Cloud computing offers business potentially huge cost savings and productivity gains, but security concerns are preventing many organisations tapping in to these benefits.
However, an international London-based communications agency, Imagination, has found a way to avoid the pitfalls, save money, boost productivity and even improve information security.
The firm has begun a roll-out of web-based collaboration tools under the leadership of Matt Ballantine, head of IT at Imagination.
He estimates that the project has saved £420,000 in software licensing and additional staff costs over three years.
The firm has also saved £12,000 in air-conditioning replacement costs for a server room that is being de-commissioned at its London offices
Productivity boost
But the biggest gains, says Ballantine, have been in terms of increased productivity because of better collaboration between staff and clients across 14 locations in nine countries.
Just two months into the roll-out, with Google Apps software-as-a-service for e-mail, calendar, contacts, tasks and groups deployed, 60% of about one-third of the staff who have been polled so far say it is easier to work with colleagues and clients, particularly those in other parts of the world.
The business is leading the project, which is crucial, says Ballantine. "IT's role is as facilitator, rather than setting the direction and objectives of the project," he said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Warwick Ashford
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
10 Steps to Effective Information and Records Management
To meet information and records management needs in this shifting business environment, here are 10 specific things you can do now
The challenges that have evolved around information and records management have led companies to implement a variety of solutions. But increasingly, these solutions simply aren't keeping up with the changing needs of today's business environment. The answer lies in looking for innovative approaches to developing architecture for your organization's IRM solutions. But where do you begin?
The immediate demands are for records retention and archive solutions, primarily driven by email storage and compliance issues. Nonetheless, you should start with your firm's broad needs across four related IRM areas: compliance, security, legal e-discovery and storage management.
In taking this wider view, you need to balance costs and risks. At the same time, you should think about rapidly changing technologies, outside providers and the competition. Poor choices can be needlessly expensive and have limited future value. But there are clear best practices and migration paths which allow you to effectively meet both current and future IRM needs.
IRM solutions are typically made up of three components:
• Existing IT systems providing email, content management and other business services;
• Record archives housing electronically stored information;
• Collection and categorization tools working with one or more systems for ESI compliance.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: information-management.com
By: John Doby
The challenges that have evolved around information and records management have led companies to implement a variety of solutions. But increasingly, these solutions simply aren't keeping up with the changing needs of today's business environment. The answer lies in looking for innovative approaches to developing architecture for your organization's IRM solutions. But where do you begin?
The immediate demands are for records retention and archive solutions, primarily driven by email storage and compliance issues. Nonetheless, you should start with your firm's broad needs across four related IRM areas: compliance, security, legal e-discovery and storage management.
In taking this wider view, you need to balance costs and risks. At the same time, you should think about rapidly changing technologies, outside providers and the competition. Poor choices can be needlessly expensive and have limited future value. But there are clear best practices and migration paths which allow you to effectively meet both current and future IRM needs.
IRM solutions are typically made up of three components:
• Existing IT systems providing email, content management and other business services;
• Record archives housing electronically stored information;
• Collection and categorization tools working with one or more systems for ESI compliance.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: information-management.com
By: John Doby
Will 50 TB tape cartridges prove a boon for data archiving?
Emerging developments in tape technology will expand its density and capacity while making it more searchable, continuing to make tape more useful for data archiving rather than its traditional role as data backup.
In May, Hitachi Maxell Ltd. and the Tokyo Institute of Technology said they developed a new high-capacity tape media using ultra thin nano-structured magnetic film. The data tape cartridge features an areal density of 45 Gb per square inch, and enables more than 50 TB capacity per standard backup tape cartridge. This is 33 times larger than the capacity of current LTO-5 tapes.
The record density was achieved thanks to a new technique called the facing targets sputtering method. Magnetron sputtering methods, which are currently used to create LTO tape, cannot be used for fine composite films.
The Hitachi-Tokyo Institute of Technology news came just four months after the IBM Research lab in Zurich combined with FujiFilm to achieve an areal density that would enable 35 TB of capacity on one cartridge. The areal density for that short-lived record was 29.5 billion bits per square inch.
LTO roadmap calls for 32 TB capacity with LTO-8
LTO tape density continues to grow, too. The current roadmap for LTO extends through LTO-8, which will have a capacity of 32 TB and a data transfer speed of up to 472 MBps. That's compared to 3 TB of capacity and a data transfer speed of 280 MBps for LTO-5 tape that began shipping this year.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: searchdatabackup.techtarget.com
By: Andrew Burton
In May, Hitachi Maxell Ltd. and the Tokyo Institute of Technology said they developed a new high-capacity tape media using ultra thin nano-structured magnetic film. The data tape cartridge features an areal density of 45 Gb per square inch, and enables more than 50 TB capacity per standard backup tape cartridge. This is 33 times larger than the capacity of current LTO-5 tapes.
The record density was achieved thanks to a new technique called the facing targets sputtering method. Magnetron sputtering methods, which are currently used to create LTO tape, cannot be used for fine composite films.
The Hitachi-Tokyo Institute of Technology news came just four months after the IBM Research lab in Zurich combined with FujiFilm to achieve an areal density that would enable 35 TB of capacity on one cartridge. The areal density for that short-lived record was 29.5 billion bits per square inch.
LTO roadmap calls for 32 TB capacity with LTO-8
LTO tape density continues to grow, too. The current roadmap for LTO extends through LTO-8, which will have a capacity of 32 TB and a data transfer speed of up to 472 MBps. That's compared to 3 TB of capacity and a data transfer speed of 280 MBps for LTO-5 tape that began shipping this year.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: searchdatabackup.techtarget.com
By: Andrew Burton
Making sense of compliance and governance
The crash of the financial markets in 2008 following the bankruptcy of financial services firm Lehman Brothers prompted one of the biggest government bailouts of banks and insurance companies in history. Trillions of dollars around the world were poured into scores of companies to keep them – and, in turn, the rest of the world's economies – afloat. Countries such as the UK and, in particular, Greece are still feeling the effects of the collapse and the debt they built up to fund the bailouts – and will do so for years to come.
‘Never again' was heard in almost every country affected. The over-leveraging of assets in unregulated markets had brought the world to its knees, causing mass unemployment, recession and bankruptcies. So, greater regulation of banks and other financial services companies has been the pledge of governments worldwide, including the UK coalition.
However, on this issue, it seems no government wants to be ‘first to market' with swingeing new regulations, if it causes financial services companies to leave their shores. The UK's Financial Services Act 2010 had already been passed by parliament and received royal assent on 8 April, but its changes are relatively small and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) is still consulting with companies on how it will be enforced
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: SC Magazine
By: Rob Buckley
‘Never again' was heard in almost every country affected. The over-leveraging of assets in unregulated markets had brought the world to its knees, causing mass unemployment, recession and bankruptcies. So, greater regulation of banks and other financial services companies has been the pledge of governments worldwide, including the UK coalition.
However, on this issue, it seems no government wants to be ‘first to market' with swingeing new regulations, if it causes financial services companies to leave their shores. The UK's Financial Services Act 2010 had already been passed by parliament and received royal assent on 8 April, but its changes are relatively small and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) is still consulting with companies on how it will be enforced
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: SC Magazine
By: Rob Buckley
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Who Owns Social Media?
The best approach is to create a small team of people to provide guidance
Who should own social media? It's a question asked by a lot of organizations. I've heard of two schools of thought: One says social media "belongs" to the employees. The other says it belongs to the PR department or another team that knows the "rules" of the brand and is authorized to communicate with the world on behalf of that brand. So, is it one or the other, or a healthy blend of both?
Every brand is after word of mouth, which is usually created by loyal fans and customers. Most of the time, employees are a brand's No. 1 fans -- and many of them realize that as part of their marketing efforts they need to establish long-term relationships with customers. But how do employees know what the best practices are around building these digital relationships? There are a lot of things for them to know, including which tools to use, which strategies and tactics to deploy, how to correctly communicate the brand's voice, and whether they should "listen" to online conversations before jumping in. The list goes on.
I believe any employee who engages with a customer is a brand ambassador. Without their engagement, relationship-building would be less effective. But I also know that making social media experts out of all such employees is an impossible task. However, you can still empower them by giving them the relevant guidelines and tools in order to engage effectively online and without risk to your brand.
I believe the best approach is to create a small team of people to provide guidance. You could call the team the Social Media Center of Excellence (the name we use at Intel) or any other name that works. This team would sit centrally in the marketing organization and know about all things social, including: the latest social trend; the most effective tools; any impactful case study; other brands' experiences (good and bad); key influencers; and examples of what did and did not work for your company in the past.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: adweek
By: Ekaterina Walter
Who should own social media? It's a question asked by a lot of organizations. I've heard of two schools of thought: One says social media "belongs" to the employees. The other says it belongs to the PR department or another team that knows the "rules" of the brand and is authorized to communicate with the world on behalf of that brand. So, is it one or the other, or a healthy blend of both?
Every brand is after word of mouth, which is usually created by loyal fans and customers. Most of the time, employees are a brand's No. 1 fans -- and many of them realize that as part of their marketing efforts they need to establish long-term relationships with customers. But how do employees know what the best practices are around building these digital relationships? There are a lot of things for them to know, including which tools to use, which strategies and tactics to deploy, how to correctly communicate the brand's voice, and whether they should "listen" to online conversations before jumping in. The list goes on.
I believe any employee who engages with a customer is a brand ambassador. Without their engagement, relationship-building would be less effective. But I also know that making social media experts out of all such employees is an impossible task. However, you can still empower them by giving them the relevant guidelines and tools in order to engage effectively online and without risk to your brand.
I believe the best approach is to create a small team of people to provide guidance. You could call the team the Social Media Center of Excellence (the name we use at Intel) or any other name that works. This team would sit centrally in the marketing organization and know about all things social, including: the latest social trend; the most effective tools; any impactful case study; other brands' experiences (good and bad); key influencers; and examples of what did and did not work for your company in the past.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: adweek
By: Ekaterina Walter
Jury Instruction Allowing Inference that Destroyed Evidence Was Unfavorable and Payment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Ordered as Sanction for Failure t
Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 2500301 (D. Colo. June 15, 2010)
Finding “willful” spoliation of 43 hard drives “in the sense that Plaintiff was aware of its responsibilities to preserve relevant evidence and failed to take necessary steps to do so”, a special master ordered a jury instruction which allowed the jury to infer that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to plaintiff and for the parties to split the cost of defendants’ litigation of the spoliation issue. Upon a motion to modify the order, the magistrate judge affirmed the imposition of the jury instruction, but found plaintiff should pay all of defendants’ reasonable expenses and ordered payment of $89,365.88.
A special master found that plaintiff’s destruction of 43 relevant hard drives was “willful, in the sense that Plaintiff did not do enough to preserve the hard drives”, but acknowledged that ‘Defendants have not established … that [Plaintiff] has … violated any discovery order … and there is no substantial evidence that its destruction of hard drives or the recycling of its work-stations was anything other than what [Plaintiff] would do in the ordinary course of business.” Accordingly, the special master ordered a jury instruction entitling the jury to infer that the destroyed hard drives would have contained unfavorable evidence and for the parties to split defendants’ costs for litigating the issue. Defendants moved to modify the order, arguing the sanctions imposed did not cure the prejudice caused by plaintiff and seeking terminating sanctions or the admission of certain facts. Noting the defendants’ lack of objection to the special master’s factual findings, the court limited its de novo review to whether the facts justified harsher penalties, as argued by defendants.
Beginning her analysis, the magistrate judge noted agreement with the standard set forth in Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) for determining the type of sanctions justified for spoliation, namely that “’[t]he determination of an appropriate sanction, if any, is confined to the sound discretion of the trial judge and is assessed on a case-by-case basis” and that “appropriate sanctions should ‘(1) deter the parties from engaging in spoliation; (2) place the risk of an erroneous judgment on the party who wrongfully created the risk; and (3) restore “the prejudiced party to the same position [it] would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of evidence by the opposing party.” The court also highlighted the “well accepted” premise that “a court should always impose the least harsh sanction that can provide an adequate remedy.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com
Finding “willful” spoliation of 43 hard drives “in the sense that Plaintiff was aware of its responsibilities to preserve relevant evidence and failed to take necessary steps to do so”, a special master ordered a jury instruction which allowed the jury to infer that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to plaintiff and for the parties to split the cost of defendants’ litigation of the spoliation issue. Upon a motion to modify the order, the magistrate judge affirmed the imposition of the jury instruction, but found plaintiff should pay all of defendants’ reasonable expenses and ordered payment of $89,365.88.
A special master found that plaintiff’s destruction of 43 relevant hard drives was “willful, in the sense that Plaintiff did not do enough to preserve the hard drives”, but acknowledged that ‘Defendants have not established … that [Plaintiff] has … violated any discovery order … and there is no substantial evidence that its destruction of hard drives or the recycling of its work-stations was anything other than what [Plaintiff] would do in the ordinary course of business.” Accordingly, the special master ordered a jury instruction entitling the jury to infer that the destroyed hard drives would have contained unfavorable evidence and for the parties to split defendants’ costs for litigating the issue. Defendants moved to modify the order, arguing the sanctions imposed did not cure the prejudice caused by plaintiff and seeking terminating sanctions or the admission of certain facts. Noting the defendants’ lack of objection to the special master’s factual findings, the court limited its de novo review to whether the facts justified harsher penalties, as argued by defendants.
