Around 80 wallpaper apps in the Android Marketplace were found to be sending back data to remote services, according to security firm Lookout According to Lookout, a US-based security firm, more than 80 Google Android wallpaper apps were collecting mobile phone numbers and personal details, including unique subscriber numbers. Many of the apps also “dialled home” to their developers, transmitting unencrypted sensitive data back to remote servers.
One such app, called Jackeey Wallpaper, was downloaded millions of times, and sent data back to China, according to Kevin MaHaffey, Lookout’s chief technology officer. The company presented its findings at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas earlier this week.
New Google Maps tool allows mobile phone users to share location with friendsThe Jackeey Wallpaper app provided themed Star Wars and My Little Pony wallpaper, said Lookout, but it also collected information about the user’s phone number, unique identifier and voicemail number, before beaming back this data to a server in China. However, Lookout stressed that there was no evidence that this data had been collected or used for malicious purposes.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: telegraph.co.uk
By: Claudine Beaumont
Friday, July 30, 2010
AIIM Develops its SharePoint Certificate Program
AIIM has introduced its newest Certificate program focused on best practices for adopting and implementing Microsoft (News - Alert) SharePoint 2010.
The SharePoint Certificate program has been developed in partnership with Houston-based Gimmal Group, Inc., a premier Enterprise Content Management and Records Management professional services firm, in response to a growing need by organizations to learn how to apply the necessary strategies and structures to sharing and managing corporate information on the SharePoint 2010 platform.
According to Bob Larrivee, director and industry advisor at AIIM, “A recent AIIM study, ’SharePoint: strategies and experiences,’ reveals that governance is sorely lacking in the majority of installations. For the 500+ individuals we surveyed, there appears to be very little thought given to e-discovery, retention policies, and most of all, classification schemes and metadata standards. While Microsoft and their partners provide organizations with technical training on the product, they don’t provide guidance on the information management implications of the documents shared and stored within its libraries and team sites. The AIIM SharePoint Certificate program is based on identified best practices from our more than 65,000-member community. Developed independent of Microsoft, it identifies the elements of successful implementation, and teaches organizations how to assess when they need complementary solutions to enhance their information management environments.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: sharepoint.tmcnet.com
By: Deepika Mala
The SharePoint Certificate program has been developed in partnership with Houston-based Gimmal Group, Inc., a premier Enterprise Content Management and Records Management professional services firm, in response to a growing need by organizations to learn how to apply the necessary strategies and structures to sharing and managing corporate information on the SharePoint 2010 platform.
According to Bob Larrivee, director and industry advisor at AIIM, “A recent AIIM study, ’SharePoint: strategies and experiences,’ reveals that governance is sorely lacking in the majority of installations. For the 500+ individuals we surveyed, there appears to be very little thought given to e-discovery, retention policies, and most of all, classification schemes and metadata standards. While Microsoft and their partners provide organizations with technical training on the product, they don’t provide guidance on the information management implications of the documents shared and stored within its libraries and team sites. The AIIM SharePoint Certificate program is based on identified best practices from our more than 65,000-member community. Developed independent of Microsoft, it identifies the elements of successful implementation, and teaches organizations how to assess when they need complementary solutions to enhance their information management environments.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: sharepoint.tmcnet.com
By: Deepika Mala
Social Media, Permanent Records and eDiscovery
Social media is emerging as a cottage industry for electronic evidence. It is now playfully referred to as an electronic “permanent record” in this era of Wikileaks.
“It just makes for a beautiful exhibit, and there’s no longer any question about what was said,” says Cassandra Ferrannini, an employment law attorney with the Sacramento law firm Downey Brand. Conversations are displayed complete with date and timestamps. Some conversational snippets show up in context, others out of context.
Labor and employment attorneys are aggressively using Facebook and other social media outlets. All areas of litigation and investigation are using social media to find and vet witnesses, for subpoena and impeachment reasons. There is even an iPhone App for background checks, which reports the usual demographic information and also includes social media activity.
Ralph Losey, Brett Anders and I will be discussing one of the many Facebook cases involving what is public and what is private in Crispin v. Audigier, Case No. CV 09-09509 MMM (JEMx) (May 26, 2010). The Summer Case Law Update Part 2 happens on August 4, 2010 at 1PM EST. Register here.
Harvesting Social Media for Legal Purposes
Consequences of social media harvesting can be loss of privacy, trade secret protection, privilege protection and the public proliferation of the proverbial “smoking gun”. The privilege protection can be lost for subject matter, not only a simple email or conversation. Trade secrets can become readily ascertainable.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: discoveryresources.org
By: Mary Mack
“It just makes for a beautiful exhibit, and there’s no longer any question about what was said,” says Cassandra Ferrannini, an employment law attorney with the Sacramento law firm Downey Brand. Conversations are displayed complete with date and timestamps. Some conversational snippets show up in context, others out of context.
Labor and employment attorneys are aggressively using Facebook and other social media outlets. All areas of litigation and investigation are using social media to find and vet witnesses, for subpoena and impeachment reasons. There is even an iPhone App for background checks, which reports the usual demographic information and also includes social media activity.
Ralph Losey, Brett Anders and I will be discussing one of the many Facebook cases involving what is public and what is private in Crispin v. Audigier, Case No. CV 09-09509 MMM (JEMx) (May 26, 2010). The Summer Case Law Update Part 2 happens on August 4, 2010 at 1PM EST. Register here.
Harvesting Social Media for Legal Purposes
Consequences of social media harvesting can be loss of privacy, trade secret protection, privilege protection and the public proliferation of the proverbial “smoking gun”. The privilege protection can be lost for subject matter, not only a simple email or conversation. Trade secrets can become readily ascertainable.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: discoveryresources.org
By: Mary Mack
The End of the 'IT Burden' Defense
When being sued, one of the excuses that many companies have come fall back on is known as the "IT burden" defense. The basic premise is that locating the information sought by the court puts too much of an e-discovery burden on the company's IT resources.
This defense invariably results in some uncomfortable moments for IT executives because it usually requires them to testify in court about how inept they in managing data.
The days when that was a plausible excuse are coming to an end anyway. Index Engines has created a Unified Discovery Platform that indexes all the information across an enterprise at a rate of roughly 1TB per hour per node on the network.
According to Jim McGann, vice president of information discovery for Index Engines, the company has essentially created an operating environment for indexing that makes it possible to immediately find any piece of data hiding in the enterprise, including that on backup tapes.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: IT Business Edge (blog)
By: Michael Vizard
This defense invariably results in some uncomfortable moments for IT executives because it usually requires them to testify in court about how inept they in managing data.
