from infrastructure and obscures low-level operational details, such as where your data is and how it’s replicated. Multitenancy, while it is rarely used in traditional IT outsourcing, is almost a given in cloud computing services.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerworlduk.com
By: Chenxi Wang
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Divorce lawyers find evidence on Facebook
So many social networking sites, so many ways to reconnect with people from your past. For Facebook user and singles website designer Mike Wilbur, that includes ex-girlfriends.
"I'm talking to two on a regular basis," he told ABC11 Eyewitness News.
He says the online chats are innocent, but can see how it could cross the line.
"It's a little more intimate I guess," he said.
Experts say connections with old flames that do cross the line can often wind up in divorce court.
"In a huge percentage of our cases now," offered divorce attorney Lee Rosen.
Rosen says people no longer have to go out of their way to meet someone outside their home. They're right there in their home on their computer.
"It's literally like people are knocking at your door asking you to have an affair," he said.
So, social networking sites have become a gold mine for divorce attorneys.
"When somebody is tempted by the opportunity that Facebook presents them, it takes a weak marriage and destroys them," said Rosen.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: abclocal.go.com
By: Shae Crisson
"I'm talking to two on a regular basis," he told ABC11 Eyewitness News.
He says the online chats are innocent, but can see how it could cross the line.
"It's a little more intimate I guess," he said.
Experts say connections with old flames that do cross the line can often wind up in divorce court.
"In a huge percentage of our cases now," offered divorce attorney Lee Rosen.
Rosen says people no longer have to go out of their way to meet someone outside their home. They're right there in their home on their computer.
"It's literally like people are knocking at your door asking you to have an affair," he said.
So, social networking sites have become a gold mine for divorce attorneys.
"When somebody is tempted by the opportunity that Facebook presents them, it takes a weak marriage and destroys them," said Rosen.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: abclocal.go.com
By: Shae Crisson
4 Cheap Options to Monitor Networks for Evidence
Computer forensics don't have to solely focus on recovering and searching for evidence on storage devices. Although programs like Encase and FTK 3.0 are excellent tools to help find documents, photographs and other files for your investigation, they cut short on collecting network traffic your suspect sends and receives.
Viewing stored URL visits and local cache only paint a limited picture of the suspect's Internet usage and sometimes amount to the same as reading tea leaves. A document opened online, an incriminating instant message or even a VOIP call can and should be forensically captured and reviewed for your investigations.
Below are four free or low-cost options to monitor your target's network connection, capture forensic traffic and review the data for evidence. Consult with your company's legal and IT departments before monitoring Internet connections. This may be illegal in some areas or against company policy.
Before getting started you have to decide which of the four monitoring options best work for your investigation. Each option has its own unique function that works for different scenarios that are rated below based on Level of Expertise to setup it up, Covert Application (risk of getting caught) and Network Type (wireless vs. LAN):
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerworld.com
By: Brandon Gregg
Viewing stored URL visits and local cache only paint a limited picture of the suspect's Internet usage and sometimes amount to the same as reading tea leaves. A document opened online, an incriminating instant message or even a VOIP call can and should be forensically captured and reviewed for your investigations.
Below are four free or low-cost options to monitor your target's network connection, capture forensic traffic and review the data for evidence. Consult with your company's legal and IT departments before monitoring Internet connections. This may be illegal in some areas or against company policy.
Before getting started you have to decide which of the four monitoring options best work for your investigation. Each option has its own unique function that works for different scenarios that are rated below based on Level of Expertise to setup it up, Covert Application (risk of getting caught) and Network Type (wireless vs. LAN):
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerworld.com
By: Brandon Gregg
eDiscovery And The Law Firm
Nick Croce of Inference Data wrote some good stuff in his vendor-neutral white paper, "Transforming the Law Firm: The Impact of Technology on Law Firms & Their Clients." He points out that a survey of corporate General Counsels showed that they were profoundly concerned with legal discovery's cost control or lack thereof. At the head of the list is the cost of outside counsel and the inherent frustration in matching invoiced costs to services rendered.
Outside law firms are uncomfortably aware that their corporate clients - who are making tracks with their pocketbooks -- are unhappy with discovery costs and lack of accountability with traditional law firm invoicing practices. We're not talking chump change here. Yearly attorney review fees in the U.S. alone reach well into the billions of dollars. Adding insult to injury, the vast majority of reviewed documents are irrelevant. Granted, the idea behind review is to identify relevance, but there has to be a way to cut down on the amount of documents that hit the review platform in the first place.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Christine Taylor
Outside law firms are uncomfortably aware that their corporate clients - who are making tracks with their pocketbooks -- are unhappy with discovery costs and lack of accountability with traditional law firm invoicing practices. We're not talking chump change here. Yearly attorney review fees in the U.S. alone reach well into the billions of dollars. Adding insult to injury, the vast majority of reviewed documents are irrelevant. Granted, the idea behind review is to identify relevance, but there has to be a way to cut down on the amount of documents that hit the review platform in the first place.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Christine Taylor
Businesses are ill-prepared for e-discovery, warn lawyers
In-house lawyers are concerned that their businesses are unable to respond to legal demands to retrieve electronic documents, a survey of lawyers at 200 global companies reveals.
The KPMG Forensic and Harris Interactive survey found that 38% of lawyers surveyed said that it would be difficult to retrieve data in their organisation, potentially exposing their firms to high costs or reputational damage in the event of a legal dispute.
"Companies have to deal with a mind-bogglingly large amount of data being generated every day, which not only has to be stored but made searchable and retrievable in the future," said Paul Tombleson, head of forensic technology at KPMG Forensic in the UK.
"Storing and searching large volumes of data, often across borders and across different legacy IT systems, continues to be a major challenge for many companies. Whilst this might seem like an IT issue, when an investigation arises, it can become an urgent reputational and financial one," he said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Cliff Saran
The KPMG Forensic and Harris Interactive survey found that 38% of lawyers surveyed said that it would be difficult to retrieve data in their organisation, potentially exposing their firms to high costs or reputational damage in the event of a legal dispute.
"Companies have to deal with a mind-bogglingly large amount of data being generated every day, which not only has to be stored but made searchable and retrievable in the future," said Paul Tombleson, head of forensic technology at KPMG Forensic in the UK.
"Storing and searching large volumes of data, often across borders and across different legacy IT systems, continues to be a major challenge for many companies. Whilst this might seem like an IT issue, when an investigation arises, it can become an urgent reputational and financial one," he said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Cliff Saran
Sunday, November 22, 2009
So Much Data, So Little Encryption
We surveyed almost 500 business technology professionals and found little end-to-end encryption use. Instead, we're doing only what auditors demand.
If you go solely by top-level stats on encryption use, you'll come away feeling pretty secure--86% of the the 499 business technology professionals responding to our InformationWeek Analytics State of Encryption Survey employ encryption of some type. But that finding doesn't begin to tell the real story. Only 14% of respondents say encryption is pervasive in their organizations. Database table-level encryption is in use by just 26%, while just 38% encrypt data on mobile devices. And 31%--more than any other response--characterize the extent of their use as just enough to meet regulatory requirements.
The reasons for this dismal state of affairs range from cost and integration challenges to entrenched organizational resistance exacerbated by a lack of leadership. The compliance focus is particularly galling. Encrypting a subset of data amounts to a "get-out-of-jail-free card" because it may relieve companies from having to notify customers of a breach. But knowingly doing the bare minimum to check a compliance box isn't security; it's a cop-out.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Michael A. Davis
If you go solely by top-level stats on encryption use, you'll come away feeling pretty secure--86% of the the 499 business technology professionals responding to our InformationWeek Analytics State of Encryption Survey employ encryption of some type. But that finding doesn't begin to tell the real story. Only 14% of respondents say encryption is pervasive in their organizations. Database table-level encryption is in use by just 26%, while just 38% encrypt data on mobile devices. And 31%--more than any other response--characterize the extent of their use as just enough to meet regulatory requirements.
The reasons for this dismal state of affairs range from cost and integration challenges to entrenched organizational resistance exacerbated by a lack of leadership. The compliance focus is particularly galling. Encrypting a subset of data amounts to a "get-out-of-jail-free card" because it may relieve companies from having to notify customers of a breach. But knowingly doing the bare minimum to check a compliance box isn't security; it's a cop-out.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Michael A. Davis
EDD Tale: Caught in the Middle
Computer forensic examiners can find themselves the scapegoats in discovery battles
When Midwest Data Group was assigned the job of looking for e-mail evidence in a recent business dispute over sales commissions, it seemed like just another job. But when no responsive e-mails were found and Midwest discovered that approximately 70,000 files had been deleted from a computer system, investigators suspected evidence might have been destroyed.
The court had given the company protocols to work by, but those didn't offer much direction beyond directing computer examiners to look for e-mails pertinent to the case. But this discovery forced examiners to decide if they should simply report that the search was unproductive, or report suspicions of spoliation to the lawyers or the court.