Beginning her analysis, the magistrate judge noted agreement with the standard set forth in Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) for determining the type of sanctions justified for spoliation, namely that “’[t]he determination of an appropriate sanction, if any, is confined to the sound discretion of the trial judge and is assessed on a case-by-case basis” and that “appropriate sanctions should ‘(1) deter the parties from engaging in spoliation; (2) place the risk of an erroneous judgment on the party who wrongfully created the risk; and (3) restore “the prejudiced party to the same position [it] would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of evidence by the opposing party.” The court also highlighted the “well accepted” premise that “a court should always impose the least harsh sanction that can provide an adequate remedy.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com
Monday, June 28, 2010
Automated Review in Electronic Discovery Re-Visited
Almost two years ago I wrote one of my first blog posts entitled “Review-less E-Discovery Review.” Despite the tongue twister of a title, the post posited that “there is a very real possibility that we’re on the cusp of computers taking over a significant e-discovery task for attorneys.” I’d like to take a look and see how much (if at all) my prognostications have materialized.
A cynic might think that this is the moment where E-Discovery 2.0 jumps the shark. But no, this isn’t one of those sitcom episodes where they flashback to previous shows as an easy way to recycle content. Instead, it seems useful to see how the legal market has evolved from a litigation workflow perspective, particularly with some vendors touting the benefits of review-less technologies like predictive coding.
In the original blog, I noted that there was a “scenario where a non-manual review methodology may make sense” (while importantly noting that “this approach is not without risk”). Since my last post there has been the successful adoption of Evidence Rule 502,which makes this methodology (at least conceptually) safer.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Dean Gonsowski
A cynic might think that this is the moment where E-Discovery 2.0 jumps the shark. But no, this isn’t one of those sitcom episodes where they flashback to previous shows as an easy way to recycle content. Instead, it seems useful to see how the legal market has evolved from a litigation workflow perspective, particularly with some vendors touting the benefits of review-less technologies like predictive coding.
In the original blog, I noted that there was a “scenario where a non-manual review methodology may make sense” (while importantly noting that “this approach is not without risk”). Since my last post there has been the successful adoption of Evidence Rule 502,which makes this methodology (at least conceptually) safer.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Dean Gonsowski
Companies need a social media policy: Experts
These are components of the social media policy guidelines outlined by Avvo, a Seattle, Washington-based website that helps consumers handle their legal matters by providing attorney rankings and related services.
The start-up, which has quickly grown to nearly 40 employees, instituted a formal policy for controlling content on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other social media sites earlier this year.
"All of a sudden we had a bunch of other voices - new employees - saying things about the company," said Josh King, Avvo's general counsel and primary author of the document. "We just wanted to put in place a roadmap of reminders when dealing with social media."
King and other top management drafted simple rules of conduct in cyberspace that apply to employees choosing to disclose their affiliation with the company as part of their online identity.
"Social media interaction is, in many ways, no different than in-person interaction," states the document, titled "Avvo Social Media Participation Guidelines". "And just like any other interaction, you'll want to project a professional image."
The guidelines - less than two pages in length - have since been incorporated into Avvo's general employee handbook. The document covers hands-on social media topics ranging from "profile pictures" and "attention to detail" to "inappropriate topics" and "bad mouthing." Those wanting to tweet or blog as official advocates of the company using a targeted marketing or sales message go through rigorous approval channels.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: uk.reuters.com
The start-up, which has quickly grown to nearly 40 employees, instituted a formal policy for controlling content on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other social media sites earlier this year.
"All of a sudden we had a bunch of other voices - new employees - saying things about the company," said Josh King, Avvo's general counsel and primary author of the document. "We just wanted to put in place a roadmap of reminders when dealing with social media."
King and other top management drafted simple rules of conduct in cyberspace that apply to employees choosing to disclose their affiliation with the company as part of their online identity.
"Social media interaction is, in many ways, no different than in-person interaction," states the document, titled "Avvo Social Media Participation Guidelines". "And just like any other interaction, you'll want to project a professional image."
The guidelines - less than two pages in length - have since been incorporated into Avvo's general employee handbook. The document covers hands-on social media topics ranging from "profile pictures" and "attention to detail" to "inappropriate topics" and "bad mouthing." Those wanting to tweet or blog as official advocates of the company using a targeted marketing or sales message go through rigorous approval channels.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: uk.reuters.com
How the New Database Security Law Affects You
Several months ago, Massachusetts passed a sweeping new data security law that will have a profound impact on the way the United States, and perhaps the rest of the world, manages and develops data-centric applications. Oddly, most people in the business and technical communities don’t seem to know about it.
I addressed this law a few months ago, but made a few errors in my reporting on the actual law, so we pulled the article from the SQL Mag website. I’ve addressed my original mistakes and added a number of new thoughts and perspectives as well. No need to worry about reading the old article; this piece stands on its own.
Google “Massachusetts data security law, 201 CMR 17.00” and you’ll find plenty of facts about the new law. I also encourage you to read Information Week’s "States' Rights Come to Security Forefront: Massachusetts' new data protection law reaches beyond its borders. Are you ready?" It’s one of the better summaries I’ve seen. However, even it falls short of helping you understand the profound affect this law could have. You can read the full law at www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf.
Key aspects of the law revolve around its definition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and situations in which the data needs to be protected through encryption. The law defines PII as “a Massachusetts resident's first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to such resident: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver's license number or state-issued identification card number; or (c) financial account number, or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password, that would permit access to a resident’s financial account “and requires “Encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will travel across public networks, and encryption of all data containing personal information to be transmitted wirelessly.”
Many people read that statement and, at first glance, believe that the scope of data applications covered is perhaps small. I disagree. Why? First, let’s explore the core attributes of PII. Clearly almost any data set about a person will contain first and last name, so the attributes of social security number (SSN), driver’s license, and “financial account number” become the linchpins of whether a data set meets the definition of this law. Yeah, I know we’re supposed to protect SSN and it probably shouldn’t be embedded in customer data sets “just because.” But the fact remains that SSN is pretty ubiquitous as a primary key in many customer-centric applications. Do you know for sure which of your applications use it now or might in the future? Probably not, so you’ll need to err on the side of caution. But the financial account number reaches much further. No, many of you applications might not contain customers’ bank account numbers or anything that obvious, but most of your customer data sets will contain the person’s email address right? You might think that an email address isn’t a financial account number, but I’ve explored this topic with several knowledgeable people in the legal and policy space and many of them agree that an email address could very well be seen as a primary account number. For better or worse, it’s becoming more and more common to use an email address as the primary customer identifier, especially for online services. In many cases, compromising a person’s email address could indeed allow access to accounts that might contain financial information of one kind or another.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: sqlmag.com
By: Brian Moran
I addressed this law a few months ago, but made a few errors in my reporting on the actual law, so we pulled the article from the SQL Mag website. I’ve addressed my original mistakes and added a number of new thoughts and perspectives as well. No need to worry about reading the old article; this piece stands on its own.
Google “Massachusetts data security law, 201 CMR 17.00” and you’ll find plenty of facts about the new law. I also encourage you to read Information Week’s "States' Rights Come to Security Forefront: Massachusetts' new data protection law reaches beyond its borders. Are you ready?" It’s one of the better summaries I’ve seen. However, even it falls short of helping you understand the profound affect this law could have. You can read the full law at www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf.
Key aspects of the law revolve around its definition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and situations in which the data needs to be protected through encryption. The law defines PII as “a Massachusetts resident's first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to such resident: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver's license number or state-issued identification card number; or (c) financial account number, or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password, that would permit access to a resident’s financial account “and requires “Encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will travel across public networks, and encryption of all data containing personal information to be transmitted wirelessly.”
Many people read that statement and, at first glance, believe that the scope of data applications covered is perhaps small. I disagree. Why? First, let’s explore the core attributes of PII. Clearly almost any data set about a person will contain first and last name, so the attributes of social security number (SSN), driver’s license, and “financial account number” become the linchpins of whether a data set meets the definition of this law. Yeah, I know we’re supposed to protect SSN and it probably shouldn’t be embedded in customer data sets “just because.” But the fact remains that SSN is pretty ubiquitous as a primary key in many customer-centric applications. Do you know for sure which of your applications use it now or might in the future? Probably not, so you’ll need to err on the side of caution. But the financial account number reaches much further. No, many of you applications might not contain customers’ bank account numbers or anything that obvious, but most of your customer data sets will contain the person’s email address right? You might think that an email address isn’t a financial account number, but I’ve explored this topic with several knowledgeable people in the legal and policy space and many of them agree that an email address could very well be seen as a primary account number. For better or worse, it’s becoming more and more common to use an email address as the primary customer identifier, especially for online services. In many cases, compromising a person’s email address could indeed allow access to accounts that might contain financial information of one kind or another.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: sqlmag.com
By: Brian Moran
Sunday, June 27, 2010
2009 Gartner Magic Quadrant for E-mail Active Archiving Highlights Growing Importance of Electronic Discovery
When last year’s Gartner Magic Quadrant for E-mail Active Archiving was published in May 2008, it showed virtually no change from that of the prior year. Symantec remained the only company in the “Leader” category and fully 80% of vendors saw no meaningful change in their rankings. At the time, we observed that if vendors want to move up and to the right, then they need to differentiate, and the most obvious place to do that is in e-discovery.
One year later, the 2009 report bears this out. In contrast to last year, there have been significant changes for many players, most notably Autonomy which has broken into the “Leaders” category. What’s driven these changes in the vendor landscape? Primarily, the increasing importance of e-discovery. To quote, Gartner’s report (p. 4):
Leading products offer more than just search and packaging, but also provide tools for review and case management. Discovery tools are fast becoming a requirement to play in the enterprise part of the market.
This emphasis on e-discovery has clearly helped Autonomy, which “targets the high end of the enterprise market that is looking to manage complex information management and discovery requirements.” (p.8). It bundles the ZANTAZ archive with Aungate Investigator, Aungate Legal Hold, and Introspect, to create million-dollar-plus software packages that can take over 6 months to deploy. The growing importance of e-discovery has also helped Symantec, which has had a two-pronged strategy. First, improve its own Discovery Accelerator (DA) module that enables users to get data out of Enterprise Vault. For example, the latest release of DA finally allows users to do a search within a search, something that many Symantec customers have been requesting for years. Second, provide an API for DA so that other vendors can integrate with it. A handful of vendors have built adapters to the DA API, although I’m not aware of any customers that are using the integrated solution.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Aaref Hilaly
One year later, the 2009 report bears this out. In contrast to last year, there have been significant changes for many players, most notably Autonomy which has broken into the “Leaders” category. What’s driven these changes in the vendor landscape? Primarily, the increasing importance of e-discovery. To quote, Gartner’s report (p. 4):
Leading products offer more than just search and packaging, but also provide tools for review and case management. Discovery tools are fast becoming a requirement to play in the enterprise part of the market.
This emphasis on e-discovery has clearly helped Autonomy, which “targets the high end of the enterprise market that is looking to manage complex information management and discovery requirements.” (p.8). It bundles the ZANTAZ archive with Aungate Investigator, Aungate Legal Hold, and Introspect, to create million-dollar-plus software packages that can take over 6 months to deploy. The growing importance of e-discovery has also helped Symantec, which has had a two-pronged strategy. First, improve its own Discovery Accelerator (DA) module that enables users to get data out of Enterprise Vault. For example, the latest release of DA finally allows users to do a search within a search, something that many Symantec customers have been requesting for years. Second, provide an API for DA so that other vendors can integrate with it. A handful of vendors have built adapters to the DA API, although I’m not aware of any customers that are using the integrated solution.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Aaref Hilaly
Are E-Discovery Sanctions Tough Enough?
Sanctions are perhaps the most devastating penalty a judge can impose on a party in civil litigation. In disputes over electronic evidence in litigation, sanctions have generated a lot of attention, though some judges say the impact is overstated. "I would like to straighten out the idea that judges issue a lot of sanctions," says Shira Scheindlin, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, who recently issued her first e-discovery sanctions since 2004. "In six years I have issued no sanctions. Even if the number of sanctions is going up, in terms of raw numbers, it’s still very small."
Lawyers are on notice from courts that sloppy document retention policies and mistakes can lead to sanctions and other penalties. But sanctions seem to have had little impact in pushing the legal community to take e-discovery more seriously. In fact, sanctions may actually be an ineffective tool for the bench to push attorneys to manage e-discovery more effectively.
In a recent ruling, The Pension Committee of Montreal v. Banc of America Securites, Judge Scheindlin issued sanctions because parties had neglected their duty to preserve evidence. She says she was frustrated to find that parties in that case seemed not to have learned to properly handle electronically stored information since she had last issued e-discovery sanctions in a widely noted decision six years ago. "I was surprised that so many years later not enough had changed," says Scheindlin. "Lawyers should be on notice that their clients have a duty to preserve."
According to law firm Gibson Dunn’s 2009 Mid-Year Update on E-Discovery Cases, the number of e-discovery sanctions have been trending upwards. Surveying sixty-one reported electronic discovery opinions, more than half involved the consideration of sanctions, and in twenty-two courts imposed some form of sanction. A similar 2008 survey conducted by e-discovery vendor Kroll Ontrack found half that number of sanctions.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Jason Krause
Lawyers are on notice from courts that sloppy document retention policies and mistakes can lead to sanctions and other penalties. But sanctions seem to have had little impact in pushing the legal community to take e-discovery more seriously. In fact, sanctions may actually be an ineffective tool for the bench to push attorneys to manage e-discovery more effectively.