The days when that was a plausible excuse are coming to an end anyway. Index Engines has created a Unified Discovery Platform that indexes all the information across an enterprise at a rate of roughly 1TB per hour per node on the network.
According to Jim McGann, vice president of information discovery for Index Engines, the company has essentially created an operating environment for indexing that makes it possible to immediately find any piece of data hiding in the enterprise, including that on backup tapes.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: IT Business Edge (blog)
By: Michael Vizard
Bridging the Communication Gap in E-Discovery
Several years ago, I was the technical lead for a mission-critical application at a Fortune 100 insurance company. The application quoted and issued policies for the company's largest commercial line of business, booking revenues upward of $28,000 per minute of scheduled uptime. One day, I received a request from the chief litigator to stop automatic deletion from the system. Simple enough, right? Wrong. Complying with this request -- which, translated into IT terms, meant suspending the purge process -- would have locked the database in 11 hours, crashing the application, crippling the company's ability to sell a policy, and suspending 30 percent of the company's revenue stream.
This was my first experience with e-discovery, and a classic example of the process disconnects I see at the companies for which I now consult. E-discovery, like litigation, can be a frenzy. Most companies are simply not set up with the streamlined channels of communication they need to respond effectively.
I've learned a lot since that fire drill. Once I clarified what the legal department needed -- in this case, an attorney general's office investigation required that purged data be saved -- I got approval to determine the impact of the request, which was unknown at the time. I assembled a team of experts -- anyone who had their hands on the system -- and by the end of the day we had discovered the proposed suspension's alarming impact on the bottom line. I proposed an alternative solution: Run a tape exporting everything that would normally be purged, and report from that data. This met the legal team's needs, did not significantly affect IT's processes, and didn't affect the bottom line of the company.
Communication gaps are a persistent problem in IT, and here, "soft skills" deliver hard results. It's no secret that IT and legal speak different languages. No one is doing paper-only litigation anymore, so legal and IT working together is simply a fact of life. Clear communication goes a long way toward getting them to work together and can effectively bridge e-discovery gaps.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------- --------
Source: Law.com
By: Peter Caradonna
This was my first experience with e-discovery, and a classic example of the process disconnects I see at the companies for which I now consult. E-discovery, like litigation, can be a frenzy. Most companies are simply not set up with the streamlined channels of communication they need to respond effectively.
I've learned a lot since that fire drill. Once I clarified what the legal department needed -- in this case, an attorney general's office investigation required that purged data be saved -- I got approval to determine the impact of the request, which was unknown at the time. I assembled a team of experts -- anyone who had their hands on the system -- and by the end of the day we had discovered the proposed suspension's alarming impact on the bottom line. I proposed an alternative solution: Run a tape exporting everything that would normally be purged, and report from that data. This met the legal team's needs, did not significantly affect IT's processes, and didn't affect the bottom line of the company.
Communication gaps are a persistent problem in IT, and here, "soft skills" deliver hard results. It's no secret that IT and legal speak different languages. No one is doing paper-only litigation anymore, so legal and IT working together is simply a fact of life. Clear communication goes a long way toward getting them to work together and can effectively bridge e-discovery gaps.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------- --------
Source: Law.com
By: Peter Caradonna
Will Legal Outsourcing Drive Large Law Firm Innovation?
Innovators at the Barricades by Bruce MacEwen at Adam Smith, Esq. argues that legal process outsourcing (LPO) is a disruptive force for law firms, citing Clayton Christensen’s The Innovator’s Dilemma.
“Outsourcing is here to stay” writes MacEwen. He describes different flavors using a 2 x 2 grid: location on the x-axis with offshore or onshore ("foreign” or “domestic"); ownership on the y-axis with captive or 3rd-party ("owned” or “rented"). MacEwen notes that this model is “by no means exhaustive; it’s merely indicative and representative”. This is a good model for thinking about centralizing support services.
LPO will have a big impact: “Once clients begin to get accustomed to the notion of being able to unbundle, or unchunk, legal engagements - be they disputed matters or transactional ones - there’s potentially little end to it.” MacEwen argues that LPOs are likely to go upmarket, meaning they perform higher value work, which will threaten law firms - and also force them to innovate and move up the value chain.
Working for an LPO, my view is that there is a clear line between legal support and law practice. An LPO cannot practice law so I think there is a clear limit to how far “up the value chain” an LPO can go.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: Prism Legal
“Outsourcing is here to stay” writes MacEwen. He describes different flavors using a 2 x 2 grid: location on the x-axis with offshore or onshore ("foreign” or “domestic"); ownership on the y-axis with captive or 3rd-party ("owned” or “rented"). MacEwen notes that this model is “by no means exhaustive; it’s merely indicative and representative”. This is a good model for thinking about centralizing support services.
LPO will have a big impact: “Once clients begin to get accustomed to the notion of being able to unbundle, or unchunk, legal engagements - be they disputed matters or transactional ones - there’s potentially little end to it.” MacEwen argues that LPOs are likely to go upmarket, meaning they perform higher value work, which will threaten law firms - and also force them to innovate and move up the value chain.
Working for an LPO, my view is that there is a clear line between legal support and law practice. An LPO cannot practice law so I think there is a clear limit to how far “up the value chain” an LPO can go.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: Prism Legal
Litigation: E-mails, Texts, and Tweets: Killer Evidence
Time and again, in jury research and in juror interviews following verdicts, contemporaneous writings by persons with the closest relationship to the litigated dispute—those who negotiated or implemented the contract, who made the employment termination decision, who engaged in price negotiations, and the like—receive dispositive weight. Internal memos, e-mails, text messages and even postings on social media have overridden percipient testimony no matter how credible.
For a defendant, these types of documents can be the most dangerous. This difficult lesson must be taken seriously..Managers and employees need to understand that their casual communications take on an entirely different appearance when they are written and preserved and then viewed years later, possibly out of context. Indeed, e-mails that reflect intent trump, in jurors’ minds, the actual wording of contracts or the testimony of management who have made important decisions for the company. In addition, e-mails tend to be forwarded to unintended recipients and are unlikely to be deleted from all of the places that they end up. They are almost invariably viewed by outsiders, including jurors, as a true glimpse into the inner thoughts of the sender. From a corporate perspective, e-mails are best used only to convey objective information without judgmental or colorful additions. So what can be done?
First, company employees should be counseled on basic e-mail hygiene: Each e-mail sent within a corporate environment (in a nonprivileged context) should be written with the content and tone in mind that the employee would not mind showing the e-mail to any third party—in other words, assume publication.