Unfortunately, Midwest took its findings to just the plaintiff's attorneys, and quickly found itself on the receiving end of a motion for a contempt sanction for failing to disclose its findings evenly. "We got sucked into the battle. Our examiner's report conclusions sounded a little too much like advocacy," says Mark Vassel, the CEO and chief forensic examiner at Midwest Data Group. "We've had to learn to keep the language of our reports neutral and to save anything else for the courtroom or deposition."
That case, Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., Nos. 07-11745, 08-13365 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009), demonstrates the sometimes precarious position of the computer forensic examiner in litigation. "It gets particularly troublesome when the opposing counsel won't play nice and the forensic examiners can get caught in the middle," says John Simek, vice president of Sensei Enterprises, a computer forensics company in Virginia. "I always tell our people, 'make sure you talk to both parties, tell them what our interpretation of the information is, and then let them argue it out.'"
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Jason Krause
When Midwest Data Group was assigned the job of looking for e-mail evidence in a recent business dispute over sales commissions, it seemed like just another job. But when no responsive e-mails were found and Midwest discovered that approximately 70,000 files had been deleted from a computer system, investigators suspected evidence might have been destroyed.
The court had given the company protocols to work by, but those didn't offer much direction beyond directing computer examiners to look for e-mails pertinent to the case. But this discovery forced examiners to decide if they should simply report that the search was unproductive, or report suspicions of spoliation to the lawyers or the court.
Unfortunately, Midwest took its findings to just the plaintiff's attorneys, and quickly found itself on the receiving end of a motion for a contempt sanction for failing to disclose its findings evenly. "We got sucked into the battle. Our examiner's report conclusions sounded a little too much like advocacy," says Mark Vassel, the CEO and chief forensic examiner at Midwest Data Group. "We've had to learn to keep the language of our reports neutral and to save anything else for the courtroom or deposition."
That case, Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., Nos. 07-11745, 08-13365 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009), demonstrates the sometimes precarious position of the computer forensic examiner in litigation. "It gets particularly troublesome when the opposing counsel won't play nice and the forensic examiners can get caught in the middle," says John Simek, vice president of Sensei Enterprises, a computer forensics company in Virginia. "I always tell our people, 'make sure you talk to both parties, tell them what our interpretation of the information is, and then let them argue it out.'"
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Jason Krause
Lanier Announces Settlement in Cloud Computing Lawsuit
The Lanier Law Firm announced that a settlement and federal judgment issued in favor of inventor Mitchell Prust in a patent infringement lawsuit over cloud storage and cloud computing technology that allows individuals to access computer applications through Internet browsers.
According to a press release by Lanier, the judgment signed Nov. 19, 2009, by Judge T. John Ward in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that McKinney, Texas-based NetMass Inc. infringed three different online storage and computing patents owned by Prust, including US Patent No. 6,714,968; No. 6,735,623; and No. 6,952,724. The judgment also includes a permanent injunction that orders NetMass to cease the company’s infringement of the three patents in the future.
Christopher D. Banys, who leads The Lanier Law Firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group, represented Prust along with firm founder Mark Lanier and firm attorney Hogene Choi. Attorneys from the Tyler, Texas, law firm of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley served as local counsel for Prust.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: ag-ip-news.com
By: ag-IP-news
According to a press release by Lanier, the judgment signed Nov. 19, 2009, by Judge T. John Ward in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that McKinney, Texas-based NetMass Inc. infringed three different online storage and computing patents owned by Prust, including US Patent No. 6,714,968; No. 6,735,623; and No. 6,952,724. The judgment also includes a permanent injunction that orders NetMass to cease the company’s infringement of the three patents in the future.
Christopher D. Banys, who leads The Lanier Law Firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group, represented Prust along with firm founder Mark Lanier and firm attorney Hogene Choi. Attorneys from the Tyler, Texas, law firm of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley served as local counsel for Prust.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: ag-ip-news.com
By: ag-IP-news
Friday, November 20, 2009
COFEE Break Turns Messy
A common challenge of cybercrime investigations is the need to conduct forensic analysis on a computer before it is powered down and restarted. As some active system processes and network data are volatile and may be lost after the computer is turning off, investigators were in search of a tool that could assist them in the very limited space of time they may have to investigate a crime. It is for this reason, that in October, Microsoft and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) announced an agreement establishing NW3C as the first U.S.-based distributor of the Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor (COFEE).
Recently there seems to be a leak of the software onto the Internet. On Tuesday November 10, someone using the pseudonym DrWeird of Eti.in posted the documentation and a working build from Version 1.1.2 online.
Here are some details I collected from one of the posted manuals.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: trustedsource.org
By: McAfee Research Blog
Recently there seems to be a leak of the software onto the Internet. On Tuesday November 10, someone using the pseudonym DrWeird of Eti.in posted the documentation and a working build from Version 1.1.2 online.
Here are some details I collected from one of the posted manuals.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: trustedsource.org
By: McAfee Research Blog
The ESIs of Texas
My home state of Texas was the first to enact a discovery rule dealing with electronically stored information. Years before the federal rules amendments, and in four simple sentences, Rule 196.4 addressed a litigant's right to discover ESI, the scope of e-discovery, forms of production and cost shifting. The rule was either so completely successful or so utterly ignored that it wasn't cited in a published decision for nearly a decade.
So, when the Texas Supreme Court — the state's highest tribunal — issued its first e-discovery opinion, I listened to oral arguments. In re: Weekley Homes, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1231 (2009), concerned a litigant's right to directly access an opponent's storage media. The plaintiff wanted to run 21 search terms against the hard drives of four of defendant's employees in an effort to find deleted e-mails from 2004. I eagerly anticipated insightful arguments by advocates who grasped the important technical and legal issues afoot, but what I heard would make a hearse horse snicker. Judge for yourself by listening to the arguments at http://tinyurl.com/weekleyhomes.
Fortunately for Texans and all e-discovery practitioners inspired by well-reasoned opinions, the lawyers' confusion didn't infect the Court's decision. The Weekley Homes standards that emerged from the Court's remand serve as a sensible guide to those seeking to compel an opponent to recover and produce deleted e-mail, to wit:
1.) Parties seeking production of deleted e-mails should specifically request them and specify a form of production.
2.) Responding parties must produce reasonably available information in the format sought. They must object if the information is not reasonably available or if they oppose the requested format.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Craig Ball
So, when the Texas Supreme Court — the state's highest tribunal — issued its first e-discovery opinion, I listened to oral arguments. In re: Weekley Homes, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1231 (2009), concerned a litigant's right to directly access an opponent's storage media. The plaintiff wanted to run 21 search terms against the hard drives of four of defendant's employees in an effort to find deleted e-mails from 2004. I eagerly anticipated insightful arguments by advocates who grasped the important technical and legal issues afoot, but what I heard would make a hearse horse snicker. Judge for yourself by listening to the arguments at http://tinyurl.com/weekleyhomes.
Fortunately for Texans and all e-discovery practitioners inspired by well-reasoned opinions, the lawyers' confusion didn't infect the Court's decision. The Weekley Homes standards that emerged from the Court's remand serve as a sensible guide to those seeking to compel an opponent to recover and produce deleted e-mail, to wit:
1.) Parties seeking production of deleted e-mails should specifically request them and specify a form of production.
2.) Responding parties must produce reasonably available information in the format sought. They must object if the information is not reasonably available or if they oppose the requested format.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Craig Ball
Digital Voicemail in E-Discovery -- or Dealing with Cerberus, the Three-Headed Dog from Hell
You have one new voice message. First message: Monday, 4:45pm --
I must have just missed you, Vice President Joe.
It's Mike van Dyke, your CEO.
Remember that complicated widget invention --
Our best-seller you copied from the Widget Convention?
The one in your job interview that you mentioned,
And stole from your last boss for withholding your pension?
Well, they've sued us for patent infringement and such,
And theft of trade secrets -- it's really too much.
So I need you to shred all the documentation:
The tech drawings you stole; design specifications.
And that memo you wrote, before everything,
Saying that they had a patent, worth copying.
And yes, it goes without saying, too, Joe --
Please immediately delete this voicemail also.
End of new messages.
A lawyer who finds a copy of this voicemail buried in the other side's electronic document production will immediately splurge on champagne and party hats. And who can blame him? But here's the question: would this message be captured in the net of responsive material, or would it slip through the cracks? The answer may depend less on the skill of document retrieval experts, and more on how your company (or client's) voicemail system works.
It's old news that voicemail systems have graduated from analog to digital. Now, while the self-contained answering machine is still around, the digital era has also ushered in various types of integrated systems. The most complex, like the famed mythological dog Cerberus guarding the gates of Hell to prevent the dead who cross the river Styx from escaping, have three heads: the company telephone system, e-mail system, and computer system. And while a message on a self-contained machine can be difficult for a company -- let's call it Hades, Inc. -- to track and easy for an individual employee to get rid of, life with Cerberus is akin to life in the underworld: there is no escape, and nowhere to hide.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: ediscovery.quarles.com
By: Wendy Akbar
I must have just missed you, Vice President Joe.