In a recent ruling, The Pension Committee of Montreal v. Banc of America Securites, Judge Scheindlin issued sanctions because parties had neglected their duty to preserve evidence. She says she was frustrated to find that parties in that case seemed not to have learned to properly handle electronically stored information since she had last issued e-discovery sanctions in a widely noted decision six years ago. "I was surprised that so many years later not enough had changed," says Scheindlin. "Lawyers should be on notice that their clients have a duty to preserve."
According to law firm Gibson Dunn’s 2009 Mid-Year Update on E-Discovery Cases, the number of e-discovery sanctions have been trending upwards. Surveying sixty-one reported electronic discovery opinions, more than half involved the consideration of sanctions, and in twenty-two courts imposed some form of sanction. A similar 2008 survey conducted by e-discovery vendor Kroll Ontrack found half that number of sanctions.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Jason Krause
People Make Mistakes
“People make mistakes.” This simple three word sentence is how Chief Justice John Roberts begins his opinion in Conkright v. Frommert, No. 08-810 (Apr. 21, 2010). He goes on to add: “Even administrators of ERISA plans.” Then he explains how complicated those plans can be. As a former ERISA litigator, I know he’s right, as I have read far too many ERISA plans myself. But let me tell you, as an attorney who left ERISA to focus solely on e-Discovery in 2006, it’s nothing compared to ESI plans.
As complicated as the facts and law are in employee benefits disputes, the world of electronic discovery with its ever-changing technologies is far more complicated. So if the Supreme Court is inclined to give ERISA administrators a break, which they did in Conkright, then surely they will do the same in e-discovery too, if and when such a case ever darkens their door. The Justices of the Supreme Court may not have a good grasp of today’s technology, as I examined in The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty, but they do have a good grasp on human nature and the law. They know the proper standard for judicial review is reasonability, not perfection.
The lower courts should also recognize this simple truth, that people make mistakes, and so too do the computer systems they design and run. The law should never demand perfection. Judges need to better understand that this applies to the world of ESI spoliation and sanctions too. The law should only demand reasonable, good faith efforts to preserve, collect, review and produce. If these efforts are made, but mistakes still happen, for instance an email is not preserved, or a privileged document is produced when it should have been withheld, there should be no sanctions. The judges should recognize the limits of our humanity, and the enormous complexity of our task, as Chief Justice Roberts did in Conkright. They should temper their response accordingly.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Ralph Losey
As complicated as the facts and law are in employee benefits disputes, the world of electronic discovery with its ever-changing technologies is far more complicated. So if the Supreme Court is inclined to give ERISA administrators a break, which they did in Conkright, then surely they will do the same in e-discovery too, if and when such a case ever darkens their door. The Justices of the Supreme Court may not have a good grasp of today’s technology, as I examined in The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty, but they do have a good grasp on human nature and the law. They know the proper standard for judicial review is reasonability, not perfection.
The lower courts should also recognize this simple truth, that people make mistakes, and so too do the computer systems they design and run. The law should never demand perfection. Judges need to better understand that this applies to the world of ESI spoliation and sanctions too. The law should only demand reasonable, good faith efforts to preserve, collect, review and produce. If these efforts are made, but mistakes still happen, for instance an email is not preserved, or a privileged document is produced when it should have been withheld, there should be no sanctions. The judges should recognize the limits of our humanity, and the enormous complexity of our task, as Chief Justice Roberts did in Conkright. They should temper their response accordingly.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Ralph Losey
Friday, June 25, 2010
What's in Google's SaaS Contract with the City of Los Angeles? Part Three.
This blogpost is the third (and final) in our series analyzing the terms of Google's and Computer Science Corporation’s (“CSC”) cloud contracts with the City of Los Angeles. In Part One, we looked at the information security, privacy and confidentiality obligations Google and CSC agreed to. In Part Two, the focus was on terms related to compliance with privacy and security laws, audit and enforcement of security obligations, incident response, and geographic processing limitations, and termination rights under the contracts.
In Part Three, we analyze what might be the most important data security/privacy-related terms of a Cloud contract (or any contract for that matter), the risk of loss terms. These are the terms that allocate responsibility between the parties for a security or privacy breaches and the potential consequences of such breaches (including liability, breach notice obligations, lawsuits and regulatory actions). The risk of loss terms we will explore include limitation of liability clauses, consequential damage disclaimers, warranty disclaimers and indemnification clauses.
As a reminder, the City of LA will ultimately be entering into two contracts as part of this SaaS deal: one with CSC, the “CSC Contract” (which is acting as a reseller/implementer of Google SaaS solution) and one with Google itself for the SaaS services (the “Google Contract”). Again, we will analyze both contracts. However, since these risk of loss terms are all interconnected within each contract, we will analyze all of the terms together for each contract (rather than side-by-side as was done in previous posts) and look at how they work together. Final note: to fully understand this post it might be helpful to go back to Part One and refresh your memory as to the specific promises made by Google and CSC around security, legal compliance and confidentiality. Those duties and obligations play into the risk of loss terms that are highlighted in this post.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: infolawgroup.com
By: David Navetta
In Part Three, we analyze what might be the most important data security/privacy-related terms of a Cloud contract (or any contract for that matter), the risk of loss terms. These are the terms that allocate responsibility between the parties for a security or privacy breaches and the potential consequences of such breaches (including liability, breach notice obligations, lawsuits and regulatory actions). The risk of loss terms we will explore include limitation of liability clauses, consequential damage disclaimers, warranty disclaimers and indemnification clauses.
As a reminder, the City of LA will ultimately be entering into two contracts as part of this SaaS deal: one with CSC, the “CSC Contract” (which is acting as a reseller/implementer of Google SaaS solution) and one with Google itself for the SaaS services (the “Google Contract”). Again, we will analyze both contracts. However, since these risk of loss terms are all interconnected within each contract, we will analyze all of the terms together for each contract (rather than side-by-side as was done in previous posts) and look at how they work together. Final note: to fully understand this post it might be helpful to go back to Part One and refresh your memory as to the specific promises made by Google and CSC around security, legal compliance and confidentiality. Those duties and obligations play into the risk of loss terms that are highlighted in this post.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: infolawgroup.com
By: David Navetta
Three Things the Oil Spill Can Teach Us About Disaster Recovery
Lately it feels like there’s no getting away from the terrible news about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of the damage is mind-boggling: from the devastating impact to the wildlife and shoreline to the loss of livelihoods for locals. The oil spill is a result of two core issues: the failure to put in place adequate controls for prevention of catastrophic events and an incredibly poor to non-existent disaster response and recovery (DR) plan. As most of us watch in helpless horror at the ongoing spill, it’s easy to scoff at BP for their shoddy practices and inadequate response.
But how many of us in IT have been able to, or even wanted to, engage in highly rigorous prevention and real-world testing of DR? Very often, security controls are skimped on for cost purposes or because the business does not feel the time or overhead related to a control equals the risk to the business. And DR is, unfortunately, an afterthought for many organizations; something that may be written as a skeleton process, but never executed in a testing environment to ensure that the response plan will truly work as expected.
Take something as simple as back-ups. We all know we need to do them, and most of us have automated back-up systems in place. But to make sure they’re working as expected the back-ups should be reviewed on a schedule. Here’s where many organizations fall down – the back-ups are run, the back-up system returns an “all good” result, and the admin goes on to the next task. Routine checks of the integrity and completeness of the back-ups may be run during the initial months of operation, but after the system is running successfully for a few months, it’s easy to skip a day, or week, of validation testing - especially when there are other IT fires to put out.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: esecurityplanet.com
By: Diana Kelley
But how many of us in IT have been able to, or even wanted to, engage in highly rigorous prevention and real-world testing of DR? Very often, security controls are skimped on for cost purposes or because the business does not feel the time or overhead related to a control equals the risk to the business. And DR is, unfortunately, an afterthought for many organizations; something that may be written as a skeleton process, but never executed in a testing environment to ensure that the response plan will truly work as expected.
Take something as simple as back-ups. We all know we need to do them, and most of us have automated back-up systems in place. But to make sure they’re working as expected the back-ups should be reviewed on a schedule. Here’s where many organizations fall down – the back-ups are run, the back-up system returns an “all good” result, and the admin goes on to the next task. Routine checks of the integrity and completeness of the back-ups may be run during the initial months of operation, but after the system is running successfully for a few months, it’s easy to skip a day, or week, of validation testing - especially when there are other IT fires to put out.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: esecurityplanet.com
By: Diana Kelley
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Judge Sides With Plaintiffs on Deposing Executives in Toyota MDL
A federal judge tentatively ruled on Wednesday against Toyota Motor Corp. on a key discovery request, refusing to delay depositions of company executives in the multidistrict litigation over sudden, uncontrolled acceleration.
U.S. District Judge James V. Selna, who grilled Toyota's lawyers during a hearing in Santa Ana, Calif., put off a final ruling on discovery issues. Instead, he set a July 16 deadline for both parties to submit a joint discovery plan and scheduled another hearing for July 20.
Eleven plaintiffs attorneys showed up for the hearing, with six more attending remotely by teleconference. Five lawyers for Toyota were present.
The MDL involves more than 200 lawsuits against Toyota following its recall of more than 8 million vehicles. Most of those cases involve economic losses to consumers who own recalled vehicles, which have allegedly declined in value. Others claim that accelerating Toyotas caused injuries or deaths.
During Wednesday's hearing, Selna said that the "peculiar nature" of those two types of claims prompted him to tentatively disagree with Toyota's counsel that class certification questions needed to be addressed in discovery before depositions progressed on the merits.
"There's a whole other dimension here," he said, when compared to other class actions.
Toyota's lead attorney in the economic loss cases, Cari Dawson, a partner at Atlanta's Alston & Bird, argued that discovery in the personal injury and wrongful death cases should not take precedence over the vast majority of the cases in the MDL, which are class actions that have yet to be certified.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Amanda Bronstad
U.S. District Judge James V. Selna, who grilled Toyota's lawyers during a hearing in Santa Ana, Calif., put off a final ruling on discovery issues. Instead, he set a July 16 deadline for both parties to submit a joint discovery plan and scheduled another hearing for July 20.
Eleven plaintiffs attorneys showed up for the hearing, with six more attending remotely by teleconference. Five lawyers for Toyota were present.
The MDL involves more than 200 lawsuits against Toyota following its recall of more than 8 million vehicles. Most of those cases involve economic losses to consumers who own recalled vehicles, which have allegedly declined in value. Others claim that accelerating Toyotas caused injuries or deaths.
During Wednesday's hearing, Selna said that the "peculiar nature" of those two types of claims prompted him to tentatively disagree with Toyota's counsel that class certification questions needed to be addressed in discovery before depositions progressed on the merits.
"There's a whole other dimension here," he said, when compared to other class actions.
Toyota's lead attorney in the economic loss cases, Cari Dawson, a partner at Atlanta's Alston & Bird, argued that discovery in the personal injury and wrongful death cases should not take precedence over the vast majority of the cases in the MDL, which are class actions that have yet to be certified.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Amanda Bronstad
E-Mail That Self Destructs
Sending Internet messages that leave no trail.
Many a lawsuit these days turns on the discovery of embarrassing e-mails and instant messaging records sent by executives or politicians. A conversation two people might once have had in the hallway, done and gone as soon as the words left their lips, these days become subject to legal discovery.
In some regulated industries, such as stock trading, there are requirements for e-mail and IM logs to be archived. But in the absence of such a requirement, it makes sense to think twice about what you keep and what you dispose of--or never store in the first place. Technology is available to make electronic communications more ephemeral.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: forbes.com
By: David F. Carr
Many a lawsuit these days turns on the discovery of embarrassing e-mails and instant messaging records sent by executives or politicians. A conversation two people might once have had in the hallway, done and gone as soon as the words left their lips, these days become subject to legal discovery.
In some regulated industries, such as stock trading, there are requirements for e-mail and IM logs to be archived. But in the absence of such a requirement, it makes sense to think twice about what you keep and what you dispose of--or never store in the first place. Technology is available to make electronic communications more ephemeral.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: forbes.com
By: David F. Carr
Self-Collection Prohibited in Delaware
Recently, Vice Chancellor Laster gave some of us a jolt with a bench ruling on a discovery dispute in Roffe v. Eagle Rock Energy GP, et al., C.A. No. 5258-VCL (Del. Ch. Apr. 8, 2010). The ruling addresses the issue of client self-collection and a lawyer's oversight duties.
The Association of Corporate Counsel's (AAC) website carried a summary of the ruling authored by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP that stated:
Vice Chancellor Laster ruled from the bench that confirmatory discovery—like formal discovery—requires the defendant’s attorney to be physically present during the collection of electronically stored information from his/her client; self collection by the client is not permitted.
Well-known eDiscovery expert, Kevin Brady of Connolly Bove in Delaware, explained that the ruling:
[P]ointed out that lawyers have an affirmative duty to be actively engaged in the collection process to the point that a lawyer should meet in person with the client to physically review his or her electronic information repositories wherever they may be located (including, if necessary, personal computers if that is where relevant information is stored).
I think Kevin's summary is much closer to the mark, and I'll explain why in a minute. First, the language causing concern is on lines 12-19 on page 10 of the attached transcript and reads as follows:
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: delawarediscovery.com
By: Christopher Spizzirri
The Association of Corporate Counsel's (AAC) website carried a summary of the ruling authored by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP that stated:
Vice Chancellor Laster ruled from the bench that confirmatory discovery—like formal discovery—requires the defendant’s attorney to be physically present during the collection of electronically stored information from his/her client; self collection by the client is not permitted.