Second, once critical e-mails are discovered in litigation, they should be reviewed and put into context. Employees being deposed about their e-mails must be prepared to explain in their deposition the context in which the e-mail was sent and to credibly and truthfully explain in the deposition what was truly intended. Although sometimes considered a risky strategy, to the extent that counsel is confronted with the situation where an employee author of an e-mail is asked in a deposition simply to authenticate the e-mail document, counsel must carefully consider whether to take that employee on essentially direct examination in the deposition and offer the employee the opportunity to explain it. If necessary, that prophylactic tactic could preserve a case on summary judgment and inoculate the e-mail from harmful use at a later trial.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-----------------------------------------------
Source: Inside Counsel
By: David Zaslowski
For a defendant, these types of documents can be the most dangerous. This difficult lesson must be taken seriously..Managers and employees need to understand that their casual communications take on an entirely different appearance when they are written and preserved and then viewed years later, possibly out of context. Indeed, e-mails that reflect intent trump, in jurors’ minds, the actual wording of contracts or the testimony of management who have made important decisions for the company. In addition, e-mails tend to be forwarded to unintended recipients and are unlikely to be deleted from all of the places that they end up. They are almost invariably viewed by outsiders, including jurors, as a true glimpse into the inner thoughts of the sender. From a corporate perspective, e-mails are best used only to convey objective information without judgmental or colorful additions. So what can be done?
First, company employees should be counseled on basic e-mail hygiene: Each e-mail sent within a corporate environment (in a nonprivileged context) should be written with the content and tone in mind that the employee would not mind showing the e-mail to any third party—in other words, assume publication.
Second, once critical e-mails are discovered in litigation, they should be reviewed and put into context. Employees being deposed about their e-mails must be prepared to explain in their deposition the context in which the e-mail was sent and to credibly and truthfully explain in the deposition what was truly intended. Although sometimes considered a risky strategy, to the extent that counsel is confronted with the situation where an employee author of an e-mail is asked in a deposition simply to authenticate the e-mail document, counsel must carefully consider whether to take that employee on essentially direct examination in the deposition and offer the employee the opportunity to explain it. If necessary, that prophylactic tactic could preserve a case on summary judgment and inoculate the e-mail from harmful use at a later trial.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-----------------------------------------------
Source: Inside Counsel
By: David Zaslowski
Thursday, July 29, 2010
New York Court Provides Detailed Instruction on Protocol for Discovery of Cloned Hard Drive
Schreiber v. Schreiber, 2010 WL 2735672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2010)
In this matrimonial action, plaintiff sought access to her husband’s (the defendant) office computer to determine his true financial condition. After denying plaintiff’s initial motion, the court directed (by stipulated order) that a clone of defendant’s office hard drive be made at plaintiff’s expense. Thereafter, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for access to the cloned drive upon finding her request for unrestricted access overbroad. “Equally important” to the court was plaintiff’s failure to propose any protocol for investigation of defendant’s hard drive. The court instructed that should the plaintiff wish to renew her motion, her renewal “must contain a detailed, step-by-step discovery protocol that would allow for the protection of privileged and private material.” Moreover, the court provided detailed instruction for what such a protocol should contain:
(a) Discovery Referee: The parties will have until the renewal deadline to agree on an attorney referee, preferably someone with some technical expertise in computer science, to be appointed pursuant to CPLR 3104(b) to supervise discovery (the referee). [FN10] If the parties fail to agree on a referee before the renewal deadline, they will submit two names each to the court (along with a summary of the proposed referee's qualifications, not to exceed one page, and hourly rate), and the court will select a referee from among the candidates submitted.
(b) Forensic Computer Expert: The parties will have until the renewal deadline to agree on a forensic computer expert who will inspect and analyze the clone (the expert). If the parties fail to agree on an expert before the renewal deadline, they will submit two names each to the court (along with a summary of the proposed expert's qualifications, not to exceed one page, and the expert's fee structure), and the court will select an expert from among the candidates submitted. The expert will execute a confidentiality agreement (to be agreed upon by the parties) governing non-disclosure of the contents of the clone and its re-delivery to defendant's counsel after completion of electronic discovery.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com
In this matrimonial action, plaintiff sought access to her husband’s (the defendant) office computer to determine his true financial condition. After denying plaintiff’s initial motion, the court directed (by stipulated order) that a clone of defendant’s office hard drive be made at plaintiff’s expense. Thereafter, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for access to the cloned drive upon finding her request for unrestricted access overbroad. “Equally important” to the court was plaintiff’s failure to propose any protocol for investigation of defendant’s hard drive. The court instructed that should the plaintiff wish to renew her motion, her renewal “must contain a detailed, step-by-step discovery protocol that would allow for the protection of privileged and private material.” Moreover, the court provided detailed instruction for what such a protocol should contain:
(a) Discovery Referee: The parties will have until the renewal deadline to agree on an attorney referee, preferably someone with some technical expertise in computer science, to be appointed pursuant to CPLR 3104(b) to supervise discovery (the referee). [FN10] If the parties fail to agree on a referee before the renewal deadline, they will submit two names each to the court (along with a summary of the proposed referee's qualifications, not to exceed one page, and hourly rate), and the court will select a referee from among the candidates submitted.
(b) Forensic Computer Expert: The parties will have until the renewal deadline to agree on a forensic computer expert who will inspect and analyze the clone (the expert). If the parties fail to agree on an expert before the renewal deadline, they will submit two names each to the court (along with a summary of the proposed expert's qualifications, not to exceed one page, and the expert's fee structure), and the court will select an expert from among the candidates submitted. The expert will execute a confidentiality agreement (to be agreed upon by the parties) governing non-disclosure of the contents of the clone and its re-delivery to defendant's counsel after completion of electronic discovery.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com
Intel Demos 50Gbps Silicon Photonics Laser Link
Intel on Tuesday announced it has developed a prototype high-speed optical data link, which is integrated onto silicon. The Silicon Photonics Link supports transfers of up to 50 gigabits of data per second, a speed Intel compared to transmitting an entire HD movie every second.
Because copper wires experience signal degradation when transmitting data, they are restricted in the maximum strength they can produce, the company said. That limits computer designs, and means components such as memory and processors have to be placed close together. Thin optical fibers can replace those connections and transfer far more data over greater distances, "radically changing the way computers of the future are designed and altering the way the data center of tomorrow is architected," Intel said. While lasers are already used to transmit information in telecommunications and other applications, current technologies are too expensive and bulky for use in PC applications, the firm said.