It's Mike van Dyke, your CEO.
Remember that complicated widget invention --
Our best-seller you copied from the Widget Convention?
The one in your job interview that you mentioned,
And stole from your last boss for withholding your pension?
Well, they've sued us for patent infringement and such,
And theft of trade secrets -- it's really too much.
So I need you to shred all the documentation:
The tech drawings you stole; design specifications.
And that memo you wrote, before everything,
Saying that they had a patent, worth copying.
And yes, it goes without saying, too, Joe --
Please immediately delete this voicemail also.
End of new messages.
A lawyer who finds a copy of this voicemail buried in the other side's electronic document production will immediately splurge on champagne and party hats. And who can blame him? But here's the question: would this message be captured in the net of responsive material, or would it slip through the cracks? The answer may depend less on the skill of document retrieval experts, and more on how your company (or client's) voicemail system works.
It's old news that voicemail systems have graduated from analog to digital. Now, while the self-contained answering machine is still around, the digital era has also ushered in various types of integrated systems. The most complex, like the famed mythological dog Cerberus guarding the gates of Hell to prevent the dead who cross the river Styx from escaping, have three heads: the company telephone system, e-mail system, and computer system. And while a message on a self-contained machine can be difficult for a company -- let's call it Hades, Inc. -- to track and easy for an individual employee to get rid of, life with Cerberus is akin to life in the underworld: there is no escape, and nowhere to hide.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: ediscovery.quarles.com
By: Wendy Akbar
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Key Ruling in BofA Securities Class Action Gives Plaintiffs Access to Treasure Trove of Documents
Let's hope the plaintiffs lawyers in the Bank of America securities class action suit have some big wheelbarrows, or at least terabytes of computer hard drive space. On Tuesday, in a huge win for shareholders, Manhattan federal district court Judge Denny Chin took the unusual step of lifting the statutory discovery stay in the securities fraud case. His order will give the plaintiffs access to the mountains of documents that BofA and related defendants have already turned over to Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York attorney general and other government entities scrutinizing BofA's acquisition of Merrill Lynch. In addition, lawyers for the shareholders will be able to use transcripts of depositions taken by other investigators.
They will also probably get access to communications between BofA and its lawyers that the bank turned over to various government agencies after it waived the attorney-client privilege in October. Chin's ruling does not carve out an exception for privileged materials. The protective order issued by Manhattan federal district court Judge Jed Rakoff in the SEC's case against Bank of America states that BofA is not deemed to be waiving its privilege "regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits." That language can be construed to mean that BofA can still claim privilege over materials government investigators didn't ask for -- not necessarily that plaintiffs in private lawsuits can't have access to the documents the bank did turn over.
The class action plaintiffs asked Judge Chin to lift the discovery stay automatically imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in an Oct. 6 letter to Chin. The three-page letter -- signed by co-lead counsel from Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check -- argues that the discovery stay, which typically remains in place until after motions to dismiss have been decided -- placed the class at a disadvantage compared to others investigating BofA's merger with Merrill.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Susan Beck
They will also probably get access to communications between BofA and its lawyers that the bank turned over to various government agencies after it waived the attorney-client privilege in October. Chin's ruling does not carve out an exception for privileged materials. The protective order issued by Manhattan federal district court Judge Jed Rakoff in the SEC's case against Bank of America states that BofA is not deemed to be waiving its privilege "regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits." That language can be construed to mean that BofA can still claim privilege over materials government investigators didn't ask for -- not necessarily that plaintiffs in private lawsuits can't have access to the documents the bank did turn over.
The class action plaintiffs asked Judge Chin to lift the discovery stay automatically imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in an Oct. 6 letter to Chin. The three-page letter -- signed by co-lead counsel from Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check -- argues that the discovery stay, which typically remains in place until after motions to dismiss have been decided -- placed the class at a disadvantage compared to others investigating BofA's merger with Merrill.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Susan Beck
FCC to review regulatory and legal impacts to cloud services and identity management
The FCC is embarking on a review of several innovations that have now gained critical mass, among them, cloud computing, identity management, government data transparency. Cloud computing means so many different things to different groups so the FCC has clarified what areas it will review and raises the question of the definition as part of its review;
a. The National Institute of Standards and Technology defines cloud computing as “a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.” Does this definition accurately capture the concept of cloud computing?
b. What types of cloud computing exist (e.g., public, hybrid, and internal) and what are the legal and regulatory implications of their use?
Cloud computing for many is a simple form of outsourcing tasks, applications and services driven by economics and ICT management costs. There is after all nothing magical about cloud computing compared to say Grid computing.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: government.zdnet.com
By: Doug Hanchard
a. The National Institute of Standards and Technology defines cloud computing as “a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.” Does this definition accurately capture the concept of cloud computing?
b. What types of cloud computing exist (e.g., public, hybrid, and internal) and what are the legal and regulatory implications of their use?
Cloud computing for many is a simple form of outsourcing tasks, applications and services driven by economics and ICT management costs. There is after all nothing magical about cloud computing compared to say Grid computing.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: government.zdnet.com
By: Doug Hanchard
Did E-Mails Factor in Harassment Verdict?
The recent verdict in Seybert v. International Group Inc., a sexual harassment and retaliation case, was swift and simple. The jury foreman just said "no" three times.
No, the foreman said, plaintiff Susan Seybert was not harassed by her supervisor, Brett Marchand, "because of" her sex. No, Marchand did not retaliate against Seybert because of her complaints to management. And no, IGI did not terminate Seybert to punish her for complaining.
After the verdict, lawyers on both sides were hoping to chat with the eight-member jury about their reasons for rejecting Seybert's claims. But the jury seemed to be unanimous on another point -- they didn't feel like talking about it.
Likewise, several jurors declined to be interviewed when contacted by The Legal Intelligencer, and several others didn't respond to messages seeking interviews.
As a result, it's impossible to say whether the jury of four men and four women was swayed by some of the more controversial evidence in the case -- a cache of sexually explicit, humorous e-mails found on Seybert's workplace computer -- or were simply unimpressed with the evidence she mustered to back up her claims.
IGI's lawyer, William T. Wilson of MacElree Harvey in West Chester, Pa., said he always tries to chat with jurors after a trial. "You probably learn more from the ones you lose than the ones you win, but I always try to do that," Wilson said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Shannon P. Duffy
No, the foreman said, plaintiff Susan Seybert was not harassed by her supervisor, Brett Marchand, "because of" her sex. No, Marchand did not retaliate against Seybert because of her complaints to management. And no, IGI did not terminate Seybert to punish her for complaining.
After the verdict, lawyers on both sides were hoping to chat with the eight-member jury about their reasons for rejecting Seybert's claims. But the jury seemed to be unanimous on another point -- they didn't feel like talking about it.
Likewise, several jurors declined to be interviewed when contacted by The Legal Intelligencer, and several others didn't respond to messages seeking interviews.
As a result, it's impossible to say whether the jury of four men and four women was swayed by some of the more controversial evidence in the case -- a cache of sexually explicit, humorous e-mails found on Seybert's workplace computer -- or were simply unimpressed with the evidence she mustered to back up her claims.
IGI's lawyer, William T. Wilson of MacElree Harvey in West Chester, Pa., said he always tries to chat with jurors after a trial. "You probably learn more from the ones you lose than the ones you win, but I always try to do that," Wilson said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Shannon P. Duffy
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
10 common backup mistakes
All of us in IT have been taught from Day One that performing regular backups is critical to an organization’s well being. Yet even seasoned pros sometimes make certain mistakes. Here are a few of the common mistakes I’ve encountered.
Note: This article is also available as a PDF download.
1: Not making system state backups often enough
In Windows environments, system state backups have a shelf life. For domain controllers, the shelf life is equal to the maximum tombstone age (60 days by default). After that, the backup becomes null and void. Even for non domain controllers, the age of the backup is an issue.
Each computer on a Windows network has a corresponding computer account in the Active Directory. Like a user account, the computer account has an associated password. The difference is that the password is assigned, and periodically changed, by Windows. If you try to restore a system state backup that is too old, the computer account password that is stored in the backup will no longer match the password that is bound to the computer account in the Active Directory, so the machine won’t be able to participate in the domain. There are workarounds, but it is usually easier to just make frequent system state backups of your servers.
2: Failing to adequately test backups
We all know that we should test our backups once in a while, but testing often seems to be one of those tasks that either falls by the wayside or that isn’t done thoroughly. Remember that making the backup is only the first step -if you can’t restore from them, you’re dead in the water. You need to ensure that those backups will work if and when you need them.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: blogs.techrepublic.com
By: Brien Posey
Note: This article is also available as a PDF download.
1: Not making system state backups often enough
In Windows environments, system state backups have a shelf life. For domain controllers, the shelf life is equal to the maximum tombstone age (60 days by default). After that, the backup becomes null and void. Even for non domain controllers, the age of the backup is an issue.