Well-known eDiscovery expert, Kevin Brady of Connolly Bove in Delaware, explained that the ruling:
[P]ointed out that lawyers have an affirmative duty to be actively engaged in the collection process to the point that a lawyer should meet in person with the client to physically review his or her electronic information repositories wherever they may be located (including, if necessary, personal computers if that is where relevant information is stored).
I think Kevin's summary is much closer to the mark, and I'll explain why in a minute. First, the language causing concern is on lines 12-19 on page 10 of the attached transcript and reads as follows:
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: delawarediscovery.com
By: Christopher Spizzirri
With more information, U.S. law firms may opt for the cloud
A new study from CompTIA indicates that only 14 percent of U.S. law firms are looking to invest in cloud technology next year, however, the study suggested the number may rise.
The low percentage of law firms considering a move to cloud technology may be low because only 30 percent said they were familiar with the concept. In addition, the survey found that only 45 percent said they understood how managed services worked.
“This next wave of IT investment by legal services firms will require more education and assistance from the IT solution providers serving them,” said Tim Herbert, vice president of research at CompTIA, adding there were many “knowledge gaps” that cloud providers may be able to fill.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: centerbeam.com
By: Kevin Underhill
The low percentage of law firms considering a move to cloud technology may be low because only 30 percent said they were familiar with the concept. In addition, the survey found that only 45 percent said they understood how managed services worked.
“This next wave of IT investment by legal services firms will require more education and assistance from the IT solution providers serving them,” said Tim Herbert, vice president of research at CompTIA, adding there were many “knowledge gaps” that cloud providers may be able to fill.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: centerbeam.com
By: Kevin Underhill
Information Governance isn't so Bad After All
As a speaker at many technology events, it’s always fun to see the reaction the phrase "information governance" illicits — I’ve seen everything from eye rolls to head nods. “Easy for you to say — try and implement it!” said one particularly feisty individual. “Yeah, we are still trying to figure it out,” grumbles another. I am employed by a developer of an enterprise content management (ECM) software vendor and clients constantly express that they are overwhelmed by the wealth of their own information: “What should we keep? What should we purge? How do we manage information so that it becomes an asset rather than a liability? How can we use our information to operate more successfully? What controls do we need to put into place?”
While many approach information management from a technology nuts-and-bolts standpoint, what is not often addressed is the top-down, strategic management of information. I like to explain it this way: You’ve seen the trees, now let’s view the forest.
Step back for a second and consider the adaption of information management within an enterprise. When your organization first implemented information management, I bet it was all about "finding and filing". You had paper files, electronic documents, etc. and you had to put them somewhere where you could easily find them. Essentially, you were setting up a central point of information control.
Then you started to consider how much valuable information that can be found in your business critical applications like your ERP, CRM, GIS and you thought about your users and the fact they had to toggle around three or four applications to get the information they needed to do their job. You then made the bold move of using your content management system as a sort of integrative middleware, so the information delivery to your users became much more dynamic.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: cioupdate.com
By: Kimberly Samuelson
While many approach information management from a technology nuts-and-bolts standpoint, what is not often addressed is the top-down, strategic management of information. I like to explain it this way: You’ve seen the trees, now let’s view the forest.
Step back for a second and consider the adaption of information management within an enterprise. When your organization first implemented information management, I bet it was all about "finding and filing". You had paper files, electronic documents, etc. and you had to put them somewhere where you could easily find them. Essentially, you were setting up a central point of information control.
Then you started to consider how much valuable information that can be found in your business critical applications like your ERP, CRM, GIS and you thought about your users and the fact they had to toggle around three or four applications to get the information they needed to do their job. You then made the bold move of using your content management system as a sort of integrative middleware, so the information delivery to your users became much more dynamic.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: cioupdate.com
By: Kimberly Samuelson
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Search Of Lehman Brothers E-Mails Suggests Words, Phrases To Avoid
Best to steer clear of ''Ponzi,'' ''No Extradition Treaty'' and ''Plea Bargain'' for starters.
One of the big issues in the practice of law these days is "e-discovery." Since "discovery" is the process by which one party to a lawsuit tries to get useful information from another, you can probably guess that "e-discovery" involves digging through the other side's electronically stored information or trying to keep them from digging through yours.
As Peter Henning (a former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer) said recently, investigators searching through such information are especially interested in "any turn of phrase that can give them insight into what people were thinking" when they did the allegedly illegal, tortuous and/or stupid thing in question. E-mail searches can be especially valuable, he continued, "because e-mails are real-time and often unfiltered and can help to establish intent." That is certainly true.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: forbes.com
By: Kevin Underhill
One of the big issues in the practice of law these days is "e-discovery." Since "discovery" is the process by which one party to a lawsuit tries to get useful information from another, you can probably guess that "e-discovery" involves digging through the other side's electronically stored information or trying to keep them from digging through yours.
As Peter Henning (a former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer) said recently, investigators searching through such information are especially interested in "any turn of phrase that can give them insight into what people were thinking" when they did the allegedly illegal, tortuous and/or stupid thing in question. E-mail searches can be especially valuable, he continued, "because e-mails are real-time and often unfiltered and can help to establish intent." That is certainly true.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: forbes.com
By: Kevin Underhill
Law Firms Poised to Hike IT Spending and Embrace New Technology Solutions, CompTIA Study Finds
Nearly one-half of law firms in the United States plans to increase spending on information technology (IT) in 2010, according to a new study from CompTIA, the non-profit trade association for the IT industry.
“The data suggests there are a number of knowledge gaps to overcome.”
.With an estimated size approaching $300 billion in annual revenue, the U.S. legal services market represents a significant industry vertical in the economy.
“Given the still fragile economy, positive purchase intent rates should be viewed favorably by technology firms already serving law practices and by those wanting to break into the market,” said Tim Herbert, vice president, research, CompTIA.
The top business priority for law practices over the next year entails the desire to grow their business, cited by 73 percent of law firms. Finding new revenue opportunities or new markets and reducing/managing costs also rank highly (50 percent and 48 percent respectively).
Many law firms will focus their 2010 IT spending on core investments, such as notebook PCs (24 percent of firms surveyed intend to buy), desktop PCs (22 percent) and smart phones (22 percent).
But the survey also reveals that a growing number of law firms will explore a range of emerging technologies as a means to address areas of dissatisfaction with IT, which include reliability, mismatch of features and needs, insufficient support and total cost of ownership. Additionally, lawyers cite mobility and better remote functionality as their greatest unmet technology needs.
Over the next year, 14 percent of law firms plan to invest in some type of cloud computing or software-as-a-service solution. However, it must be noted that lack of familiarity with cloud computing and related emerging technologies may be inhibiting adoption. Among attorneys, only 30 percent rate themselves as familiar with the concept of cloud computing, while only 45 percent claim knowledge of the concept of managed services.
“This next wave of IT investment by legal services firms will require more education and assistance from the IT solution providers serving them,” Herbert said. “The data suggests there are a number of knowledge gaps to overcome.”
Beyond core IT expenditures, law firms seeking to enhance their business plan to invest in a number of specialty technologies, such as disaster recovery/business continuity (16 percent), data storage (16 percent), document/records management (15 percent), e-discovery applications (15 percent), case management (14 percent) and litigation support (14 percent).
When presented with the concept of managed IT services, six in ten law firms express at least some level of interest. Attorneys are most interested in managed services’ potential to provide consistent and reliable IT services (45 percent), followed by improved security, more technical expertise and lower costs.
Source: Businesswire
“The data suggests there are a number of knowledge gaps to overcome.”
.With an estimated size approaching $300 billion in annual revenue, the U.S. legal services market represents a significant industry vertical in the economy.
“Given the still fragile economy, positive purchase intent rates should be viewed favorably by technology firms already serving law practices and by those wanting to break into the market,” said Tim Herbert, vice president, research, CompTIA.
The top business priority for law practices over the next year entails the desire to grow their business, cited by 73 percent of law firms. Finding new revenue opportunities or new markets and reducing/managing costs also rank highly (50 percent and 48 percent respectively).
Many law firms will focus their 2010 IT spending on core investments, such as notebook PCs (24 percent of firms surveyed intend to buy), desktop PCs (22 percent) and smart phones (22 percent).
But the survey also reveals that a growing number of law firms will explore a range of emerging technologies as a means to address areas of dissatisfaction with IT, which include reliability, mismatch of features and needs, insufficient support and total cost of ownership. Additionally, lawyers cite mobility and better remote functionality as their greatest unmet technology needs.
Over the next year, 14 percent of law firms plan to invest in some type of cloud computing or software-as-a-service solution. However, it must be noted that lack of familiarity with cloud computing and related emerging technologies may be inhibiting adoption. Among attorneys, only 30 percent rate themselves as familiar with the concept of cloud computing, while only 45 percent claim knowledge of the concept of managed services.
“This next wave of IT investment by legal services firms will require more education and assistance from the IT solution providers serving them,” Herbert said. “The data suggests there are a number of knowledge gaps to overcome.”
Beyond core IT expenditures, law firms seeking to enhance their business plan to invest in a number of specialty technologies, such as disaster recovery/business continuity (16 percent), data storage (16 percent), document/records management (15 percent), e-discovery applications (15 percent), case management (14 percent) and litigation support (14 percent).
When presented with the concept of managed IT services, six in ten law firms express at least some level of interest. Attorneys are most interested in managed services’ potential to provide consistent and reliable IT services (45 percent), followed by improved security, more technical expertise and lower costs.
Source: Businesswire
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Courts Undecided on How to Handle Email Threads in Electronic Discovery
Much of the business and personal productivity that comes in the digital world is from email and its unique abilities. Email allows us to communicate in a way that helps us associate context to our discussions, namely in its ability to be chained into a sequential thread when email users reply to or forward emails they previously received. This accomplishes two important tasks: 1) it allows the person sending the reply or forward to get an understanding of the issues so he/she can craft a meaningful response, and 2) it allows the person receiving the response to understand that response in the context of other on-going discussions. Email programs such as Microsoft Outlook, Eudora, and Gmail help by automatically including content from prior emails, thus producing a long chain of reference.
It is no coincidence that emails thus constitute key evidentiary value in the context of litigation. The inherent value captured in emails is what makes email productions central to pre-trial disclosures and the electronic discovery that precedes it. Courts have long recognized that emails are a business record and subject to discovery. Establishing who said what in the context of a matter in dispute is greatly facilitated by examining the thread of emails recorded in email repositories. With respect to electronic discovery, however, email threading presents several unique challenges. The area of greatest confusion and uncertainty has been the determination of privilege when emails are exchanged with in-house counsel and attorneys and whether such emails are protected by attorney-client privilege or not. A central issue is the composition of privilege logs under these circumstances.
There are several legal opinions on the matter of intermingling privileged and non-privileged communications in an email chain. These opinions have left the matter with little clarity, especially regarding whether the entire email thread is privileged or whether individual emails must be separated out and classified as privileged, with a privilege log listing them. Typically, the most recent email in a thread contains all other emails in that thread. Separating out individual emails (i.e., the contained emails) from the containing email would allow for treatment of just the portions of the email thread that may have privilege. When such separation is permitted, some contained emails may be assessed as privileged while others may not. However, it is entirely possible that the contained email is also present as an independent email under possession of the same custodian or another custodian. When it is present, one could argue that the contained email can just be ignored, and if the corresponding email is responsive, one can ignore the contained email. But rarely does a collection include a complete set of custodians, so the question of whether the privilege log should include the contained item in question still remains. In terms of management of review, and for constructing a privilege log, treating the most recent email and all its contained emails as a single entity is less expensive and cleaner than separating and determining privilege status of each contained email.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Venkat Rangan
It is no coincidence that emails thus constitute key evidentiary value in the context of litigation. The inherent value captured in emails is what makes email productions central to pre-trial disclosures and the electronic discovery that precedes it. Courts have long recognized that emails are a business record and subject to discovery. Establishing who said what in the context of a matter in dispute is greatly facilitated by examining the thread of emails recorded in email repositories. With respect to electronic discovery, however, email threading presents several unique challenges. The area of greatest confusion and uncertainty has been the determination of privilege when emails are exchanged with in-house counsel and attorneys and whether such emails are protected by attorney-client privilege or not. A central issue is the composition of privilege logs under these circumstances.
There are several legal opinions on the matter of intermingling privileged and non-privileged communications in an email chain. These opinions have left the matter with little clarity, especially regarding whether the entire email thread is privileged or whether individual emails must be separated out and classified as privileged, with a privilege log listing them. Typically, the most recent email in a thread contains all other emails in that thread. Separating out individual emails (i.e., the contained emails) from the containing email would allow for treatment of just the portions of the email thread that may have privilege. When such separation is permitted, some contained emails may be assessed as privileged while others may not. However, it is entirely possible that the contained email is also present as an independent email under possession of the same custodian or another custodian. When it is present, one could argue that the contained email can just be ignored, and if the corresponding email is responsive, one can ignore the contained email. But rarely does a collection include a complete set of custodians, so the question of whether the privilege log should include the contained item in question still remains. In terms of management of review, and for constructing a privilege log, treating the most recent email and all its contained emails as a single entity is less expensive and cleaner than separating and determining privilege status of each contained email.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Venkat Rangan
USB stick encryption takes a nosedive when mobile data is unprotected
Half of IT security professionals do not use encrypted USB sticks when carrying company data.
A survey of 277 IT security professionals by Credant Technologies found that 11 per cent protect their devices with passwords, with the type of unprotected data being carried including intellectual property (67 per cent), customer data (40 per cent) and employee details (26 per cent).