"This achievement of the world's first 50Gbps silicon photonics link with integrated hybrid silicon lasers marks a significant achievement in our long term vision of 'siliconizing' photonics and bringing high-bandwidth, low-cost optical communications in and around future PCs, servers, and consumer devices," said Justin Rattner, chief technology officer and director of Intel Labs, in a statement.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Esther Shein
Because copper wires experience signal degradation when transmitting data, they are restricted in the maximum strength they can produce, the company said. That limits computer designs, and means components such as memory and processors have to be placed close together. Thin optical fibers can replace those connections and transfer far more data over greater distances, "radically changing the way computers of the future are designed and altering the way the data center of tomorrow is architected," Intel said. While lasers are already used to transmit information in telecommunications and other applications, current technologies are too expensive and bulky for use in PC applications, the firm said.
"This achievement of the world's first 50Gbps silicon photonics link with integrated hybrid silicon lasers marks a significant achievement in our long term vision of 'siliconizing' photonics and bringing high-bandwidth, low-cost optical communications in and around future PCs, servers, and consumer devices," said Justin Rattner, chief technology officer and director of Intel Labs, in a statement.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Esther Shein
George Carlin Never Would've Cut It at the New Goldman Sachs
Firm Bans Naughty Words in Emails; An 'Unlearnable Lesson' on Wall Street?
There will never be another s— deal at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
The New York company is telling employees that they will no longer be able to get away with profanity in electronic messages. That means all 34,000 traders, investment bankers and other Goldman employees must restrain themselves from using a vast vocabulary of oft-used dirty words on Wall Street, including the six-letter expletive that came back to haunt the company at a Senate hearing in April.
"[B]oy, that timberwo[l]f was one s— deal," Thomas Montag, who helped run Goldman's securities business, wrote in a June 2007 email that was repeatedly referred to at the hearing.
Mr. Montag, who couldn't be reached for comment, wouldn't be allowed to send that email under Goldman's sanitized communications policy, which is being enforced by screening software. Even swear words spelled with asterisks are out.
A Goldman spokeswoman said: "Of course we have policies about the use of appropriate language and we are always looking for ways to ensure that they are enforced."
The new edict—delivered verbally, of course—has left some employees wondering if the rule also applies to shorthand for expletives such as "WTF" or legitimate terms that sound similar to curses.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: The Wall Street Journal
By: Cassell Bryan-Low & Aaron Lucchetti
There will never be another s— deal at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
The New York company is telling employees that they will no longer be able to get away with profanity in electronic messages. That means all 34,000 traders, investment bankers and other Goldman employees must restrain themselves from using a vast vocabulary of oft-used dirty words on Wall Street, including the six-letter expletive that came back to haunt the company at a Senate hearing in April.
"[B]oy, that timberwo[l]f was one s— deal," Thomas Montag, who helped run Goldman's securities business, wrote in a June 2007 email that was repeatedly referred to at the hearing.
Mr. Montag, who couldn't be reached for comment, wouldn't be allowed to send that email under Goldman's sanitized communications policy, which is being enforced by screening software. Even swear words spelled with asterisks are out.
A Goldman spokeswoman said: "Of course we have policies about the use of appropriate language and we are always looking for ways to ensure that they are enforced."
The new edict—delivered verbally, of course—has left some employees wondering if the rule also applies to shorthand for expletives such as "WTF" or legitimate terms that sound similar to curses.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: The Wall Street Journal
By: Cassell Bryan-Low & Aaron Lucchetti
Employers Advised to Enact Social Media Policies
Taking disciplinary action against employees for objectionable postings on social media websites or for spending too much time on networking sites can pose legal pitfalls when companies don’t have set policies, yet almost half of all employers are without a policy.
Charles H. Rodriguez, director of consulting and program development for Adams Keegan Inc., spoke about the need to address this gray area Wednesday during a breakfast session of the firm’s free informational series, “The HR Hour.”
“We’re on the cusp of having an entire generation of folks coming into the work force who don’t know what it’s like not to have Facebook,” he said.
A survey showed that 45 percent of employers have no social media policy, while only 27 percent have one. The other 28 percent are working on establishing guidelines.
Guidelines should take into account privacy rights, some of which are just now being spelled out in the courts. Other considerations include First Amendment rights and laws in some states that bar lifestyle discrimination. These laws forbid taking action against employees for legal, off-duty recreational behavior.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: memphisdailynews.com
By: Tom Wilemon
Charles H. Rodriguez, director of consulting and program development for Adams Keegan Inc., spoke about the need to address this gray area Wednesday during a breakfast session of the firm’s free informational series, “The HR Hour.”
“We’re on the cusp of having an entire generation of folks coming into the work force who don’t know what it’s like not to have Facebook,” he said.
A survey showed that 45 percent of employers have no social media policy, while only 27 percent have one. The other 28 percent are working on establishing guidelines.
Guidelines should take into account privacy rights, some of which are just now being spelled out in the courts. Other considerations include First Amendment rights and laws in some states that bar lifestyle discrimination. These laws forbid taking action against employees for legal, off-duty recreational behavior.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: memphisdailynews.com
By: Tom Wilemon
Tech Firms Lobby EU on Privacy
Microsoft Corp., Google Inc. and other U.S. tech giants are pushing to streamline Europe's privacy rules in order to offer more remote computing and data-storage services.
These companies, which are investing billions of dollars to build big data centers in Europe, are seeking a single set of rules across the 27-nation bloc for so-called cloud-computing services. They want to sell computer capacity to businesses and governments—as well as storage space for everything from pictures of grandma to the medical records of diabetics, to 500 million consumers.
The EU's fractured rules may prove "real hurdles or speed bumps to sales" said Mike Hintze, Microsoft's associate general counsel. "That's the case for us, as well as other cloud-services providers."
Some European governments are wary of private companies, particularly U.S. ones, controlling so much information about their citizens and are resisting plans to harmonize the rules. Germany has been at the forefront in this respect, insisting on its right to impose tough national standards.
"For Europeans, there's no price to put on the importance of privacy," said Olivier Midière, president of the Association for a Digital Economy in France, a coalition of small and midsized French tech companies lobbying Paris to require storage of computer data in the country where it's being sold.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: online.wsj.com
By: John W. Miller
These companies, which are investing billions of dollars to build big data centers in Europe, are seeking a single set of rules across the 27-nation bloc for so-called cloud-computing services. They want to sell computer capacity to businesses and governments—as well as storage space for everything from pictures of grandma to the medical records of diabetics, to 500 million consumers.