Each computer on a Windows network has a corresponding computer account in the Active Directory. Like a user account, the computer account has an associated password. The difference is that the password is assigned, and periodically changed, by Windows. If you try to restore a system state backup that is too old, the computer account password that is stored in the backup will no longer match the password that is bound to the computer account in the Active Directory, so the machine won’t be able to participate in the domain. There are workarounds, but it is usually easier to just make frequent system state backups of your servers.
2: Failing to adequately test backups
We all know that we should test our backups once in a while, but testing often seems to be one of those tasks that either falls by the wayside or that isn’t done thoroughly. Remember that making the backup is only the first step -if you can’t restore from them, you’re dead in the water. You need to ensure that those backups will work if and when you need them.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: blogs.techrepublic.com
By: Brien Posey
Keeping a Secret Across Jurisdictions
Beware the differing privilege regimes in the global environment
Few potential exports are more controversial in the global marketplace than aspects of a country's legal system, and in few instances are the effects of a product's acceptance or rejection more profoundly felt.
In the context of antitrust litigation, cross-border privilege questions and document seizures (often in the form of "dawn raids") in international cartel cases are familiar problems. These issues also received some measure of broader attention two years ago when the European Union Court of First Instance issued its decision in the Akzo Nobel matter,[FOOTNOTE 1] now on appeal to the European Court of Justice, discussed below.
However, as "globalization" of claims becomes more prevalent both substantively and procedurally, with major U.S. plaintiffs' firms simultaneously testing the jurisdictional bounds of U.S. courts and also opening offices overseas, risks of disclosure are amplified for communications that American lawyers may have long taken for granted as protected. Prudent counsel should safeguard such communications proactively when representing any client with footprints in more than one foreign jurisdiction, including through the use of some practical, even obvious, measures that are too frequently overlooked and therefore merit reminders here.
THE AMERICAN PRIVILEGE DOCTRINES
As a brief threshold matter, it is worth taking stock of the special places that privilege doctrines inhabit in American jurisprudence.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Scott Martin
Few potential exports are more controversial in the global marketplace than aspects of a country's legal system, and in few instances are the effects of a product's acceptance or rejection more profoundly felt.
In the context of antitrust litigation, cross-border privilege questions and document seizures (often in the form of "dawn raids") in international cartel cases are familiar problems. These issues also received some measure of broader attention two years ago when the European Union Court of First Instance issued its decision in the Akzo Nobel matter,[FOOTNOTE 1] now on appeal to the European Court of Justice, discussed below.
However, as "globalization" of claims becomes more prevalent both substantively and procedurally, with major U.S. plaintiffs' firms simultaneously testing the jurisdictional bounds of U.S. courts and also opening offices overseas, risks of disclosure are amplified for communications that American lawyers may have long taken for granted as protected. Prudent counsel should safeguard such communications proactively when representing any client with footprints in more than one foreign jurisdiction, including through the use of some practical, even obvious, measures that are too frequently overlooked and therefore merit reminders here.
THE AMERICAN PRIVILEGE DOCTRINES
As a brief threshold matter, it is worth taking stock of the special places that privilege doctrines inhabit in American jurisprudence.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Scott Martin
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Do We Still Need E-mail?
The issue of e-mail management is now old hat for anyone involved in the practice of law. Rather than asking whether lawyers use it, it is a story when lawyers choose not to use it. The world has grown more complicated, though, as we try to figure out where to place our energy integrating new technologies, like Twitter or Google’s Wave, into our work. Even our choices about how to use e-mail have expanded.
E-mail often reminds me of books. It is a technology that, for all its faults, remains a tremendously useful way to share information. More importantly, there are strong tools to control how we interact with it. Whether or not you are one of the 85% of lawyers using Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express, according to the 2009 American Bar Association Legal Technology Survey Report, you should be able to exert a lot of control over your e-mail.
Filtering, spam control, and junk mail blocking are all within your e-mail toolkit.
Even Web-based e-mail is providing a home to large numbers of lawyer messages. The third most popular product mentioned in the ABA survey was “Web-based e-mail”, like Google Mail, Yahoo! Mail, and Microsoft Live, formerly known as Hotmail. According to a March 2009 Experian Hitwise report, Yahoo! Mail accounts for over half of all Web-based e-mail visits in the U.S, with Google Mail a distant third with about 10%.
So e-mail is our foundation. Do we need to even worry about microblogging tools like Twitter or collaboration technologies that quack like e-mail but aren’t, like Google Wave?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: SLaw
By: David Whelan
E-mail often reminds me of books. It is a technology that, for all its faults, remains a tremendously useful way to share information. More importantly, there are strong tools to control how we interact with it. Whether or not you are one of the 85% of lawyers using Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express, according to the 2009 American Bar Association Legal Technology Survey Report, you should be able to exert a lot of control over your e-mail.
Filtering, spam control, and junk mail blocking are all within your e-mail toolkit.
Even Web-based e-mail is providing a home to large numbers of lawyer messages. The third most popular product mentioned in the ABA survey was “Web-based e-mail”, like Google Mail, Yahoo! Mail, and Microsoft Live, formerly known as Hotmail. According to a March 2009 Experian Hitwise report, Yahoo! Mail accounts for over half of all Web-based e-mail visits in the U.S, with Google Mail a distant third with about 10%.
So e-mail is our foundation. Do we need to even worry about microblogging tools like Twitter or collaboration technologies that quack like e-mail but aren’t, like Google Wave?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: SLaw
By: David Whelan
Skype for Business sounds the all-clear on legal pitfalls
Businesses that were scared of saving money by using Skype because lawsuits might take away its essential VoIP technology may not have to worry anymore.
Ownership of the company will shift from eBay to include others, but the company will finally own rights to essential code, meaning it won't fall victim to having that code stripped away by a
judge and stranding customers.
That lifts the main barrier to business use of the VoIP service that has expanded over the years from a peer-to-peer phone application to include services specially crafted for corporate use. "I would be a lot more interested in Skype than I was a week ago," says Irwin Lazar, an analyst with Nemertes Research.
Just last month, in the midst of litigation that has since been settled, he was advising businesses to stay away, but now it's safe to try to reap the cost savings Skype can afford, he says.
Any of Skype's 521 million users can call Skype-enabled businesses and customers for free, helping to control costs for contact centers or remote corporate employees. Corporate 800-number bills can drop if Skype customers use a corporation's Skype rather than commercial toll-free number. The service can also complete calls to non-Skype numbers using the Internet as a long-distance backbone and then dropping calls off at local public phone exchanges for completion.
Businesses can buy Skype minutes to make outbound calls from phones attached to call servers certified to work with Skype's implementation of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Via a service called Skype for SIP, calls are carried between callers' local Skype points of presence to Skype POPs close to the called parties, eliminating long-distance charges.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-----------------------------------------------
Source: Network World
By: Tim Greene
Ownership of the company will shift from eBay to include others, but the company will finally own rights to essential code, meaning it won't fall victim to having that code stripped away by a
judge and stranding customers.
That lifts the main barrier to business use of the VoIP service that has expanded over the years from a peer-to-peer phone application to include services specially crafted for corporate use. "I would be a lot more interested in Skype than I was a week ago," says Irwin Lazar, an analyst with Nemertes Research.
Just last month, in the midst of litigation that has since been settled, he was advising businesses to stay away, but now it's safe to try to reap the cost savings Skype can afford, he says.
Any of Skype's 521 million users can call Skype-enabled businesses and customers for free, helping to control costs for contact centers or remote corporate employees. Corporate 800-number bills can drop if Skype customers use a corporation's Skype rather than commercial toll-free number. The service can also complete calls to non-Skype numbers using the Internet as a long-distance backbone and then dropping calls off at local public phone exchanges for completion.
Businesses can buy Skype minutes to make outbound calls from phones attached to call servers certified to work with Skype's implementation of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Via a service called Skype for SIP, calls are carried between callers' local Skype points of presence to Skype POPs close to the called parties, eliminating long-distance charges.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-----------------------------------------------
Source: Network World
By: Tim Greene
Monday, November 16, 2009
‘Need to globalise legal services in India’
THE economic downturn has compelled organisations to focus on cost reduction in research and analytical work, which is typically the background process for investment banks and law firms. As a result, companies have begun to outsource higher volumes, says Matthew Banks, Senior VP – Legal Services, Integreon in an interview with Sunitha Natti of TNIE. Excerpts:
What are the emerging trends in the KPO/LPO industry?
With increased pressure to cut costs, organisations like investment banks, law firms, consulting firms and large corporates are strategically looking at outsourcing complex work. While most of the KPO/LPO players are captive, there is a clear shift towards third-party outsourcing but not all would be able to leverage the opportunity as large players have the ability to scale up to offer global delivery, quality services and step up productivity. We see a huge opportunity and there has been a steady increase in the deal size and the average contract period.
How big is the marked for LPO services in India and aboard?
According to estimates, the US corporate law departments would spend about three per cent of their budget on legal outsourcing. This translates the LPO spending in 2013 at about $2 billion. The offshore legal services industry is currently estimated at approximately $300 million and is expected to reach $600-700 million by 2011. Similarly, e-Discovery, which is one of the legal services, is expected to be about $5 billion by 2011.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: expressbuzz.com
What are the emerging trends in the KPO/LPO industry?