Sean Glynn, vice president and chief marketing officer of Credant Technologies, said: “If over half of this IT savvy audience are carrying unprotected sensitive information on USB sticks, and lets face it you can pick one up for less than £10 in most good supermarkets, it makes me question just how big this problem is and, more importantly, what needs to happen to make organisations wake up to the risk.
“As long as there are new devices coming into the arena, and new threats to protect them against, we'll continue to work with organisations' to deliver flexible solutions that track and report on where sensitive data is moving, and provide the right blend of data encryption and protection technologies to mitigate these risks.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: scmagazineuk.com
By: Dan Raywood
A survey of 277 IT security professionals by Credant Technologies found that 11 per cent protect their devices with passwords, with the type of unprotected data being carried including intellectual property (67 per cent), customer data (40 per cent) and employee details (26 per cent).
Sean Glynn, vice president and chief marketing officer of Credant Technologies, said: “If over half of this IT savvy audience are carrying unprotected sensitive information on USB sticks, and lets face it you can pick one up for less than £10 in most good supermarkets, it makes me question just how big this problem is and, more importantly, what needs to happen to make organisations wake up to the risk.
“As long as there are new devices coming into the arena, and new threats to protect them against, we'll continue to work with organisations' to deliver flexible solutions that track and report on where sensitive data is moving, and provide the right blend of data encryption and protection technologies to mitigate these risks.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: scmagazineuk.com
By: Dan Raywood
Australian ediscovery industry grows up
Most organisations remain ill-equipped to manage information for electronic discovery requests in a timely and cost-effective manner and are exposed to significant legal risks. David McGrath explains the options that are available in Australia to gain assistance from specialist firms in responding to rediscovery requests.
OK, so you’ve heard about the term ediscovery, and possibly know of Australia’s federal court ruling last year that meant all matters above a certain size must be dealt with 100% digitally. It’s all very well to dip into the topic casually, but how prepared are you to deal with a real world case of ediscovery? If you were asked tomorrow to work with your in-house legal team or an outside law firm to respond to an e-discovery request would you know where to start?
The cost of electronic discovery in litigation can be high. The penalties for getting it wrong are even higher if evidence ends up being destroyed, compromised or just unable to be produced. In the Unites States, poor information management or ediscovery practices have led to losses of hundreds of millions of dollars in legal cases. On top of that is the potential for damage to an organisation’s reputation.
In response, the courts have released new practice notes forcing litigants and their lawyers to get savvy with technology – and manage their documents in litigation more efficiently. In the Federal Court, litigants can be forced to use technology to manage as few as 200 electronic documents if that will make the proceedings quicker, cheaper and more efficient. The likelihood is that if you’re a corporate or government organisation caught up in litigation, then e-discovery will be a part of that.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: idm.net.au
By: David McGrath
OK, so you’ve heard about the term ediscovery, and possibly know of Australia’s federal court ruling last year that meant all matters above a certain size must be dealt with 100% digitally. It’s all very well to dip into the topic casually, but how prepared are you to deal with a real world case of ediscovery? If you were asked tomorrow to work with your in-house legal team or an outside law firm to respond to an e-discovery request would you know where to start?
The cost of electronic discovery in litigation can be high. The penalties for getting it wrong are even higher if evidence ends up being destroyed, compromised or just unable to be produced. In the Unites States, poor information management or ediscovery practices have led to losses of hundreds of millions of dollars in legal cases. On top of that is the potential for damage to an organisation’s reputation.
In response, the courts have released new practice notes forcing litigants and their lawyers to get savvy with technology – and manage their documents in litigation more efficiently. In the Federal Court, litigants can be forced to use technology to manage as few as 200 electronic documents if that will make the proceedings quicker, cheaper and more efficient. The likelihood is that if you’re a corporate or government organisation caught up in litigation, then e-discovery will be a part of that.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: idm.net.au
By: David McGrath
Monday, June 21, 2010
For contractors, offering federal cloud services is a risky business
Companies offering cloud services to government agencies will have to address federal security and data retention requirements, possibly making it difficult for small businesses to sell their services, according to a new report released by a law firm.
Contractors face legal risks when assisting federal agencies in implementing cloud computing, the practice of purchasing computing services that are stored and maintained by third-party providers, according to a white paper released by the law firm Reed Smith.
"You have to accept certain federal terms and conditions, and they're unique and different from those in commercial contracts," said Lorraine Mullings Campos, a partner with Reed Smith and co-author of the white paper.
Security is one area in which the risks are higher for contractors, because cloud services providers must meet additional expectations and ensure their applications comply with the 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act, which requires a lengthy certification and accreditation process.
"The cloud isn't unique, but . . . the requirements of FISMA [make it] much worse," said Gunnar Hellekson, chief technology strategist for Red Hat's public sector team. "I can provide a single service, [but] . . . I'd have to produce 92 separate pieces of documentation."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: nextgov.com
By: Jill R. Aitoro
Contractors face legal risks when assisting federal agencies in implementing cloud computing, the practice of purchasing computing services that are stored and maintained by third-party providers, according to a white paper released by the law firm Reed Smith.
"You have to accept certain federal terms and conditions, and they're unique and different from those in commercial contracts," said Lorraine Mullings Campos, a partner with Reed Smith and co-author of the white paper.
Security is one area in which the risks are higher for contractors, because cloud services providers must meet additional expectations and ensure their applications comply with the 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act, which requires a lengthy certification and accreditation process.
"The cloud isn't unique, but . . . the requirements of FISMA [make it] much worse," said Gunnar Hellekson, chief technology strategist for Red Hat's public sector team. "I can provide a single service, [but] . . . I'd have to produce 92 separate pieces of documentation."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: nextgov.com
By: Jill R. Aitoro
The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty
The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty. Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia Concurring Opinion in City of Ontario, California v. Quon, 560 U. S. _ (June 17, 2010).
Justice Scalia may not be one of your favorite judges, but in this one line in Quon he sums up the core problem with the law today. Not surprising, he does so by borrowing from the unacknowledged poet laureate of our Age, Robert Allen Zimmerman (a/k/a Bob Dylan). Here is the context of this quote in this conucrring opinion to Quon:
Applying the Fourth Amendment to new technologies may sometimes be difficult, but when it is necessary to decide a case we have no choice. The Court’s implication, ante, at 10, that where electronic privacy is concerned we should decide less than we otherwise would (that is, less than the principle of law necessary to resolve the case and guide private action)—or that we should hedge our bets by concocting case-specific standards or issuing opaque opinions—is in my view indefensible. The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Ralph Losey
Justice Scalia may not be one of your favorite judges, but in this one line in Quon he sums up the core problem with the law today. Not surprising, he does so by borrowing from the unacknowledged poet laureate of our Age, Robert Allen Zimmerman (a/k/a Bob Dylan). Here is the context of this quote in this conucrring opinion to Quon:
Applying the Fourth Amendment to new technologies may sometimes be difficult, but when it is necessary to decide a case we have no choice. The Court’s implication, ante, at 10, that where electronic privacy is concerned we should decide less than we otherwise would (that is, less than the principle of law necessary to resolve the case and guide private action)—or that we should hedge our bets by concocting case-specific standards or issuing opaque opinions—is in my view indefensible. The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Ralph Losey
Friday, June 18, 2010
Remediate Backup Tapes to Limit Liability & Reduce Storage Costs
Stockpiles of historical backup tape stored in offsite vaults cause unnecessary risk and avoidable expense for many corporations. By implementing direct indexing, IT teams are now empowered to manage these tapes in a way not possible before.
“How many backup tapes do you have?”
"I have no idea – probably thousands.”
“Do you need to keep them?”
“No.”
“Why don’t you recycle them?”
“Legal won’t let us.”
This might be a typical Storage Manager’s response when questioned about a company’s backup tape stockpile. These tapes are often created in response to a key objective of any IT organization - to protect enterprise data assets. Thus a mountain of old backup tapes has been amassed, largely of tapes that have long lived out their disaster recovery purpose. Why not recycle, or destroy all these old tapes? Federal regulations forbid it. Data on these tapes “MAY” be necessary to support current or future litigation. What data? A very, very small percent of what exists, typically less than 1%. Why then keep all these tapes? Because it has been next to impossible to separate out the useless data from what legal requires.
Sometime down the road, if not already, specific data from backup tapes will be requested by legal. Some corporate legal teams have issued a mandate to not touch tapes; others have been forced to do so. Either way stricter regulations are forcing the issue. The June 2009 California Electronic Discovery Act, for example, declares all electronically stored information is accessible, and requires it to be produced. In January 2010 Judge Scheindlin, the judge on the groundbreaking Zubulake case, issued an opinion where she denied the use of the burdensome argument and called out the plaintiffs as grossly negligent and issued sanctions for not collecting data from backup tapes to support the case. The courts are ruling more and more against firms that do not produce data, including tape data, in a timely manner. Many cases exist today where fines were imposed against botched collection of historical files and email. Will your company be next?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: wwpi.com
By: Jim McGann
“How many backup tapes do you have?”
"I have no idea – probably thousands.”
“Do you need to keep them?”
“No.”
“Why don’t you recycle them?”
“Legal won’t let us.”
This might be a typical Storage Manager’s response when questioned about a company’s backup tape stockpile. These tapes are often created in response to a key objective of any IT organization - to protect enterprise data assets. Thus a mountain of old backup tapes has been amassed, largely of tapes that have long lived out their disaster recovery purpose. Why not recycle, or destroy all these old tapes? Federal regulations forbid it. Data on these tapes “MAY” be necessary to support current or future litigation. What data? A very, very small percent of what exists, typically less than 1%. Why then keep all these tapes? Because it has been next to impossible to separate out the useless data from what legal requires.
Sometime down the road, if not already, specific data from backup tapes will be requested by legal. Some corporate legal teams have issued a mandate to not touch tapes; others have been forced to do so. Either way stricter regulations are forcing the issue. The June 2009 California Electronic Discovery Act, for example, declares all electronically stored information is accessible, and requires it to be produced. In January 2010 Judge Scheindlin, the judge on the groundbreaking Zubulake case, issued an opinion where she denied the use of the burdensome argument and called out the plaintiffs as grossly negligent and issued sanctions for not collecting data from backup tapes to support the case. The courts are ruling more and more against firms that do not produce data, including tape data, in a timely manner. Many cases exist today where fines were imposed against botched collection of historical files and email. Will your company be next?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: wwpi.com
By: Jim McGann
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Supreme Court sides with city in Ontario v. Quon
Case highlights importance of clear privacy policies
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Ontario, Calif., officials did not violate a police sergeant's right to privacy by acquiring personal text messages he sent on city-owned equipment. Meanwhile, experts connected to the case say it illustrates the need for clarity in privacy, or no-privacy, policies.
At issue in the case was whether police Sgt. Jeff Quon's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his supervisors read personal text messages he sent on his city-issued pager while at work. On Thursday, the Supreme Court reversed a lower appeal court's ruling that Quon's rights had been violated. "Because the search of Quon's text messages was reasonable, [the city] did not violate respondents' Fourth Amendment rights, and the [United States Court of Appeals for the] Ninth Circuit erred by concluding otherwise," the decision says.
However, the justices go on to say the ruling should not be used exclusively to determine public employees' overall privacy expectations. "Prudence counsels caution before the facts in this case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations of employees using employer-provided communication devices," the ruling states. "Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. At present, it is uncertain how workplace norms, and the law's treatment of them, will evolve."
Experts on both sides of the issue agree the problem in Ontario's case could have been prevented by establishing a clear set of rules for electronic communications and adhering to them. In court, Quon claimed a superior gave employees permission to use their pagers for personal messages as long as they paid any charges for exceeding the texting plan's limits. That conflicted with the city's general no-privacy policy already in place.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: americancityandcounty.com
By: Jennifer Grzeskowiak
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Ontario, Calif., officials did not violate a police sergeant's right to privacy by acquiring personal text messages he sent on city-owned equipment. Meanwhile, experts connected to the case say it illustrates the need for clarity in privacy, or no-privacy, policies.
At issue in the case was whether police Sgt. Jeff Quon's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his supervisors read personal text messages he sent on his city-issued pager while at work. On Thursday, the Supreme Court reversed a lower appeal court's ruling that Quon's rights had been violated. "Because the search of Quon's text messages was reasonable, [the city] did not violate respondents' Fourth Amendment rights, and the [United States Court of Appeals for the] Ninth Circuit erred by concluding otherwise," the decision says.
However, the justices go on to say the ruling should not be used exclusively to determine public employees' overall privacy expectations. "Prudence counsels caution before the facts in this case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations of employees using employer-provided communication devices," the ruling states. "Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. At present, it is uncertain how workplace norms, and the law's treatment of them, will evolve."
Experts on both sides of the issue agree the problem in Ontario's case could have been prevented by establishing a clear set of rules for electronic communications and adhering to them. In court, Quon claimed a superior gave employees permission to use their pagers for personal messages as long as they paid any charges for exceeding the texting plan's limits. That conflicted with the city's general no-privacy policy already in place.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: americancityandcounty.com
By: Jennifer Grzeskowiak
Disconnect Between Legal and IT Getting Worse, Recommind Survey Reveals
It’s no secret that the relationship between corporate IT and legal departments isn’t as cohesive as it should be. A recent survey released by Recommind, a leader in search-powered information risk management (IRM) software, revealed that a lack of collaboration between both teams was greatly hindering e-Discovery efforts.