The EU's fractured rules may prove "real hurdles or speed bumps to sales" said Mike Hintze, Microsoft's associate general counsel. "That's the case for us, as well as other cloud-services providers."
Some European governments are wary of private companies, particularly U.S. ones, controlling so much information about their citizens and are resisting plans to harmonize the rules. Germany has been at the forefront in this respect, insisting on its right to impose tough national standards.
"For Europeans, there's no price to put on the importance of privacy," said Olivier Midière, president of the Association for a Digital Economy in France, a coalition of small and midsized French tech companies lobbying Paris to require storage of computer data in the country where it's being sold.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: online.wsj.com
By: John W. Miller
Eli Lilly dumps Amazon Web Services over legal struggle
Amazon Web Services poster child, Eli Lilly has walked away from using the cloud computing service after failing to come to terms over legal indemnification issues.
Sources close to Eli Lilly say the pharmaceutical giant was at its wits end trying to negotiate a contract with AWS that would push some accountability for network outages, security breaches and other forms of risk inherent in the cloud, to Amazon Web Services. But it got nowhere, these sources said.
Eli Lilly began using AWS over a year ago to analyze and crunch non-production data much faster than it could on its own infrastructure. It was able to launch servers on AWS in minutes rather than months, saving millions of dollars in IT costs.
However, as the company has tried to move more high-profile datasets including corporate data to AWS, it wanted Amazon to assume more liability should there be a breach or outage that affected its business.
"Amazon has one contract and you can take it or leave it," the source said. "They won't assume any liability."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com
By: Jo Maitland
Sources close to Eli Lilly say the pharmaceutical giant was at its wits end trying to negotiate a contract with AWS that would push some accountability for network outages, security breaches and other forms of risk inherent in the cloud, to Amazon Web Services. But it got nowhere, these sources said.
Eli Lilly began using AWS over a year ago to analyze and crunch non-production data much faster than it could on its own infrastructure. It was able to launch servers on AWS in minutes rather than months, saving millions of dollars in IT costs.
However, as the company has tried to move more high-profile datasets including corporate data to AWS, it wanted Amazon to assume more liability should there be a breach or outage that affected its business.
"Amazon has one contract and you can take it or leave it," the source said. "They won't assume any liability."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com
By: Jo Maitland
How 100 million Facebook users ended up in a list on BitTorrent
News that details of 100 million Facebook users was understandably met with some panic - particularly because the data was then dumped on file-sharing service BitTorrent alongside pirated music, bulk credit card details and the odd bit of legal content.
The real story was a little more curious. It was Canadian security researcher Ron Bowes who downloaded the data - 2.8Gb of it - by creating a crawler script to pluck information from Facebook's open access directory
But all of this data was publicly available, because this data is open to search engines and includes any Facebook user who has not chosen to hide their profile from search results.
The data Bowes pulled included account names, profile URL and contact details - and also the names of those users' friends, even if they have chosen not to be listed in search engine results.
While alarming that Facebook's information should be harvested in this way, it is not illegal. Rather, it is a useful exercise in reminding people what 'public' really means, and that once your information is out there, you don't have any say over what happens to it
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: guardian.co.uk
By: Jemima Kiss
The real story was a little more curious. It was Canadian security researcher Ron Bowes who downloaded the data - 2.8Gb of it - by creating a crawler script to pluck information from Facebook's open access directory
But all of this data was publicly available, because this data is open to search engines and includes any Facebook user who has not chosen to hide their profile from search results.
The data Bowes pulled included account names, profile URL and contact details - and also the names of those users' friends, even if they have chosen not to be listed in search engine results.
While alarming that Facebook's information should be harvested in this way, it is not illegal. Rather, it is a useful exercise in reminding people what 'public' really means, and that once your information is out there, you don't have any say over what happens to it
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: guardian.co.uk
By: Jemima Kiss
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
What litigators need to know about the forensic investigation process
In today’s electronic world, where filing cabinets of information can be copied onto a device small enough to swallow, litigators are increasingly turning to forensic investigators to help identify the data that could make or break their case. This is creating a growing industry, from specialist teams within the big four accountancy giants, to individual consultants. But with so much at stake, how can litigators choose which company to instruct?
David Greene, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association and head of litigation at London firm Edwin Coe, says: ‘We are following the US’s lead in bringing in forensic computer and accounting specialists at a much earlier stage, because of pre-action requirements to set out damages.
‘However, while we are litigators, we are also problem-solvers and, as part of that role, we will pull in forensics where a company is worried that they may have breached restrictions on anti-competitive practice. We need them to find out the extent of the problem as quickly as possible, so if the company has to go to the regulators, it gets in first. If the raid is already happening and the regulator’s investigators are crawling all over the company, you need your lawyers to sort out your position, and forensics to find out the truth.’
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: lawgazette.co.uk
By: Grania Langdon-Down
David Greene, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association and head of litigation at London firm Edwin Coe, says: ‘We are following the US’s lead in bringing in forensic computer and accounting specialists at a much earlier stage, because of pre-action requirements to set out damages.
‘However, while we are litigators, we are also problem-solvers and, as part of that role, we will pull in forensics where a company is worried that they may have breached restrictions on anti-competitive practice. We need them to find out the extent of the problem as quickly as possible, so if the company has to go to the regulators, it gets in first. If the raid is already happening and the regulator’s investigators are crawling all over the company, you need your lawyers to sort out your position, and forensics to find out the truth.’
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: lawgazette.co.uk
By: Grania Langdon-Down
Can Social Media Find The Criminal ‘Anna Chapman’ ?
The designation reads – Business Woman, Independent Sales Consultant, Entrepreneur & Agent of the Russian Federation of the ‘Hot’ Anna Chapman. And, sure, she has a social media presence too on Facebook & LinkedIn. The reason I am writing this post is that I am excited if social media can actually prove that Anna Chapman has criminal backgrounds and let the populace know about her physical existence at this point of time.
Well, the ‘BlockBuster’ script started when there all of a sudden a lot of reports saying that Anna Chapman was arrested in Manhattan on June 27, 2010. She is further accused to have been involved in activities, or ’spying’, and that too on the national front of countries such as USA & Russia. There are facts which reveal the step by step process of deciphering her activities, which are magnanimous on the national security front. That is what is my version. If you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, then you might have to wait for just a few more days.
Out of all this scheme of things, the most interesting part is the Facebook updates of hers. Check this to know more of her publicity attempts on the Facebook front. To add cherry to the cake, you might be wanting to know about her British linkup & Russian camraderie.