With increased pressure to cut costs, organisations like investment banks, law firms, consulting firms and large corporates are strategically looking at outsourcing complex work. While most of the KPO/LPO players are captive, there is a clear shift towards third-party outsourcing but not all would be able to leverage the opportunity as large players have the ability to scale up to offer global delivery, quality services and step up productivity. We see a huge opportunity and there has been a steady increase in the deal size and the average contract period.
How big is the marked for LPO services in India and aboard?
According to estimates, the US corporate law departments would spend about three per cent of their budget on legal outsourcing. This translates the LPO spending in 2013 at about $2 billion. The offshore legal services industry is currently estimated at approximately $300 million and is expected to reach $600-700 million by 2011. Similarly, e-Discovery, which is one of the legal services, is expected to be about $5 billion by 2011.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: expressbuzz.com
Survey Finds 73 Percent of Enterprises Plan to Bring E-Discovery In-House in Response to Rise in E-Discovery Requests
Clearwell Systems, Inc., a leader in intelligent e-discovery, today announced findings from a survey conducted in partnership with analyst firm Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG). The survey, titled "Trends in Electronic Discovery: A Market Perspective" quantifies both the rise in e-discovery and litigation over the past year. Additionally, the survey findings reinforce the need for increased enterprise readiness to manage the expected growth in volume of cases in 2010.
It has been three years since the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended with provisions centered on discovery and management of electronically stored information (ESI). In the same timeframe, the macroeconomic climate went from explosive growth to recession, forcing organizations to cut costs as quickly as possible. As companies continue to operate in cost containment or reduction mode, they are changing the way they conduct e-discovery, moving away from a primarily outsourced approach to bringing core elements of e-discovery in-house. The intersection of these two industry trends led ESG and Clearwell to survey over 100 Fortune 2000 enterprises and government agencies.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: earthtimes.org
It has been three years since the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended with provisions centered on discovery and management of electronically stored information (ESI). In the same timeframe, the macroeconomic climate went from explosive growth to recession, forcing organizations to cut costs as quickly as possible. As companies continue to operate in cost containment or reduction mode, they are changing the way they conduct e-discovery, moving away from a primarily outsourced approach to bringing core elements of e-discovery in-house. The intersection of these two industry trends led ESG and Clearwell to survey over 100 Fortune 2000 enterprises and government agencies.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: earthtimes.org
Will Google Docs Replace Word? Perhaps, but Not Today.
Google is predicting that its online office suite, Google Docs, will soon give people the option to “get rid of” Microsoft Office. With Google Docs in a less than robust state, that pronouncement sounds more like vendor bravado than prophecy.
Google’s entire premise is based on vaporware: It is promising to update Google Docs within the next year so that it will meet “the vast majority’s needs,” Dave Girouard, president of Google’s enterprise division told ZDNet Asia in an interview published on Friday.
Google is planning “thirty to fifty” updates that will make Docs more capable and on par with Google Mail and Calendar, Girouard said. He believes that businesses do not use Google Docs because it has not reached the same level of maturity as those products.
If Microsoft made a similar pronouncement, it would have been immediately dismissed as peddling vaporware. Even if Google gets it right, there is no guarantee that enterprises will make the switch for a multitude of reasons.
I believe that Girouard is overreaching with his marketing message. Organizations have standardized on Word, and have processes built around it. Switching would require training, and replacing software that is built around it.
Issues such as electronic discovery and staying compliant with privacy laws also come to mind. Who will own the data, and where will it reside? Will developers be content with the APIs that Google provides, and will they extend its functionality to be more business-friendly? Microsoft is years ahead building out the Office ecosystem.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: technologizer.com
By: David Worthington
Google’s entire premise is based on vaporware: It is promising to update Google Docs within the next year so that it will meet “the vast majority’s needs,” Dave Girouard, president of Google’s enterprise division told ZDNet Asia in an interview published on Friday.
Google is planning “thirty to fifty” updates that will make Docs more capable and on par with Google Mail and Calendar, Girouard said. He believes that businesses do not use Google Docs because it has not reached the same level of maturity as those products.
If Microsoft made a similar pronouncement, it would have been immediately dismissed as peddling vaporware. Even if Google gets it right, there is no guarantee that enterprises will make the switch for a multitude of reasons.
I believe that Girouard is overreaching with his marketing message. Organizations have standardized on Word, and have processes built around it. Switching would require training, and replacing software that is built around it.
Issues such as electronic discovery and staying compliant with privacy laws also come to mind. Who will own the data, and where will it reside? Will developers be content with the APIs that Google provides, and will they extend its functionality to be more business-friendly? Microsoft is years ahead building out the Office ecosystem.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: technologizer.com
By: David Worthington
Digital Forensics Magazine out now in print!
The new online magazine called Digital Forensics Magazine recently launched to fill the gap between the academic journal and the news-based web sites has just been made available in print due to popular demand
There's a new source of valuable information available for the IT security specialist and for those who are involved in the growing field of digital forensics. A new magazine called Digital Forensics Magazine has been launched in print, as well as online, and it aims to fill the gap between the academic journal and the news-based web sites that were previously the only resources available to the digital forensics specialist.
Driven by popular demand, the on-line version of the magazine is now available in print and the costs just £60 for a years subscription. Subscribers will also receive a monthly email newsletter to supplement the quarterly magazine between issues, keeping them abreast of the latest news of what is happening in the IT security sector.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: pr-inside.com
There's a new source of valuable information available for the IT security specialist and for those who are involved in the growing field of digital forensics. A new magazine called Digital Forensics Magazine has been launched in print, as well as online, and it aims to fill the gap between the academic journal and the news-based web sites that were previously the only resources available to the digital forensics specialist.
Driven by popular demand, the on-line version of the magazine is now available in print and the costs just £60 for a years subscription. Subscribers will also receive a monthly email newsletter to supplement the quarterly magazine between issues, keeping them abreast of the latest news of what is happening in the IT security sector.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: pr-inside.com
Two Roads Diverge in Managing E-Discovery Costs
The costs of civil discovery in the computer age appear to be prompting divergent responses by the federal and New York state courts. These differences, which are still evolving, could have significant implications for litigants and lawmakers.
Litigants with a choice of forum should consider these differences in selecting which court system best suits their objectives. And lawmakers should monitor these differences to assess what rules best reconcile the often competing goals of ready access to the civil justice system, full development of the facts relevant to the case, and the efficient, cost-effective resolution of the parties' dispute.
The costs of electronic discovery are well-known and have received ample coverage throughout this decade, in this publication and others.1 The source of these costs is society's increasing reliance on the electronic creation, transmission and retention of information, especially in the corporate context. Because information is so easily created, kept and copied, the volume that is available and potentially relevant to a dispute had ballooned geometrically.
While these costs can be somewhat controlled by the creative use of technology and counsel's use of sound management principles in managing a document review, there are limits. The application of classic liberal discovery principles can still require the production of hundreds of thousands or even millions of "documents," where in the past the same case would have involved discovery into a small fraction of that number.
Retaining and collecting this information is by itself extraordinarily expensive, even when the most efficient methods are employed. And on top of those costs, attorneys still must review the collected material for responsiveness and privilege, which can be prohibitively expensive for even a middle-sized case that is well managed. These costs can be so large that they have recently been blamed for tamping down the usual increase in litigation that accompanies an economic recession.2
These increased costs have fundamentally changed the cost-benefit calculus that had informed many of the rules of procedure applicable in civil cases. Lawmakers accordingly have responded by seeking to recalibrate the rules to reflect the new reality.
In the federal system, there have been changes in the rules of discovery and evidence that apply once a case is past the threshold pleading stage, as well as recent changes by the U.S. Supreme Court in the standards that apply even to the commencement of a potentially burdensome action. And in the New York state system, there has been increasing attention to the application of existing discovery rules in the electronic context.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: New York Law Journal
By: Robert Trenchard
Litigants with a choice of forum should consider these differences in selecting which court system best suits their objectives. And lawmakers should monitor these differences to assess what rules best reconcile the often competing goals of ready access to the civil justice system, full development of the facts relevant to the case, and the efficient, cost-effective resolution of the parties' dispute.
The costs of electronic discovery are well-known and have received ample coverage throughout this decade, in this publication and others.1 The source of these costs is society's increasing reliance on the electronic creation, transmission and retention of information, especially in the corporate context. Because information is so easily created, kept and copied, the volume that is available and potentially relevant to a dispute had ballooned geometrically.
While these costs can be somewhat controlled by the creative use of technology and counsel's use of sound management principles in managing a document review, there are limits. The application of classic liberal discovery principles can still require the production of hundreds of thousands or even millions of "documents," where in the past the same case would have involved discovery into a small fraction of that number.