2009 v. 2010: A Decrease in Collaboration, an Increase in Tensions
Comparing results against the company’s inaugural survey in 2009, this year’s report indicates that the departmental disconnect is getting worse. The survey, which examined the collaboration strategies of senior IT managers at enterprises averaging 13,000 employees, found that IT and legal teams aren’t collaborating on a number of issues, and are spending too much time questioning each other’s commitment to and understanding of e-Discovery and regulatory compliance.
At a time when e-Discovery and regulatory issues are gaining momentum, these results don’t exactly instill confidence across the enterprise. As well, with more e-Discovery platforms moving in-house, more IT departments are being called upon to help integrate technologies and train staff. While vendors make their products and services seem like the perfect marriage between IT and legal, the truth may indicate that there are tensions.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: cmswire.com
By: Marisa Peacock
2009 v. 2010: A Decrease in Collaboration, an Increase in Tensions
Comparing results against the company’s inaugural survey in 2009, this year’s report indicates that the departmental disconnect is getting worse. The survey, which examined the collaboration strategies of senior IT managers at enterprises averaging 13,000 employees, found that IT and legal teams aren’t collaborating on a number of issues, and are spending too much time questioning each other’s commitment to and understanding of e-Discovery and regulatory compliance.
At a time when e-Discovery and regulatory issues are gaining momentum, these results don’t exactly instill confidence across the enterprise. As well, with more e-Discovery platforms moving in-house, more IT departments are being called upon to help integrate technologies and train staff. While vendors make their products and services seem like the perfect marriage between IT and legal, the truth may indicate that there are tensions.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: cmswire.com
By: Marisa Peacock
Social Networks Pose E-Discovery Risks
Growing corporate use of Twitter, Facebook, and cloud-based applications are creating new e-discovery demands, but c-level awareness of risks remains scarce.
Two-thirds of businesses worry about the e-discovery risks posed by social networks, but 25% say they're not prepared, and 33% think they're only partially prepared, to meet related e-discovery requests. Furthermore, only 9% of companies think they're well prepared to deal with e-discovery requests for information stored in cloud-based applications.
Those findings come from a study released Wednesday, based on a survey of 337 U.S. IT, legal, risk, and compliance professionals conducted by the economist intelligence unit for Deloitte Forensic Center.
The survey also found that when it comes to understanding e-discovery, while 55% of organizations have senior executives with some level of commitment to e-discovery, there's a complete lack of c-level awareness at 16% of organizations, while at one-quarter of organizations, respondents said it's unclear whether c-level executives had any knowledge of the challenges or risks associated with meeting e-discovery requirements.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Mathew J. Schwartz
Two-thirds of businesses worry about the e-discovery risks posed by social networks, but 25% say they're not prepared, and 33% think they're only partially prepared, to meet related e-discovery requests. Furthermore, only 9% of companies think they're well prepared to deal with e-discovery requests for information stored in cloud-based applications.
Those findings come from a study released Wednesday, based on a survey of 337 U.S. IT, legal, risk, and compliance professionals conducted by the economist intelligence unit for Deloitte Forensic Center.
The survey also found that when it comes to understanding e-discovery, while 55% of organizations have senior executives with some level of commitment to e-discovery, there's a complete lack of c-level awareness at 16% of organizations, while at one-quarter of organizations, respondents said it's unclear whether c-level executives had any knowledge of the challenges or risks associated with meeting e-discovery requirements.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Mathew J. Schwartz
Security, Compliance Come Before Collaboration
Enterprise 2.0 strategies are becoming more popular among companies today, but there are serious logistical and legal challenges along with the expected benefits of using social collaboration tools.
This is especially true for companies like Vanguard, a mutual fund with roughly 12,500 employees and US$1.3 trillion in assets under management, said Abha Kumar, principal in the information technology division, during a presentation at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston this week.
Due to the nature of its business, Vanguard must contend with a wide variety of regulatory guidelines and compliance matters, with scrutiny coming from government agencies such as the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, private auditing firms and foreign regulators, she said. "We can never, ever let our clients' data get outside our four walls."
Therefore, historically, Vanguard's IT department has behaved quite conservatively, she said. "We tend to lock it down first and then open it up as the need arises."
She offered one example: Until recently, GPS capabilities on corporate BlackBerries were disabled. That didn't change until an executive called and asked for GPS to be turned on, as he was lost in Ireland, she said.
But despite these constraints, Vanguard has begun adopting Web 2.0-style tools, through a three-tier strategy focused on mobility, collaboration and "enriching" communications. Employees have responded enthusiastically, said Andrew Lazzaro, a Vanguard IT manager who co-presented with Kumar. "They're dying for it."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: PC World
By: Chris Kanaracus
This is especially true for companies like Vanguard, a mutual fund with roughly 12,500 employees and US$1.3 trillion in assets under management, said Abha Kumar, principal in the information technology division, during a presentation at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston this week.
Due to the nature of its business, Vanguard must contend with a wide variety of regulatory guidelines and compliance matters, with scrutiny coming from government agencies such as the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, private auditing firms and foreign regulators, she said. "We can never, ever let our clients' data get outside our four walls."
Therefore, historically, Vanguard's IT department has behaved quite conservatively, she said. "We tend to lock it down first and then open it up as the need arises."
She offered one example: Until recently, GPS capabilities on corporate BlackBerries were disabled. That didn't change until an executive called and asked for GPS to be turned on, as he was lost in Ireland, she said.
But despite these constraints, Vanguard has begun adopting Web 2.0-style tools, through a three-tier strategy focused on mobility, collaboration and "enriching" communications. Employees have responded enthusiastically, said Andrew Lazzaro, a Vanguard IT manager who co-presented with Kumar. "They're dying for it."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: PC World
By: Chris Kanaracus
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Two-Thirds of Respondents Are Concerned About E-Discovery Challenges Posed by Social Media
Companies Need Legal and IT Teams to Communicate More Effectively to Tackle Challenge
Roughly two-thirds (62 percent) of respondents surveyed who expressed an opinion say their company is concerned about e-discovery challenges posed by online social media forums, according to a survey commissioned by the Deloitte Forensic Center.
During the next three years, 49 percent of respondents expect their companies' information technology department to increase e-discovery efforts; 44 percent expect e-discovery challenges to increase; and 39 percent expect to devote more resources to e-discovery. However, of respondents with an opinion, 61 percent expect their companies to be only somewhat effective or not effective at all in dealing with e-discovery challenges three years from now.
One-quarter of respondents indicated their companies are unprepared to handle e-discovery requests pertaining to business-related use of social media, and an additional 36 percent indicated their companies are only somewhat prepared. Beyond social media platforms, only 9 percent of companies are well prepared to capture electronically stored information on third-party platforms, such as information stored in the cloud or used in software-as-a-service (SAAS) applications.
"The demands of e-discovery are clearly growing. Facebook and Twitter have not only become more prevalent in employees' personal lives, but have also become more accepted in the workplace, as companies are beginning to leverage social media platforms throughout the corporate environment," said Jeff Seymour, leader of the northeast analytic & forensic technology practice for Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP. "With electronically stored information rapidly rising in volume, avoiding e-discovery missteps requires cooperation from two corporate functions that typically have little in common and often don't speak the same language: legal and IT."
Communication challenges between legal and IT teams seem to be admitted by both sides. Only 23 percent of those who work in compliance, risk assessment or the legal department, and who have an opinion, say their IT department understands legal requirements for e-discovery very well. Coincidentally, only 23 percent of IT respondents with an opinion said their legal department understands very well the limits of what IT can do to support e-discovery.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: prnewswire.com
Roughly two-thirds (62 percent) of respondents surveyed who expressed an opinion say their company is concerned about e-discovery challenges posed by online social media forums, according to a survey commissioned by the Deloitte Forensic Center.
During the next three years, 49 percent of respondents expect their companies' information technology department to increase e-discovery efforts; 44 percent expect e-discovery challenges to increase; and 39 percent expect to devote more resources to e-discovery. However, of respondents with an opinion, 61 percent expect their companies to be only somewhat effective or not effective at all in dealing with e-discovery challenges three years from now.
One-quarter of respondents indicated their companies are unprepared to handle e-discovery requests pertaining to business-related use of social media, and an additional 36 percent indicated their companies are only somewhat prepared. Beyond social media platforms, only 9 percent of companies are well prepared to capture electronically stored information on third-party platforms, such as information stored in the cloud or used in software-as-a-service (SAAS) applications.
"The demands of e-discovery are clearly growing. Facebook and Twitter have not only become more prevalent in employees' personal lives, but have also become more accepted in the workplace, as companies are beginning to leverage social media platforms throughout the corporate environment," said Jeff Seymour, leader of the northeast analytic & forensic technology practice for Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP. "With electronically stored information rapidly rising in volume, avoiding e-discovery missteps requires cooperation from two corporate functions that typically have little in common and often don't speak the same language: legal and IT."
Communication challenges between legal and IT teams seem to be admitted by both sides. Only 23 percent of those who work in compliance, risk assessment or the legal department, and who have an opinion, say their IT department understands legal requirements for e-discovery very well. Coincidentally, only 23 percent of IT respondents with an opinion said their legal department understands very well the limits of what IT can do to support e-discovery.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: prnewswire.com
America's True Growth Industry: Legal Discovery
Discovery - for most, the word evokes feelings of excitement and wonder, images of Einstein or Jacques Cousteau, the voice of Leonard Nemoy or Patrick Stewart introducing a Star Trek episode. But for those who must navigate not the seas or the stars, but our tortuous civil justice system, the term conjures epic nightmares. If a plaintiff’s complaint survives a defendant’s various motions to dispose of the case, the pre-trial process of seeking and producing relevant “documents” commences.
Just the specter of what might come out in this process, or the astronomical costs of discovery, regularly forces defendants to the negotiating table to settle otherwise winnable cases. Innovations in storing information and in communicating have exponentially increased the number of documents that are “discoverable,” and rules have been adopted to address such E-discovery.
But as a new study conducted by the Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth and distilled in a recent Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder demonstrates, these rules have not kept up with technology.
As described by GlaxoSmithKline General Counsel Daniel Troy and Senior Counsel John O’Tuel in the WLF paper, “A Toolkit for Change,” the Searle Survey (which was provided to the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee) clearly reflects that the current Civil Rules are inadequate and are not being rigorously enforced. The Survey polled corporate counsels on litigation costs, which on average rose 73% over a six-year period. This increase, the poll found, was in large part due to wasteful and inefficient discovery. The Survey relates that it takes 1,044 pages of produced documents to yield one page worthy of use at trial. As Troy and O’Tuel note, this is a utility rate of “one-tenth of one percent for produced documents.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: blogs.forbes.com
By: Glen G. Lammi
Just the specter of what might come out in this process, or the astronomical costs of discovery, regularly forces defendants to the negotiating table to settle otherwise winnable cases. Innovations in storing information and in communicating have exponentially increased the number of documents that are “discoverable,” and rules have been adopted to address such E-discovery.
But as a new study conducted by the Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth and distilled in a recent Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder demonstrates, these rules have not kept up with technology.
As described by GlaxoSmithKline General Counsel Daniel Troy and Senior Counsel John O’Tuel in the WLF paper, “A Toolkit for Change,” the Searle Survey (which was provided to the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee) clearly reflects that the current Civil Rules are inadequate and are not being rigorously enforced. The Survey polled corporate counsels on litigation costs, which on average rose 73% over a six-year period. This increase, the poll found, was in large part due to wasteful and inefficient discovery. The Survey relates that it takes 1,044 pages of produced documents to yield one page worthy of use at trial. As Troy and O’Tuel note, this is a utility rate of “one-tenth of one percent for produced documents.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: blogs.forbes.com
By: Glen G. Lammi
How do you protect your data when it's out of your hands
What’s not to like about laptops? They’re powerful, connected, portable, have great graphics and sound – and they don’t cost much more than their desktop counterparts. So it’s no surprise that laptop shipments rose by 16% in 2009.
Unfortunately, their portability makes them easier to lose, not to mention prime targets for opportunistic theft. Analyst firm Gartner says that 10% of laptops are stolen annually. That’s over 500,000 laptops globally.
This also highlights a big issue with the majority of security software suites that are available for laptops. They’ll protect you, your data and your online identity against viruses, spyware, phishing and other Internet threats – that is, until you lose the laptop, or have it stolen.
Then what should you do? Unless you never put sensitive information of any kind on the laptop, never ask it to remember logins and passwords for banking or shopping websites, and rigorously delete cookies or form data every single day, you have a big problem.
But until you’re able to cancel or change username and password details on all the online accounts you use – which can be difficult if the misplaced or stolen laptop is the main computer you use – you’re at the mercy of the person with your laptop. So conventional PC security suites can leave you unprotected against one of the most common security risks – loss or theft.
With this in mind, what can you do to mitigate these risks, and protect the data that’s on your laptop? Here are some practical tips that could save you a headache if you’re one of the unlucky 10% that has their laptop spirited away.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source securitypark.co.uk
By: Belinda Sproston
Unfortunately, their portability makes them easier to lose, not to mention prime targets for opportunistic theft. Analyst firm Gartner says that 10% of laptops are stolen annually. That’s over 500,000 laptops globally.
This also highlights a big issue with the majority of security software suites that are available for laptops. They’ll protect you, your data and your online identity against viruses, spyware, phishing and other Internet threats – that is, until you lose the laptop, or have it stolen.
Then what should you do? Unless you never put sensitive information of any kind on the laptop, never ask it to remember logins and passwords for banking or shopping websites, and rigorously delete cookies or form data every single day, you have a big problem.