So, for Social media enthusiasts likes us, two things are very clear – Criminals do use Social Media & There are ways to find Criminals on Social Media, too. Once we are convinced of these two facts, the story lies in understanding that whether Anna Chapman is really herself who is updating her Facebook wall; Or, there is someone who is doing it on her behalf. The possibility of her account being hacked cannot be ruled out as well. And, off-course there are bigger things involved too. But, for once, I being a social media gospeler want the law governing bodies to hunt her down through social media.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: watblog.com
By: Tapan K Mukherjee
Well, the ‘BlockBuster’ script started when there all of a sudden a lot of reports saying that Anna Chapman was arrested in Manhattan on June 27, 2010. She is further accused to have been involved in activities, or ’spying’, and that too on the national front of countries such as USA & Russia. There are facts which reveal the step by step process of deciphering her activities, which are magnanimous on the national security front. That is what is my version. If you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, then you might have to wait for just a few more days.
Out of all this scheme of things, the most interesting part is the Facebook updates of hers. Check this to know more of her publicity attempts on the Facebook front. To add cherry to the cake, you might be wanting to know about her British linkup & Russian camraderie.
So, for Social media enthusiasts likes us, two things are very clear – Criminals do use Social Media & There are ways to find Criminals on Social Media, too. Once we are convinced of these two facts, the story lies in understanding that whether Anna Chapman is really herself who is updating her Facebook wall; Or, there is someone who is doing it on her behalf. The possibility of her account being hacked cannot be ruled out as well. And, off-course there are bigger things involved too. But, for once, I being a social media gospeler want the law governing bodies to hunt her down through social media.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: watblog.com
By: Tapan K Mukherjee
In L.A., Google Blowing Big Cloud Marketing Chance
As Google stumbles again in its Gmail deal with the City of Los Angeles, analysts say it's botching a giant cloud marketing opportunity. Will it make the same mistakes Netscape did in its bid to woo customers away from Microsoft?
Google just can't seem to get it right in the City of Angels.
The Los Angeles Times reported this week that Google missed the June 30 deadline for its closely-watched contract to move the City of Los Angeles' e-mail system over to Gmail from its current Novell (NOVL) Groupwise e-mail platform.
The main point of contention for Google is the Los Angeles police department, which has strict guidelines around data encryption and data segregation.
In a meeting with city council members, according to the L.A. Times, LAPD CIO Maggie Goodrich said that the department's security requirements have not been met.
When asked by a city council member which party is to blame, Goodrich replied: "In my opinion, it was Google that didn't deliver the security requirements."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: CIO
By: Shane O'Neill
Google just can't seem to get it right in the City of Angels.
The Los Angeles Times reported this week that Google missed the June 30 deadline for its closely-watched contract to move the City of Los Angeles' e-mail system over to Gmail from its current Novell (NOVL) Groupwise e-mail platform.
The main point of contention for Google is the Los Angeles police department, which has strict guidelines around data encryption and data segregation.
In a meeting with city council members, according to the L.A. Times, LAPD CIO Maggie Goodrich said that the department's security requirements have not been met.
When asked by a city council member which party is to blame, Goodrich replied: "In my opinion, it was Google that didn't deliver the security requirements."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: CIO
By: Shane O'Neill
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
2009 TREC Legal Track Sheds Light on Search Efficacy in Electronic Discovery
In one of my previous posts, I had discussed the value and importance of TREC to the legal community. Clearwell Systems has been a TREC participant for the last two years, and believes in working with the rest of the participants in advancing the collective knowledge of electronic discovery-related information retrieval methodologies. TREC’s work has been conducted in the context of annual workshops, and is organized in the form of specific tracks. For legal professionals, the TREC Legal Track is the most relevant, and track organizers have just released the much-awaited overview of the 2009 workshop. I will summarize the key results from the study and its broader implications.
The overview paper is now available and covers the design of the two tasks within the track – the Interactive task and the Batch task. The Interactive Task is very relevant for the legal community, since it is designed specifically for analyzing the task of producing specific records in response to a “discovery request”. As noted in the paper, 15 teams participated, including 10 commercial teams, up from three teams in 2008. The 2009 study was also the first time an email collection (based on Enron emails released by FERC) was used.
The Interactive Task involves a “mock complaint” and seven different topics, with each topic described in the form of a general information request. Several teams participated by choosing one or more topics and submitting responsive documents for each. These were then assessed using a mathematically sound sampling and estimation methodology, and effectiveness metrics were computed for each team.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Venkat Rangan
The overview paper is now available and covers the design of the two tasks within the track – the Interactive task and the Batch task. The Interactive Task is very relevant for the legal community, since it is designed specifically for analyzing the task of producing specific records in response to a “discovery request”. As noted in the paper, 15 teams participated, including 10 commercial teams, up from three teams in 2008. The 2009 study was also the first time an email collection (based on Enron emails released by FERC) was used.
The Interactive Task involves a “mock complaint” and seven different topics, with each topic described in the form of a general information request. Several teams participated by choosing one or more topics and submitting responsive documents for each. These were then assessed using a mathematically sound sampling and estimation methodology, and effectiveness metrics were computed for each team.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscovery 2.0
By: Venkat Rangan
One Breach = $1 Million To $53 Million In Damages Per Year, Report Says
New Ponemon report studies real attack cases and their financial fallout; new Digital Forensics Association study tallies five-year public breach data
Organizations are getting hit by at least one successful attack per week, and the annualized cost to their bottom lines from the attacks ranged from $1 million to $53 million per year, according to a newly published benchmark study of 45 U.S. organizations hit by data breaches.
The independent Ponemon Institute's "The First Annual Cost of Cyber Crime Study" (PDF), which was sponsored by ArcSight, showed a median cost of $3.8 million for an attack per year, a price tag that includes everything from detection, investigation, containment, and recovery to any post-response operations. "Information theft was still the highest consequence -- the type of information [stolen] ranged from a data breach of people's [information] to intellectual property and source code," says Larry Ponemon, CEO of the Ponemon Institute. "We found that detection and discovery are the most expensive [elements]."
And a separate report called "The Leaking Vault" (PDF) released today by the Digital Forensics Association found that among the 2,807 publicly disclosed data breaches worldwide during the past five years, the cost to the victim firms as well as those whose information was exposed came to whopping $139 billion.