Retaining and collecting this information is by itself extraordinarily expensive, even when the most efficient methods are employed. And on top of those costs, attorneys still must review the collected material for responsiveness and privilege, which can be prohibitively expensive for even a middle-sized case that is well managed. These costs can be so large that they have recently been blamed for tamping down the usual increase in litigation that accompanies an economic recession.2
These increased costs have fundamentally changed the cost-benefit calculus that had informed many of the rules of procedure applicable in civil cases. Lawmakers accordingly have responded by seeking to recalibrate the rules to reflect the new reality.
In the federal system, there have been changes in the rules of discovery and evidence that apply once a case is past the threshold pleading stage, as well as recent changes by the U.S. Supreme Court in the standards that apply even to the commencement of a potentially burdensome action. And in the New York state system, there has been increasing attention to the application of existing discovery rules in the electronic context.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: New York Law Journal
By: Robert Trenchard
Friday, November 13, 2009
Madoff Computer Aides Arrested for Ponzi Scheme Role
Two computer programmers who worked in the Manhattan offices where Bernard Madoff masterminded a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme were arrested by federal agents for their role in concealing the fraud for more than 15 years.
Jerome O’Hara and George Perez, who worked on the 17th-floor of the midtown building where Madoff’s investment business was run, helped construct the “house of cards” that enabled him to defraud investors over decades, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said today in a statement.
“The computer codes and random algorithms they allegedly designed served to deceive investors and regulators and concealed Madoff’s crimes,” Bharara said.
O’Hara, 46, and Perez, 43, are to appear in Manhattan federal court today to face charges including conspiracy and falsifying documents. Prosecutors said they found handwritten notes in O’Hara’s desk from 2006 stating, “I won’t lie any longer. Next time I say, ‘Ask Frank,’” a reference to Madoff lieutenant Frank DiPascali. Madoff directed DiPascali to pay the men bonuses of $60,000 each along with a 25 percent salary increase as hush money, prosecutors said in court papers.
The two programmers, who joined Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in the early 1990s, are the fourth and fifth individuals to be arrested in the largest U.S. Ponzi scheme ever. Investors were told they had $65 billion before Madoff confessed he was using funds from new investors to pay off earlier ones.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: bloomberg.com
By: David Glovin and David Scheer
Jerome O’Hara and George Perez, who worked on the 17th-floor of the midtown building where Madoff’s investment business was run, helped construct the “house of cards” that enabled him to defraud investors over decades, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said today in a statement.
“The computer codes and random algorithms they allegedly designed served to deceive investors and regulators and concealed Madoff’s crimes,” Bharara said.
O’Hara, 46, and Perez, 43, are to appear in Manhattan federal court today to face charges including conspiracy and falsifying documents. Prosecutors said they found handwritten notes in O’Hara’s desk from 2006 stating, “I won’t lie any longer. Next time I say, ‘Ask Frank,’” a reference to Madoff lieutenant Frank DiPascali. Madoff directed DiPascali to pay the men bonuses of $60,000 each along with a 25 percent salary increase as hush money, prosecutors said in court papers.
The two programmers, who joined Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in the early 1990s, are the fourth and fifth individuals to be arrested in the largest U.S. Ponzi scheme ever. Investors were told they had $65 billion before Madoff confessed he was using funds from new investors to pay off earlier ones.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: bloomberg.com
By: David Glovin and David Scheer
Insider trading: Nowhere to hide anymore using phones or e-mail
In the age of e-discovery, it’s been drilled into business executives’ heads that you shouldn’t put anything in an e-mail that you don’t want to see on Page 1. Now, in light of developments in the Galleon Group insider trading case, the next edict might be to avoid feeding the headlines with something you say on the phone.
The case marks the first time the federal government has used wiretaps in an insider trading case.
“There may be other times where it was used, but the case never came to light so we don’t know about it,” said former Assistant U.S. Attorney Eugene Illovsky.
Illovsky, now a partner in Morrison & Foerster LLP’s Palo Alto office, represents clients managing crises and those interacting with government investigatory, enforcement and prosecutorial authorities.
“The use of wiretaps in this case certainly signals on behalf of the Department of Justice a more aggressive approach to attracting securities fraud violations,” Illovsky said.
Another attorney, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said it’s uncommon to have wiretap evidence in securities fraud investigations because regulators typically only become aware of potential insider trading after the fact.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: sanjose.bizjournals.com
By: William-Arthur Haynes
The case marks the first time the federal government has used wiretaps in an insider trading case.
“There may be other times where it was used, but the case never came to light so we don’t know about it,” said former Assistant U.S. Attorney Eugene Illovsky.
Illovsky, now a partner in Morrison & Foerster LLP’s Palo Alto office, represents clients managing crises and those interacting with government investigatory, enforcement and prosecutorial authorities.
“The use of wiretaps in this case certainly signals on behalf of the Department of Justice a more aggressive approach to attracting securities fraud violations,” Illovsky said.
Another attorney, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said it’s uncommon to have wiretap evidence in securities fraud investigations because regulators typically only become aware of potential insider trading after the fact.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: sanjose.bizjournals.com
By: William-Arthur Haynes
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Social Networking and the New Workplace
You are on the phone with a colleague and suddenly you feel as though you are speaking to yourself. You hear in the background the clicking of a computer keyboard, and you realize that you've lost the other person's attention. They are surfing the Internet or, more likely, checking their Facebook or Twitter account.
Your associate brings to your attention the Facebook page of a plaintiff or a claimant in a sexual harassment claim which includes revealing pictures of the claimant.
Your own Facebook page identifies people you may know whom you may wish to "friend" -- and some of them are colleagues or associates in your law firm.
You are "friended" by an associate in your law firm, or an adversary, or another person with whom you have a professional relationship.
Your client informs you of a Twitter post in which an employee has made comments criticizing the company's promotion and pay practices, suggesting they may be discriminatory.
Your client's director of human resources has posted anti-gay comments on his MySpace page.
The above list of events is but a small sampling of the kinds of day-to-day issues that face employment lawyers -- and all of us. Dalton Conley, a sociologist and acting dean for social sciences at New York University, says that the BlackBerry is a symbol of always being beckoned somewhere else. In comes an e-mail from a colleague, a client, each asking for a little piece of our attention, which, if granted, only begets more demands on our time. We're pulled by work when we're at home and by home when we're at work, torn by the multiple things we could be getting done.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Philip Berkowitz
Your associate brings to your attention the Facebook page of a plaintiff or a claimant in a sexual harassment claim which includes revealing pictures of the claimant.
Your own Facebook page identifies people you may know whom you may wish to "friend" -- and some of them are colleagues or associates in your law firm.
You are "friended" by an associate in your law firm, or an adversary, or another person with whom you have a professional relationship.
Your client informs you of a Twitter post in which an employee has made comments criticizing the company's promotion and pay practices, suggesting they may be discriminatory.
Your client's director of human resources has posted anti-gay comments on his MySpace page.
The above list of events is but a small sampling of the kinds of day-to-day issues that face employment lawyers -- and all of us. Dalton Conley, a sociologist and acting dean for social sciences at New York University, says that the BlackBerry is a symbol of always being beckoned somewhere else. In comes an e-mail from a colleague, a client, each asking for a little piece of our attention, which, if granted, only begets more demands on our time. We're pulled by work when we're at home and by home when we're at work, torn by the multiple things we could be getting done.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Philip Berkowitz
Five questions to ask before adopting cloud storage
Cloud data storage is becoming an increasingly appealing option for many IT infrastructures. However, because cloud storage is relatively new, most enterprise data storage managers are unsure of what questions to ask potential service providers to determine how storage clouds will impact their environment.
Let's examine five questions storage managers should ask when considering cloud data storage:
Is the application or end user able to tolerate low performance from the storage?
Because of the architecture of cloud storage, you can expect high latency on file or directory access requests. So if your next project is a SQL server database or a mail server for a large site, then cloud storage probably isn't the way to go.
But if you're implementing a file server for your remote sales force, then the access time of the cloud is probably consistent with the Wi-Fi or shared Internet connection they would be expecting to use. The cloud also provides access to the data from anywhere that has an Internet connection.
There's a user experience component to this as well: Are users expecting the performance of local storage? It's important to communicate upfront that moving data to the cloud may affect the user experience. If end users have local file servers or even centralized file servers in a data center accessible by a private WAN, accessing data from the cloud will most likely be slower.
This can be mitigated by providing multiple Internet connections or a higher level of network service for outbound storage requests.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: Search Storage
By: Ron Scruggs
Let's examine five questions storage managers should ask when considering cloud data storage:
Is the application or end user able to tolerate low performance from the storage?
Because of the architecture of cloud storage, you can expect high latency on file or directory access requests. So if your next project is a SQL server database or a mail server for a large site, then cloud storage probably isn't the way to go.
But if you're implementing a file server for your remote sales force, then the access time of the cloud is probably consistent with the Wi-Fi or shared Internet connection they would be expecting to use. The cloud also provides access to the data from anywhere that has an Internet connection.