But until you’re able to cancel or change username and password details on all the online accounts you use – which can be difficult if the misplaced or stolen laptop is the main computer you use – you’re at the mercy of the person with your laptop. So conventional PC security suites can leave you unprotected against one of the most common security risks – loss or theft.
With this in mind, what can you do to mitigate these risks, and protect the data that’s on your laptop? Here are some practical tips that could save you a headache if you’re one of the unlucky 10% that has their laptop spirited away.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source securitypark.co.uk
By: Belinda Sproston
Technology in the Courtroom: A Double-Edged Sword
Open any recent periodical targeting attorneys and you will invariably find an article with a siren's call to incorporate technology into trial presentations or risk being at a disadvantage to an opponent who can. What most of those articles overlook are the practical barriers to using technology that limits its usefulness in litigation.
While it can enhance a trial presentation, not every trial will benefit from the use of technology, and in many instances it can be a hindrance rather than an asset. Using technology judiciously will make you a better trial attorney.
THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The first barrier to using technology is the hidden costs. Beyond the more obvious hard costs of the presentation software, laptop, and portable projector, substantial soft costs are incurred by the considerable time and expense it takes to transfer and index case file information into the presentation software. Relevant documents, trial exhibits, and deposition transcripts must be pulled from the client file and converted into an electronic format.
Large-format items such as X-ray or MRI films have to be sent out to a third-party vendor. Simply scanning in documents alone is not sufficient, as each electronic item must be named, described, indexed, and tagged. If you choose to undertake this task, delegate it to support staff or outsource it to a third-party vendor.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: George C. Zumbano and Benjamin R. Messing
While it can enhance a trial presentation, not every trial will benefit from the use of technology, and in many instances it can be a hindrance rather than an asset. Using technology judiciously will make you a better trial attorney.
THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The first barrier to using technology is the hidden costs. Beyond the more obvious hard costs of the presentation software, laptop, and portable projector, substantial soft costs are incurred by the considerable time and expense it takes to transfer and index case file information into the presentation software. Relevant documents, trial exhibits, and deposition transcripts must be pulled from the client file and converted into an electronic format.
Large-format items such as X-ray or MRI films have to be sent out to a third-party vendor. Simply scanning in documents alone is not sufficient, as each electronic item must be named, described, indexed, and tagged. If you choose to undertake this task, delegate it to support staff or outsource it to a third-party vendor.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: George C. Zumbano and Benjamin R. Messing
Social Media, eDiscovery and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Fortune Magazine reported earlier this year [that] 79 percent of the United States' best companies use at least one of the most popular social networking services on the web to interact with customers. As often happens in the corporate world, smaller companies have followed suit and started using Twitter and Facebook to expand brand visibility and expand their customer base.
However, workers of these companies also use social media to interact with each other. As such, it is becoming increasingly important that organizations adopt measures similar to email archiving policies to prevent potential issues or punishment from regulatory authorities, should any of this correspondence become public.
Moreover, eDiscovery must change accordingly. Kathy Owen, a partner at law firm DLA Piper, recently told Compliance Week that eDiscovery users must change the way they store information. Meanwhile, eDiscovery vendors must begin implementing social media search methods into their solutions to help their customers adapt to the changing technology.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: messagingarchitects.com
By: Pierre Chamberland
However, workers of these companies also use social media to interact with each other. As such, it is becoming increasingly important that organizations adopt measures similar to email archiving policies to prevent potential issues or punishment from regulatory authorities, should any of this correspondence become public.
Moreover, eDiscovery must change accordingly. Kathy Owen, a partner at law firm DLA Piper, recently told Compliance Week that eDiscovery users must change the way they store information. Meanwhile, eDiscovery vendors must begin implementing social media search methods into their solutions to help their customers adapt to the changing technology.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: messagingarchitects.com
By: Pierre Chamberland
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Storage Outlook: Cloudy, No Swimming
Earlier this month I sat down with Deepak Mohan, senior VP of Symantec's Information Management Group, and Anil Chakravarthy, senior VP of Symantec's Storage and Availability Management Group, to discuss the growth of digital information and topics that InformationWeek Analytics will be covering in the second half of the year.
Some headlines: Mohan estimates that up to 70% of the data enterprises store is duplicative. "We are saving a lot of junk," he said. "And the important items we often keep, we keep for far too long because we don’t know how to organize and separate it. And so we keep everything. Forever." (Disk may be cheap, but lawyers aren't.)
Both expect desktop virtualization will make things worse as storage moves from end user devices to the data center and we start saving multiple copies of desktop images. (Sure, IT plans to strictly limit the number of virtual desktops available, but be honest. Do you really believe that's going to happen?)
SAN buildouts are slowing as CIOs focus on optimizing what they already own, and both see automated tiering and deduplication becoming features with storage systems as opposed to standalone appliances. Clustering for DR is still mostly active/passive, though they're seeing more customers pilot load balancing and handling of demand spikes on DR systems, something virtualization can help with, as we've discussed. And, storage optimization will increasingly let IT escape vendor lock-in via multipathing and a single interface that will make the underlying hardware transparent to apps. (Can we get an amen to that.)
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Lorna Garey
Some headlines: Mohan estimates that up to 70% of the data enterprises store is duplicative. "We are saving a lot of junk," he said. "And the important items we often keep, we keep for far too long because we don’t know how to organize and separate it. And so we keep everything. Forever." (Disk may be cheap, but lawyers aren't.)
Both expect desktop virtualization will make things worse as storage moves from end user devices to the data center and we start saving multiple copies of desktop images. (Sure, IT plans to strictly limit the number of virtual desktops available, but be honest. Do you really believe that's going to happen?)
SAN buildouts are slowing as CIOs focus on optimizing what they already own, and both see automated tiering and deduplication becoming features with storage systems as opposed to standalone appliances. Clustering for DR is still mostly active/passive, though they're seeing more customers pilot load balancing and handling of demand spikes on DR systems, something virtualization can help with, as we've discussed. And, storage optimization will increasingly let IT escape vendor lock-in via multipathing and a single interface that will make the underlying hardware transparent to apps. (Can we get an amen to that.)
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Lorna Garey
23 Things Not To Write In An E-mail
Are you sure you want to click "send"?
Every e-mail you write could wind up in court. Everybody knows this, but people still act like it will never happen to them.
If you can't help yourself — if you just have to write that incriminating e-mail — you can at least avoid a few obvious red flags.
The lawyer appointed to figure out what went wrong at Lehman Brothers used lots of different search terms to mine 34 million pages of documents from the bank, Bloomberg News recently pointed out.
The searches are described in great detail starting on p. 158 of this section of the examiner's report. While some are technical — phrases like "mark to market," and the names of banks, auditors and the like — others are pretty general.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: npr.org
By: Jacob Goldstein
Every e-mail you write could wind up in court. Everybody knows this, but people still act like it will never happen to them.
If you can't help yourself — if you just have to write that incriminating e-mail — you can at least avoid a few obvious red flags.
The lawyer appointed to figure out what went wrong at Lehman Brothers used lots of different search terms to mine 34 million pages of documents from the bank, Bloomberg News recently pointed out.
The searches are described in great detail starting on p. 158 of this section of the examiner's report. While some are technical — phrases like "mark to market," and the names of banks, auditors and the like — others are pretty general.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: npr.org
By: Jacob Goldstein
EDD 'Safe Harbor' Defense No Laughing Matter
In a March 15 decision in Wilson v. Thorn Energy LLC, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York Frank Maas sanctioned defendants for spoliation after they could not produce an accounting because the USB flash or thumb drive on which their records resided failed.
The defendants' sanction was to preclude them from "offering any evidence at trial concerning their financial records or the data allegedly contained on the flash drive." In fighting the imposition of sanctions, the defendants cited Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides a "safe harbor" from sanctions under the rules "for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system."
Maas, however, held that by not making a backup of the contents of the USB drive, the defendants did not act in good faith and so could not avail themselves of Rule 37(e) protection.
Some have questioned Maas' interpretation of Rule 37(e). In a May 8 entry on the blog EDD Update, Craig Ball, the well-respected digital forensics and e-discovery expert and writer, held a gently-mocking "funeral" for the rule.
In the mock eulogy, which was titled "Requiem for a Stillborn Rule," Ball stated that while he "never liked Rule 37(e) -- née 37(f)," he still did not wish it "the ignominious end it met" in Wilson.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Leonard Deutchman
The defendants' sanction was to preclude them from "offering any evidence at trial concerning their financial records or the data allegedly contained on the flash drive." In fighting the imposition of sanctions, the defendants cited Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides a "safe harbor" from sanctions under the rules "for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system."
Maas, however, held that by not making a backup of the contents of the USB drive, the defendants did not act in good faith and so could not avail themselves of Rule 37(e) protection.
Some have questioned Maas' interpretation of Rule 37(e). In a May 8 entry on the blog EDD Update, Craig Ball, the well-respected digital forensics and e-discovery expert and writer, held a gently-mocking "funeral" for the rule.
In the mock eulogy, which was titled "Requiem for a Stillborn Rule," Ball stated that while he "never liked Rule 37(e) -- née 37(f)," he still did not wish it "the ignominious end it met" in Wilson.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Leonard Deutchman
GSA plans to take e-mail, collaboration to the cloud
The General Services Administration is putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to cloud computing.
GSA issued a request for proposals Monday to move the entire agency's e-mail system to the cloud.
"We believe we have designed this requirement to move GSA into an innovative, creative, cost-effective and evolving environment," writes Casey Coleman, GSA chief information officer, in the cover letter of the RFP. "The federal government believes that traditional outsourcing and system integration support is insufficiently adaptive and costly and the time is right to seek on-demand commodity services with a software-as-a-service cloud computing offering."
GSA would not be the first agency to move its e-mail system to the cloud. The Interior Department consolidated 12 different systems and moved 80,000 users to the cloud. Interior says it expects to spend 66 percent less for e-mail services by going to the cloud.
This new effort is different from GSA's IT modernization contract. Under this contract, the agency by July 4 plans to implement Microsoft Office 2007 across the agency, voice over IP phones, secure access to the network using Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 cards, and enhanced remote access and network capabilities.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: federalnewsradio.com
By: Jason Miller
GSA issued a request for proposals Monday to move the entire agency's e-mail system to the cloud.
"We believe we have designed this requirement to move GSA into an innovative, creative, cost-effective and evolving environment," writes Casey Coleman, GSA chief information officer, in the cover letter of the RFP. "The federal government believes that traditional outsourcing and system integration support is insufficiently adaptive and costly and the time is right to seek on-demand commodity services with a software-as-a-service cloud computing offering."
GSA would not be the first agency to move its e-mail system to the cloud. The Interior Department consolidated 12 different systems and moved 80,000 users to the cloud. Interior says it expects to spend 66 percent less for e-mail services by going to the cloud.
This new effort is different from GSA's IT modernization contract. Under this contract, the agency by July 4 plans to implement Microsoft Office 2007 across the agency, voice over IP phones, secure access to the network using Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 cards, and enhanced remote access and network capabilities.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: federalnewsradio.com
By: Jason Miller
Monday, June 14, 2010
e-Discovery Challenges of Social Media
As if complying with current e-discovery rules is not challenging enough, social networking Websites such as Facebook and Twitter are creating new headaches for corporate compliance and legal departments.
“The old ways of addressing electronic discovery and preservation don’t necessarily work when it comes to social media,” says Timothy Gordon, a partner with law firm Holland & Hart. “You have to think about it in a new way.”
During a June 8 Webcast on the e-discovery implications of social media, Kathy Owen, a partner at the law firm DLA Piper, agreed. “While the nature of social networking data is very similar to the other types of ESI [electronically stored information] that we deal with on a daily basis, the actual practicalities of how you gather that data, preserve that data, produce that data are very different,” she said.
One of the most fundamental challenges legal departments face is simply finding and gathering all the data that needs to be found during discovery. With traditional data—Word documents, spreadsheets, e-mail messages—pinpointing where information exists and how to retrieve it is “pretty easy,” and many companies now have the know-how to do that, Gordon says.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: complianceweek.com
By: Jaclyn Jaeger
“The old ways of addressing electronic discovery and preservation don’t necessarily work when it comes to social media,” says Timothy Gordon, a partner with law firm Holland & Hart. “You have to think about it in a new way.”
During a June 8 Webcast on the e-discovery implications of social media, Kathy Owen, a partner at the law firm DLA Piper, agreed. “While the nature of social networking data is very similar to the other types of ESI [electronically stored information] that we deal with on a daily basis, the actual practicalities of how you gather that data, preserve that data, produce that data are very different,” she said.
One of the most fundamental challenges legal departments face is simply finding and gathering all the data that needs to be found during discovery. With traditional data—Word documents, spreadsheets, e-mail messages—pinpointing where information exists and how to retrieve it is “pretty easy,” and many companies now have the know-how to do that, Gordon says.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: complianceweek.com
By: Jaclyn Jaeger
Google denies WiFi data collection broke law
Google has told US Congress that it broke no law in collecting data from unsecured private Wi-Fi networks as the company recorded images for its Street View service in over 30 countries.
The company claims that it has never analysed or reviewed in detail the content of the data collected since 2007, according to US reports.
When the collection of WiFi data was exposed by an audit ordered by German privacy authorities, Google said the data had been collected unintentionally by experimental code included "by mistake" in software used by Google's Street View cars.
"Maintaining people's trust is crucial to everything we do, and by mistakenly using code that collected payload data, we fell short," Google's director of public policy, Pablo Chavez, said in a letter to US Congress.