The Digital Forensics Association report says nearly half of all of the reported breaches came from a laptop, which in 95 percent of the cases is stolen. But actual hacks accounted for the most stolen records during 2005 to 2009, with 327 million of the 721.9 million covered in the report, even though hacks accounted for only about 16 percent of the data breaches.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: darkreading.com
By: Kelly Jackson Higgins
Organizations are getting hit by at least one successful attack per week, and the annualized cost to their bottom lines from the attacks ranged from $1 million to $53 million per year, according to a newly published benchmark study of 45 U.S. organizations hit by data breaches.
The independent Ponemon Institute's "The First Annual Cost of Cyber Crime Study" (PDF), which was sponsored by ArcSight, showed a median cost of $3.8 million for an attack per year, a price tag that includes everything from detection, investigation, containment, and recovery to any post-response operations. "Information theft was still the highest consequence -- the type of information [stolen] ranged from a data breach of people's [information] to intellectual property and source code," says Larry Ponemon, CEO of the Ponemon Institute. "We found that detection and discovery are the most expensive [elements]."
And a separate report called "The Leaking Vault" (PDF) released today by the Digital Forensics Association found that among the 2,807 publicly disclosed data breaches worldwide during the past five years, the cost to the victim firms as well as those whose information was exposed came to whopping $139 billion.
The Digital Forensics Association report says nearly half of all of the reported breaches came from a laptop, which in 95 percent of the cases is stolen. But actual hacks accounted for the most stolen records during 2005 to 2009, with 327 million of the 721.9 million covered in the report, even though hacks accounted for only about 16 percent of the data breaches.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: darkreading.com
By: Kelly Jackson Higgins
Here's your certification. And your comfort blanket
Here's your certification. And your comfort blanket
Google Apps for Government is designed to meet the information-security laws that bind federal agencies. But it's also meant to provide a kind of comfort blanket for any government agency — from the federal level down to the local — that's wary of moving their data onto third-party servers in the so-called cloud.
"There is a fundamental trust question about turning over services and data to a third party," Google president of enterprise Dave Girouard said when announcing the service this morning at the company's headquarters in Mountain View. "Some people are very comfortable with it. Others find it intrinsically scary. This is just a step down that road...to develop procedures and processes to bring credibility to the cloud."
Google has tweaked the security controls used by its existing Google Apps online suite in an effort to gain FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) certification, and last Thursday, a FISMA rubber-stamp was applied by the federal government's General Services Administration. But the new service also segregates Gmail and Google Calendar data into their own US-only portion of Google's back-end infrastructure — a move that goes beyond FISMA and that, as Google freely admits, doesn't necessarily mean added security.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: theregister.co.uk
By: Cade Metz
Google Apps for Government is designed to meet the information-security laws that bind federal agencies. But it's also meant to provide a kind of comfort blanket for any government agency — from the federal level down to the local — that's wary of moving their data onto third-party servers in the so-called cloud.
"There is a fundamental trust question about turning over services and data to a third party," Google president of enterprise Dave Girouard said when announcing the service this morning at the company's headquarters in Mountain View. "Some people are very comfortable with it. Others find it intrinsically scary. This is just a step down that road...to develop procedures and processes to bring credibility to the cloud."
Google has tweaked the security controls used by its existing Google Apps online suite in an effort to gain FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) certification, and last Thursday, a FISMA rubber-stamp was applied by the federal government's General Services Administration. But the new service also segregates Gmail and Google Calendar data into their own US-only portion of Google's back-end infrastructure — a move that goes beyond FISMA and that, as Google freely admits, doesn't necessarily mean added security.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: theregister.co.uk
By: Cade Metz
How Facebook Can Make or Break Your Case
Facebook has over 500 million active users.
Twitter users are recording an average of 55 million tweets a day.
If an employee files suit against your client, what are the odds the employee uses social media? I'd say they're pretty good. Just imagine missing the Facebook post:
"I'll do whatever it takes to get back at my employer."
The first thing I do after I receive a copy of an employee-filed complaint -- before I read the complaint -- is check the plaintiff-employee out on Facebook and other social networking sites.
I print any information that employee has made publicly available. I save any pictures the employee has published online and I send a list of the employee's friends to my employer-client to cross-check against a list of current and former employees. I do this because, generally, a Facebook user will allow friends greater access to online content.
Why do I want this information? Because many social media users do not filter what they publish online -- they find social media cathartic. So, for every couple of banal "I'm going to the movies with John tonight" online posts, you'll find an "I just had the worst day in the office because …" post.
Don't believe me? Check out this, this, this, and this blog post from Delaware labor and employment attorney Molly DiBianca, who writes about how a waitress lost her job for a complaint made on Facebook.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Eric. B. Meyer
Twitter users are recording an average of 55 million tweets a day.
If an employee files suit against your client, what are the odds the employee uses social media? I'd say they're pretty good. Just imagine missing the Facebook post:
"I'll do whatever it takes to get back at my employer."
The first thing I do after I receive a copy of an employee-filed complaint -- before I read the complaint -- is check the plaintiff-employee out on Facebook and other social networking sites.
I print any information that employee has made publicly available. I save any pictures the employee has published online and I send a list of the employee's friends to my employer-client to cross-check against a list of current and former employees. I do this because, generally, a Facebook user will allow friends greater access to online content.
Why do I want this information? Because many social media users do not filter what they publish online -- they find social media cathartic. So, for every couple of banal "I'm going to the movies with John tonight" online posts, you'll find an "I just had the worst day in the office because …" post.
Don't believe me? Check out this, this, this, and this blog post from Delaware labor and employment attorney Molly DiBianca, who writes about how a waitress lost her job for a complaint made on Facebook.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Eric. B. Meyer
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Google misses deadline in high-profile LA deal
Internet company required to reimburse city for extra costs associated with missing deadline to deliver Google Apps.
Roughly nine months after Google Inc. edged out rival Microsoft Corp. to win a high-profile contract to supply email and collaboration software to the City of Los Angeles, the company has missed a June deadline for full implementation due to lingering security concerns.
The delay is a setback for one of Google's most strategic businesses, and an illustration of troubles that large organizations can encounter as they shift to a so-called "cloud computing" model, in which data and applications are stored and accessed online.
Google's failure to have all municipal employees outfitted with Google Apps by the June 30 deadline will have the company and its implementation partner reimbursing L.A. for extra costs, as the city continues to rely on former supplier Novell Inc., according to Los Angeles Chief Technology Officer Randi Levin.
The primary culprit: Security concerns about Google Apps expressed by the city's police department.