There's a user experience component to this as well: Are users expecting the performance of local storage? It's important to communicate upfront that moving data to the cloud may affect the user experience. If end users have local file servers or even centralized file servers in a data center accessible by a private WAN, accessing data from the cloud will most likely be slower.
This can be mitigated by providing multiple Internet connections or a higher level of network service for outbound storage requests.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: Search Storage
By: Ron Scruggs
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
N.J. Justice Addresses E-Discovery Issues
It used to be that before a trial, attorneys would swap file folders full of documents about a case.
Both sides had to paw through pages of discovery to hone their case strategies.
Then came the digital age, and discovery got trickier.
These days, statements are videotaped. Computer drives are treasure troves of information waiting to be distilled. Evidence and police reports are routinely filed electronically. And there is no uniform way for lawyers to swap the data.
Now, the New Jersey Supreme Court has formed a committee to look at the practices agencies and lawyers around the state are using, and what can be done to make e-discovery cost-effective and accessible to all.
There is no doubt the digital age has reached the state's courtrooms, said Essex County Prosecutor Paula Dow.
"The question," she said, "is how to segue into it?"
Justice Virginia Long recently spoke about the issues at a meeting of the state bar's Criminal Law and Municipal Court Practice sections and Young Lawyers Division. Her remarks have been edited into the following form:
Q: What are the origins of the committee?
A: This topic was initially brought to the attention of the (court's) Criminal Practice Committee by the public defender, who noted that defense counsel are often unable to open or view discovery transmitted in an e-format. That is largely due to the various types of equipment and software used to record and distribute that discovery. The Criminal Practice Committee, in turn, proposed that the New Jersey Supreme Court form an interbranch committee to examine the many issues relating to the transmission of e-discovery. In January, the court did so.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
Both sides had to paw through pages of discovery to hone their case strategies.
Then came the digital age, and discovery got trickier.
These days, statements are videotaped. Computer drives are treasure troves of information waiting to be distilled. Evidence and police reports are routinely filed electronically. And there is no uniform way for lawyers to swap the data.
Now, the New Jersey Supreme Court has formed a committee to look at the practices agencies and lawyers around the state are using, and what can be done to make e-discovery cost-effective and accessible to all.
There is no doubt the digital age has reached the state's courtrooms, said Essex County Prosecutor Paula Dow.
"The question," she said, "is how to segue into it?"
Justice Virginia Long recently spoke about the issues at a meeting of the state bar's Criminal Law and Municipal Court Practice sections and Young Lawyers Division. Her remarks have been edited into the following form:
Q: What are the origins of the committee?
A: This topic was initially brought to the attention of the (court's) Criminal Practice Committee by the public defender, who noted that defense counsel are often unable to open or view discovery transmitted in an e-format. That is largely due to the various types of equipment and software used to record and distribute that discovery. The Criminal Practice Committee, in turn, proposed that the New Jersey Supreme Court form an interbranch committee to examine the many issues relating to the transmission of e-discovery. In January, the court did so.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
Autonomy takes e-discovery to the cloud
Collection to the Cloud service lets firms transfer data to Autonomy's Digital Safe archive
Enterprise software giant Autonomy today launched a cloud-based e-discovery service designed to enable organisations to collect, store and search electronic data held in its Digital Safe archive.
The Collection to the Cloud offering forms part of the company’s Legal Hold litigation management suite of products and enables customers to analyse and aggregate relevant data from a range of sources using its meaning-based search engine.
Such sources include laptops, desktops and more than 400 enterprise repositories such as file, email and Microsoft’s SharePoint collaboration and document sharing servers, said the vendor.
Forensically-sound copies of relevant information are then transferred to the vendor’s Digital Safe archive for storage purposes. The archive has been given Safe Harbour certification and the supplier currently has datacentres in both the US and UK.
“Regulators’ hard-hitting new rules and hefty sanctions against organisations that do not comply with e-discovery regulations have fuelled demand for legally defensible search, collection and archiving solutions,” said Mike Lynch, Autonomy’s chief executive.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: V3
By: Cath Everett
Enterprise software giant Autonomy today launched a cloud-based e-discovery service designed to enable organisations to collect, store and search electronic data held in its Digital Safe archive.
The Collection to the Cloud offering forms part of the company’s Legal Hold litigation management suite of products and enables customers to analyse and aggregate relevant data from a range of sources using its meaning-based search engine.
Such sources include laptops, desktops and more than 400 enterprise repositories such as file, email and Microsoft’s SharePoint collaboration and document sharing servers, said the vendor.
Forensically-sound copies of relevant information are then transferred to the vendor’s Digital Safe archive for storage purposes. The archive has been given Safe Harbour certification and the supplier currently has datacentres in both the US and UK.
“Regulators’ hard-hitting new rules and hefty sanctions against organisations that do not comply with e-discovery regulations have fuelled demand for legally defensible search, collection and archiving solutions,” said Mike Lynch, Autonomy’s chief executive.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: V3
By: Cath Everett
Monday, November 09, 2009
UPS's Legal Dept. Brainstorms a Package Deal to Save a Parcel of $$$
After the global financial crisis, cost-cutting has become the No. 1 priority for corporate legal departments. Part I of a five-part Corporate Counsel series on controlling outside legal costs focuses on measures taken by the United Parcel Service.
E-discovery is a huge expense, even for big companies with lots of resources. United Parcel Service, Inc. is no exception, and its legal department had enough.
So the Atlanta-based shipping company managed to save millions of dollars by outsourcing document reviews to companies both here in the United States and overseas. But the mounting scrutiny of document production by opposing counsel and courts, as well as new federal rules relating to e-discovery, convinced UPS that it needed to do more to get costs under control.
The company decided to hire a national e-discovery counsel, and it had to be a firm willing to abandon the billable hour. "There's a tendency to be comfortable with what you know," says UPS chief litigation counsel Norman Brothers. "This took a leap of faith."
Last January, UPS selected King & Spalding, one of its primary outside firms since 1997, to handle all discovery matters. The firm had already worked on discovery for UPS, and knew how the company operated. More importantly, King & Spalding proposed a novel, custom fee arrangement. "What we wanted to do was create a cradle-to-grave solution" to provide the company "with quality, efficiency, predictability, and cost savings," says Paul Murphy, a partner in the firm's business litigation practice group.
To Continue Reading: Click Here-------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Amy Miller
Judge Challenges Seizure of Hard Drives
An Oct. 20 Dallas County Commissioners Court order so concerned Criminal District Court No. 1 Judge Robert D. Burns III that he wrote a letter to the commissioners asking them to rescind it. But on Nov. 3, the commissioners declined to do so.
The commissioners' Oct. 20 order, approved by a 3-2 vote, authorized the seizure of the hard drives on the Precinct 5 constable's work computers as part of an ongoing investigation into employment practices. The order came a week after county information technology department staff members' Oct. 13 removal of hard drives from Precinct 5 Constable James Cortes' computers. According to two commissioners, Jim Foster, the Dallas County judge who presides over the commissioners' meetings, arranged for the hard drives to be removed.
But what worries Burns about the commissioners' order is that it also notes that "it may be necessary in the future to obtain county property for the purposes of the investigation."
Burns believes the commissioners' order is too broad and would allow them to seize other elected county officials' hard drives, including those of judges -- a violation of the principle of separation of powers. In his Oct. 22 letter to the commissioners, Burns, Dallas County's administrative district judge, wrote, "We District Court Judges use our computers to view very sensitive information that the parties and/or witnesses in a lawsuit expect to be kept private and some which are confidential by law. ... We are of the opinion that your order has no basis in law ... and that any action pursuant to your order would violate the inherent constitutional authority and powers of a District Court."
To Continue Reading: Click Here-------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Miriam Rozen
An Employee Leaves, Does Your Data Follow?
You are familiar with the scenario: one of your employees leaves to go work for a competitor, but before he goes, he copies confidential information for use at his new job. While the scenario may not have changed much, the means of obtaining the information has.
The days of photocopying documents and sneaking out the door with hard copies are long gone. Most information is now available electronically, and large amounts of data can be copied efficiently and discreetly via computer. The good news is that in many instances, accessing information electronically leaves a distinct trail for a former employer to follow. The bad news, though, is that if the proper steps are not taken, this trail can quickly be lost.
In fact, in many cases, simply doing nothing can result in valuable information being lost forever. There are a number of pitfalls to avoid when building a case against a former employee who you believe has taken your confidential information.
To begin with, there are some inadvertent pitfalls to avoid. The root of the problem is that most HR and IT personnel, while good at what they do, are not trained in computer forensics and the steps necessary to build a case through computer evidence. Oftentimes, building a case against a former employee rests on proving that he or she copied or deleted certain confidential company information. An overzealous company representative trying to find evidence of misconduct can actually do more harm than good, including inadvertently altering the evidence.