"We are determined to learn all the lessons we can from our mistake," he said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Warwick Ashford
The company claims that it has never analysed or reviewed in detail the content of the data collected since 2007, according to US reports.
When the collection of WiFi data was exposed by an audit ordered by German privacy authorities, Google said the data had been collected unintentionally by experimental code included "by mistake" in software used by Google's Street View cars.
"Maintaining people's trust is crucial to everything we do, and by mistakenly using code that collected payload data, we fell short," Google's director of public policy, Pablo Chavez, said in a letter to US Congress.
"We are determined to learn all the lessons we can from our mistake," he said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Warwick Ashford
Courts welcome new jury rule for social media
Judges, lawyers and prosecutors are welcoming a new rule warning jurors against using social media to gather information during trials.
The standard instruction, not to talk about a case, has changed with the times, said Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Vincent Culotta.
Judges now must take into consideration social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, video sharing sites such as YouTube, powerful search engines such as Google, and smart phones that allow instant access to the Internet.
"The definition of talk has changed," Culotta said.
The optional instruction for judges was issued by the Ohio State Bar Association in May. It warns Ohio juries against using smart phones, e-mail, blogs, Twitter and other social media to gather information about a case.
The instruction, which also covers chat rooms and texting, updates warnings judges already can give about staying away from newspaper and television coverage of a case.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: zanesvilletimesrecorder.com
The standard instruction, not to talk about a case, has changed with the times, said Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Vincent Culotta.
Judges now must take into consideration social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, video sharing sites such as YouTube, powerful search engines such as Google, and smart phones that allow instant access to the Internet.
"The definition of talk has changed," Culotta said.
The optional instruction for judges was issued by the Ohio State Bar Association in May. It warns Ohio juries against using smart phones, e-mail, blogs, Twitter and other social media to gather information about a case.
The instruction, which also covers chat rooms and texting, updates warnings judges already can give about staying away from newspaper and television coverage of a case.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: zanesvilletimesrecorder.com
Recent E-Discovery Decision Impacts All Companies, Including Hedge Funds
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, the leading judicial authority on e-discovery, levied a hearty reminder earlier this year that e-discovery sanctions remain in vogue and are not going away. It is now clear that even unintentional conduct may result in six-figure sanctions; and your subjective good faith or lack of technological expertise may not be a defense. The results matter, not the efforts undertaken to protect or preserve the evidence. Where evidence has been lost or destroyed, this fact, by itself, can cause your company to be deemed by a court as having been negligent or grossly negligence in connection with e-discovery duties, necessitating fines and attorneys’ fees against you. This latest decision must be heeded carefully in the fraught-with-litigation hedge fund and private equity industry. But fear not: proper planning can ensure you avoid the e-discovery anvil.
Judge Scheindlin’s Latest Ruling
E-discovery rules first coalesced during 2003 and 2004 in a series of rulings by Judge Scheindlin known as the Zubulake decisions (named after Laura Zubulake, a plaintiff in a gender-discrimination case). Judge Scheindlin’s newest decision, Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, No. 05 Civ. 9016, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010), significantly alters the ground rules for preserving and storing electronically stored information relevant to an anticipated federal lawsuit.
In Montreal Pension Plan, aggrieved investors sued for $550 million after two British Virgin Island-based hedge funds in which they purchased shares entered receivership and were subsequently liquidated. Several defendants discovered gaps in the plaintiffs’ document production, and upon that discovery seized the opportunity to go on the offensive against their accusers. Depositions were taken as to plaintiffs’ information-retention efforts, sworn statements as to information preservation were procured, yet the court imposed sanctions even though intentional wrongdoing was absent. The court, specifically noting that this was not a case of “egregious examples of … destroying evidence,” sternly warned that companies must preserve, collect, and review potentially-relevant information in a meaningfully-diligent way whenever litigation reasonably is anticipated
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: finalternatives.com
By: Zachary G. Newman and Jonathan M. Proman
Judge Scheindlin’s Latest Ruling
E-discovery rules first coalesced during 2003 and 2004 in a series of rulings by Judge Scheindlin known as the Zubulake decisions (named after Laura Zubulake, a plaintiff in a gender-discrimination case). Judge Scheindlin’s newest decision, Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, No. 05 Civ. 9016, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010), significantly alters the ground rules for preserving and storing electronically stored information relevant to an anticipated federal lawsuit.
In Montreal Pension Plan, aggrieved investors sued for $550 million after two British Virgin Island-based hedge funds in which they purchased shares entered receivership and were subsequently liquidated. Several defendants discovered gaps in the plaintiffs’ document production, and upon that discovery seized the opportunity to go on the offensive against their accusers. Depositions were taken as to plaintiffs’ information-retention efforts, sworn statements as to information preservation were procured, yet the court imposed sanctions even though intentional wrongdoing was absent. The court, specifically noting that this was not a case of “egregious examples of … destroying evidence,” sternly warned that companies must preserve, collect, and review potentially-relevant information in a meaningfully-diligent way whenever litigation reasonably is anticipated
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: finalternatives.com
By: Zachary G. Newman and Jonathan M. Proman
Sunday, June 13, 2010
A Quality Assurance Tip for Privileged ESI
We squander so much money in e-discovery searching for confidential attorney-client communications. "Squander" because it's an outsize expense that could have been largely eliminated with minimal effort at the time fingers met keyboard. It's not as though counsel are wholly unaware of the sensitivity of privileged communications when made. If it had been a face-to-face conversation, we'd have had the presence of mind to shut the door or ask those outside the ambit of privilege to leave. Lawyers really aren't as stupid as we sound in the reported decisions.
If we have the presence of mind to recognize and protect a confidential attorney-client communication when made face-to-face--if we're savvy enough to say, "Wait a second while I take this off speakerphone,"--why are we incapable of bringing the same cautious mien to our electronic conversations? And, why-oh-why do we forget the most important component of quality assurance before producing material posing a risk of inadvertent production of privileged communications?
Ask a judge who's done an in camera review of privileged ESI what percentage of the material submitted was truly privileged, and you're likely to hear numbers hovering way below fifty percent. An average assessment of 20% or less wouldn't surprise me. Does anyone ever review the definition of a confidential attorney-client communication anymore? Is it not in the Nutshells today?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: eddupdate.com
By: Craig Ball
If we have the presence of mind to recognize and protect a confidential attorney-client communication when made face-to-face--if we're savvy enough to say, "Wait a second while I take this off speakerphone,"--why are we incapable of bringing the same cautious mien to our electronic conversations? And, why-oh-why do we forget the most important component of quality assurance before producing material posing a risk of inadvertent production of privileged communications?
Ask a judge who's done an in camera review of privileged ESI what percentage of the material submitted was truly privileged, and you're likely to hear numbers hovering way below fifty percent. An average assessment of 20% or less wouldn't surprise me. Does anyone ever review the definition of a confidential attorney-client communication anymore? Is it not in the Nutshells today?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: eddupdate.com
By: Craig Ball
Courts adapting to technology
As a criminal trial juror three weeks ago, Peggy Wickert had to resist the urge to search the Internet for some of the legal terms she heard.
Although seemingly innocent enough, many judicial officials would agree that kind of curiosity can lead to a mistrial.
In May, the Ohio State Bar Association issued new jury instructions to directly address modern technology and social media.
Jury instructions used to only tell jurors to stay away from newspapers and television and radio broadcasts, Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Vincent Culotta said. Now, there's Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. Plus, new technology, like iPhones, Blackberries and other smart phones allow users to access the Internet instantly.
"The standard admonition — don't talk to anyone about this case, don't let anyone talk about this case with you — that's the standard," Culotta said.
"The definition of talk has changed. Talk now includes blogging, putting on (your) Facebook account, text messaging, e-mailing.
"You think common sense would include that, but you have to be explicit."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: news-herald.com
By: Jacob Lammers
Although seemingly innocent enough, many judicial officials would agree that kind of curiosity can lead to a mistrial.
In May, the Ohio State Bar Association issued new jury instructions to directly address modern technology and social media.
Jury instructions used to only tell jurors to stay away from newspapers and television and radio broadcasts, Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Vincent Culotta said. Now, there's Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. Plus, new technology, like iPhones, Blackberries and other smart phones allow users to access the Internet instantly.
"The standard admonition — don't talk to anyone about this case, don't let anyone talk about this case with you — that's the standard," Culotta said.
"The definition of talk has changed. Talk now includes blogging, putting on (your) Facebook account, text messaging, e-mailing.
"You think common sense would include that, but you have to be explicit."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: news-herald.com
By: Jacob Lammers
Public officials' use of social media sparks debate
You thought Facebook and Twitter were ways to tell the world what you had for breakfast? Or that cellphone texting means you can ask your spouse what's for dinner? Well, what about school board and City Council members who use those social media and communication tools to subvert the concept of open government? The council member who text-messages another member during a meeting and asks, "How am I supposed to vote?" The school board members who use Facebook's private chat to decide which contractor should get hired for a multimillion-dollar job.
According to state law, officials are not supposed to deliberate or discuss public matters at any unannounced meeting held in private. And the public has a right to inspect or copy many government records, which can include e-mail and other electronic postings.
The Texas attorney general's office is strict about that.
But the new communication tools have become "second nature" to everyone, including public officials in Texas, said William McKamie, a San Antonio lawyer who serves as city attorney for several municipalities. People feel more uninhibited about communicating when using them, he said.
That can lead to trouble.
It did lead to two debates Friday in Fort Worth at the annual meeting of the State Bar of Texas.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: tmcnet.com
By: Dave Lieber
According to state law, officials are not supposed to deliberate or discuss public matters at any unannounced meeting held in private. And the public has a right to inspect or copy many government records, which can include e-mail and other electronic postings.
The Texas attorney general's office is strict about that.
But the new communication tools have become "second nature" to everyone, including public officials in Texas, said William McKamie, a San Antonio lawyer who serves as city attorney for several municipalities. People feel more uninhibited about communicating when using them, he said.
That can lead to trouble.
It did lead to two debates Friday in Fort Worth at the annual meeting of the State Bar of Texas.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: tmcnet.com
By: Dave Lieber
Go With the (Work)flow in Electronic Discovery
Recently, I attended a conference in Washington DC with a large number of government agencies, including (I must confess) many Clearwell customers like the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Veterans Administration. It will probably come as no surprise that, during our conversations, it became abundantly clear that they had substantial electronic discovery technology needs. Many were still reviewing PST files manually in Outlook; others were TIFFing millions of pages of documents prior to directly loading into a traditional review application for eyes-on review. That’s right, nary a trace of early case assessment, transparent search, or culling to be found.
Sadly, no news there. What was fascinating for us was the reaction to the latest release of the Clearwell E-Discovery Platform, Version 5.5. Version 5.5 contains significant new functionality, including dramatically increased performance and scalability along with a number of substantial processing, analysis, review, and production enhancements. But, in addition to these features, we have rolled out a set of e-discovery best practices templates designed to make it vastly easier for organizations to implement a formal e-discovery methodology that builds on the integrated nature of our platform. And it was the prospect of such a methodology, even more than the technology, that people were buzzing about at the summit.
Why? With all of the activity going on in the e-discovery space around product and technology innovation, there was some strong feedback that process and methodology may have gotten lost in the shuffle. And, if you think about it, it’s process and methodology that are likely to be most carefully assessed when the courts are considering the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of e-discovery for a case.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Kurt Leafstrand
Sadly, no news there. What was fascinating for us was the reaction to the latest release of the Clearwell E-Discovery Platform, Version 5.5. Version 5.5 contains significant new functionality, including dramatically increased performance and scalability along with a number of substantial processing, analysis, review, and production enhancements. But, in addition to these features, we have rolled out a set of e-discovery best practices templates designed to make it vastly easier for organizations to implement a formal e-discovery methodology that builds on the integrated nature of our platform. And it was the prospect of such a methodology, even more than the technology, that people were buzzing about at the summit.
Why? With all of the activity going on in the e-discovery space around product and technology innovation, there was some strong feedback that process and methodology may have gotten lost in the shuffle. And, if you think about it, it’s process and methodology that are likely to be most carefully assessed when the courts are considering the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of e-discovery for a case.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Kurt Leafstrand
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Public Sector Clueless On Secure Data Transfer
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request by Software AG has revealed that most public sector bodies have no idea about secure data transfer
Research by enterprise software provider Software AG has revealed that 50 percent of public sector organisations are unable to provide information on secure data transfer procedures and costs.
This is down to the fact that they are failing to keep records on inter-organisational secure data transfer procedures and costs.
This information was obtained via a number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, which asked local authorities and central government departments across the UK about their usage of postal and courier services for such transfers, as well as staff time and handling costs, plus spending on removable media such as USB sticks, backup tapes etc.
“Not Required To Keep Records”
The research found that a total of 14 organisations out of 26 were unable to provide any information at all, with one erroneously responding “[we] are not currently required to keep records of any information/data that is transferred.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: eweekeurope.co.uk
By: Tom Jowitt
Research by enterprise software provider Software AG has revealed that 50 percent of public sector organisations are unable to provide information on secure data transfer procedures and costs.
This is down to the fact that they are failing to keep records on inter-organisational secure data transfer procedures and costs.
This information was obtained via a number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, which asked local authorities and central government departments across the UK about their usage of postal and courier services for such transfers, as well as staff time and handling costs, plus spending on removable media such as USB sticks, backup tapes etc.
“Not Required To Keep Records”
The research found that a total of 14 organisations out of 26 were unable to provide any information at all, with one erroneously responding “[we] are not currently required to keep records of any information/data that is transferred.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: eweekeurope.co.uk
By: Tom Jowitt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