For example, a primary method of obtaining evidence of a former employee's misconduct comes from analyzing the date stamps used by most computers. Most operating systems used today, and their respective file systems, record three basic types of date stamps with respect to computer file activity: the last modified date, the last accessed date and the file creation date.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Carl J. Rychcik
The days of photocopying documents and sneaking out the door with hard copies are long gone. Most information is now available electronically, and large amounts of data can be copied efficiently and discreetly via computer. The good news is that in many instances, accessing information electronically leaves a distinct trail for a former employer to follow. The bad news, though, is that if the proper steps are not taken, this trail can quickly be lost.
In fact, in many cases, simply doing nothing can result in valuable information being lost forever. There are a number of pitfalls to avoid when building a case against a former employee who you believe has taken your confidential information.
To begin with, there are some inadvertent pitfalls to avoid. The root of the problem is that most HR and IT personnel, while good at what they do, are not trained in computer forensics and the steps necessary to build a case through computer evidence. Oftentimes, building a case against a former employee rests on proving that he or she copied or deleted certain confidential company information. An overzealous company representative trying to find evidence of misconduct can actually do more harm than good, including inadvertently altering the evidence.
For example, a primary method of obtaining evidence of a former employee's misconduct comes from analyzing the date stamps used by most computers. Most operating systems used today, and their respective file systems, record three basic types of date stamps with respect to computer file activity: the last modified date, the last accessed date and the file creation date.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Carl J. Rychcik
How to Keep Your Website out of Court
For businesses that operate on the Internet, the wide reach of the Web, its almost instant communications, and the associated ability to revise and target advertising, all at relatively low cost compared to telephone and other operations, can be a great boon to commerce.
But there is another side to doing business on the Web: the increased (often, unique) exposure to legal risks. Some of the most common risks, and common solutions, are outlined below.
Expanded jurisdiction: Businesses that merely advertise on the Internet may not necessarily be subject to jurisdiction in every state or nation where the advertisement can be viewed. But where a company actually invites and facilitates commerce (the buying and selling of goods and services) over the Internet, in theory, the company may be sued wherever it solicits business.
To avoid being sued in distant, inconvenient places, Web-based companies often insist, in their customer agreements, that all claims arising out of such commerce must be brought in a single, convenient location.
The chosen forum may be a preferred court, or may involve an arbitration process. The enforceability of such “choice of forum” provisions, however, may depend, at least in part, on whether the forum choice permits consumers to vindicate their rights. In Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (1st Dep’t 1998), available at www.internetlibrary.com, for example, a New York court held that the high cost of arbitration filing fees could make it impossible for a consumer to pursue relatively small claims. As a result, well counseled companies often give their users several options for dispute resolution mechanisms.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: internetrevolution.com
By: Steven C. Bennett
But there is another side to doing business on the Web: the increased (often, unique) exposure to legal risks. Some of the most common risks, and common solutions, are outlined below.
Expanded jurisdiction: Businesses that merely advertise on the Internet may not necessarily be subject to jurisdiction in every state or nation where the advertisement can be viewed. But where a company actually invites and facilitates commerce (the buying and selling of goods and services) over the Internet, in theory, the company may be sued wherever it solicits business.
To avoid being sued in distant, inconvenient places, Web-based companies often insist, in their customer agreements, that all claims arising out of such commerce must be brought in a single, convenient location.
The chosen forum may be a preferred court, or may involve an arbitration process. The enforceability of such “choice of forum” provisions, however, may depend, at least in part, on whether the forum choice permits consumers to vindicate their rights. In Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (1st Dep’t 1998), available at www.internetlibrary.com, for example, a New York court held that the high cost of arbitration filing fees could make it impossible for a consumer to pursue relatively small claims. As a result, well counseled companies often give their users several options for dispute resolution mechanisms.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: internetrevolution.com
By: Steven C. Bennett
Sunday, November 08, 2009
InformationWeek Analytics Research: Federated Search
Organizations are slow to adopt enterprise search systems that empower users to find data on the desktop, the network, and the Internet. The challenges are more operational than technical and the payoff is efficiency.
We all know the pain of a lost piece of vital information, whether a customer proposal, document, or important e-mail. The hurt became even more acute this year, as many were forced to comb through data left behind by laid-off colleagues. That's too bad, because the core technologies to enable federated enterprise search have existed for more than 15 years. Yet according to our InformationWeek Analytics Enterprise Search Survey of 552 business technology professionals, not even one in four organizations uses any type of enterprise search system today.
That's not the worst of it. We dug further and asked how respondents who've adopted enterprise search are using their systems, and whether they provide a unified search capability across network shares, databases, applications, intranets, SharePoint, and desktops, plus consolidation of Web browsing. Of the 24% who've deployed enterprise search, less than 8% provide hooks into multiple silos. That's not quite 2% of the total. What's tripping us up? Technology to wrap all of our enterprise data into a cohesive, searchable whole is available from major players including Google (NSDQ: GOOG), IBM (NYSE: IBM), Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), and Oracle (NSDQ: ORCL), as well as specialists such as Autonomy, Endeca, and Vivisimo. All told, there are upward of 50 search systems on the market, and most vendors continue to invest in new feature releases or in acquisitions, as with Microsoft/Fast and Autonomy/K2.
The problem isn't technology. It's the three Ps that plague many an IT initiative: politics, privacy, and perception.
"Skipping over mail search was a policy decision, not a technology decision," says a poll respondent from one large enterprise that searches almost everything but mail. "We just aren't able to handle that type of assault on IT." Translation: This company made a conscious decision to hamstring a system with the potential to make employees more productive to avoid the fallout of a policy change.
We understand the fear: E-mail search is one of the most politically charged areas CIOs will encounter. Almost every organization's official policy is that e-mail is owned by the company and employees have no expectation of privacy, yet almost every survey respondent limited e-mail search to the individual level, with only 3% allowing search within departments or teams.
Unless you have e-mail fully integrated into your CRM and ERP systems--something we rarely see--employees' e-mail discussions with customers, partners, and vendors stay hidden within their in-boxes. If you've ever had to piece together a project gone bad or the backstory to a customer complaint that involves e-mail, you know the grief this entails.
Privacy, or users' perception of it, is an issue you'll need to address head-on. Try saying "IT owns search" at your next company meeting and watch the phone lines to HR light up. We've evolved to an odd dichotomy: Most of us accept that Google and Facebook track our movements and use this data to sell everything from behavioral analysis studies to pay-per-click ads. Users happily hand over identity cards at the grocery store to save a few bucks on cereal. But they'll raise holy hell at the concept of IT indexing their e-mail or Web activity to make everyone more productive. Don't we pay them?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Michael Healey
We all know the pain of a lost piece of vital information, whether a customer proposal, document, or important e-mail. The hurt became even more acute this year, as many were forced to comb through data left behind by laid-off colleagues. That's too bad, because the core technologies to enable federated enterprise search have existed for more than 15 years. Yet according to our InformationWeek Analytics Enterprise Search Survey of 552 business technology professionals, not even one in four organizations uses any type of enterprise search system today.
That's not the worst of it. We dug further and asked how respondents who've adopted enterprise search are using their systems, and whether they provide a unified search capability across network shares, databases, applications, intranets, SharePoint, and desktops, plus consolidation of Web browsing. Of the 24% who've deployed enterprise search, less than 8% provide hooks into multiple silos. That's not quite 2% of the total. What's tripping us up? Technology to wrap all of our enterprise data into a cohesive, searchable whole is available from major players including Google (NSDQ: GOOG), IBM (NYSE: IBM), Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), and Oracle (NSDQ: ORCL), as well as specialists such as Autonomy, Endeca, and Vivisimo. All told, there are upward of 50 search systems on the market, and most vendors continue to invest in new feature releases or in acquisitions, as with Microsoft/Fast and Autonomy/K2.
The problem isn't technology. It's the three Ps that plague many an IT initiative: politics, privacy, and perception.
"Skipping over mail search was a policy decision, not a technology decision," says a poll respondent from one large enterprise that searches almost everything but mail. "We just aren't able to handle that type of assault on IT." Translation: This company made a conscious decision to hamstring a system with the potential to make employees more productive to avoid the fallout of a policy change.
We understand the fear: E-mail search is one of the most politically charged areas CIOs will encounter. Almost every organization's official policy is that e-mail is owned by the company and employees have no expectation of privacy, yet almost every survey respondent limited e-mail search to the individual level, with only 3% allowing search within departments or teams.
Unless you have e-mail fully integrated into your CRM and ERP systems--something we rarely see--employees' e-mail discussions with customers, partners, and vendors stay hidden within their in-boxes. If you've ever had to piece together a project gone bad or the backstory to a customer complaint that involves e-mail, you know the grief this entails.
Privacy, or users' perception of it, is an issue you'll need to address head-on. Try saying "IT owns search" at your next company meeting and watch the phone lines to HR light up. We've evolved to an odd dichotomy: Most of us accept that Google and Facebook track our movements and use this data to sell everything from behavioral analysis studies to pay-per-click ads. Users happily hand over identity cards at the grocery store to save a few bucks on cereal. But they'll raise holy hell at the concept of IT indexing their e-mail or Web activity to make everyone more productive. Don't we pay them?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Michael Healey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