City Council members were informed earlier this month that L.A. could incur up to $415,000 in costs over the full fiscal year, thanks to the delay in getting all city employees switched over to Google on time--a message that wasn't well received.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: totaltele.com
By: John Letzing
Roughly nine months after Google Inc. edged out rival Microsoft Corp. to win a high-profile contract to supply email and collaboration software to the City of Los Angeles, the company has missed a June deadline for full implementation due to lingering security concerns.
The delay is a setback for one of Google's most strategic businesses, and an illustration of troubles that large organizations can encounter as they shift to a so-called "cloud computing" model, in which data and applications are stored and accessed online.
Google's failure to have all municipal employees outfitted with Google Apps by the June 30 deadline will have the company and its implementation partner reimbursing L.A. for extra costs, as the city continues to rely on former supplier Novell Inc., according to Los Angeles Chief Technology Officer Randi Levin.
The primary culprit: Security concerns about Google Apps expressed by the city's police department.
City Council members were informed earlier this month that L.A. could incur up to $415,000 in costs over the full fiscal year, thanks to the delay in getting all city employees switched over to Google on time--a message that wasn't well received.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: totaltele.com
By: John Letzing
Employers need social media rules
Written policies seen as way to curb risks related to Facebook, Twitter
Companies should develop a clear, written policy on the use of social networking sites to shield themselves from increasing liability related to the sites, a panel of legal experts said.
Speaking this month at the International Assn. of Defense Counsel's annual meeting in Barcelona, Spain, panelists said that although much of the law in this area is ambiguous or undefined, companies with reasonable and specific written policies often are viewed favorably by courts.
“Ten years ago was the start of e-discovery and we were all trying to understand the rules...that's where we are with social media,” said Lana K. Varney, a partner at Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. in Austin, Texas. “There's an enormous amount of uncertainty in this as courts struggle to get their arms around it...and as regulatory agencies (come) to the realization that they're not going to be able to regulate every aspect of it. It's too enormous.”
Ms. Varney said that a company's written policy should spell out how employees are permitted to use social media sites during work hours, how the firm will train employees and monitor compliance, and what the consequences of violating the policy will be.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: businessinsurance.com
By: Zach Phillips
Companies should develop a clear, written policy on the use of social networking sites to shield themselves from increasing liability related to the sites, a panel of legal experts said.
Speaking this month at the International Assn. of Defense Counsel's annual meeting in Barcelona, Spain, panelists said that although much of the law in this area is ambiguous or undefined, companies with reasonable and specific written policies often are viewed favorably by courts.
“Ten years ago was the start of e-discovery and we were all trying to understand the rules...that's where we are with social media,” said Lana K. Varney, a partner at Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. in Austin, Texas. “There's an enormous amount of uncertainty in this as courts struggle to get their arms around it...and as regulatory agencies (come) to the realization that they're not going to be able to regulate every aspect of it. It's too enormous.”
Ms. Varney said that a company's written policy should spell out how employees are permitted to use social media sites during work hours, how the firm will train employees and monitor compliance, and what the consequences of violating the policy will be.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: businessinsurance.com
By: Zach Phillips
Piloting E-Discovery Rules in the 7th Circuit
Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois had a long background as a criminal defense attorney before becoming a judge. She says that her background left her unprepared for the battles over discovery of electronic evidence she has encountered in the world of civil litigation. "I was not able to get my arms around all of the fighting over discovery," she says. "I know that some people have snickered about this idea that you can get lawyers to make nice and cooperate on discovery. But I believe it is possible."
Under the leadership of Chief Judge James F. Holderman, Nolan has helped launch a pilot program to address electronic discovery issues: 7th Circuit E-Discovery Pilot Program. Taking their cues from, among other sources, the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, the 7th Circuit E-Discovery Committee is attempting to fix some of the most intractable discovery problems in litigation.
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure put in place at the end of 2006 were supposed to force lawyers to meet and hash out discovery issues early. However, Nolan, Holderman and other judges are frustrated that despite the rule changes, electronic discovery continues to be an expensive and inefficient process in need of reform. "The central premise of the 2006 amendments is to meet and confer with the other side and settle issues early," says Magistrate Judge John Facciola of the U.S. District Court for District of Columbia. "The fact that this project exists suggests that the hopes have not been fully realized."
The 7th Circuit sought to involve all parties in the process, including trial judges and lawyers, whether they are in-house counsel, private practitioners, government attorneys, academics, or litigation consultants. An effort was even made to bring litigants into the process, so the clients’ perspective could be heard. But as is often the case when lawyers confront discovery issues, discussions became so heated that Nolan had to step in to mediate so that a final project proposal could be drafted. "I had to do some mediation to make sure all sides got heard," she says. "It was a little trying, but it was probably good for everyone to find out they could confront the issues and not have everything implode."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Jason Krause
Under the leadership of Chief Judge James F. Holderman, Nolan has helped launch a pilot program to address electronic discovery issues: 7th Circuit E-Discovery Pilot Program. Taking their cues from, among other sources, the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, the 7th Circuit E-Discovery Committee is attempting to fix some of the most intractable discovery problems in litigation.
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure put in place at the end of 2006 were supposed to force lawyers to meet and hash out discovery issues early. However, Nolan, Holderman and other judges are frustrated that despite the rule changes, electronic discovery continues to be an expensive and inefficient process in need of reform. "The central premise of the 2006 amendments is to meet and confer with the other side and settle issues early," says Magistrate Judge John Facciola of the U.S. District Court for District of Columbia. "The fact that this project exists suggests that the hopes have not been fully realized."
The 7th Circuit sought to involve all parties in the process, including trial judges and lawyers, whether they are in-house counsel, private practitioners, government attorneys, academics, or litigation consultants. An effort was even made to bring litigants into the process, so the clients’ perspective could be heard. But as is often the case when lawyers confront discovery issues, discussions became so heated that Nolan had to step in to mediate so that a final project proposal could be drafted. "I had to do some mediation to make sure all sides got heard," she says. "It was a little trying, but it was probably good for everyone to find out they could confront the issues and not have everything implode."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Jason Krause
Friday, July 23, 2010
Court Orders Retention of Third Party Vendor to Assist with Document Review and Production, Appoints Special Master to Resolve Future Disputes
Multiven, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 2813618 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2010)
Observing that plaintiff and counterdefendants had insisted upon “a review process that guarantees that they will not finish this extensive project in any reasonable amount of time”, namely reviewing large volumes of information without first narrowing the material using search terms, the court acknowledged the need to expedite production and directed plaintiff and counterdedendants to retain a third party vendor to assist in their discovery efforts. Accepting defendant’s offer, the court further ordered that Cisco would bear half the cost.
In response to defendant’s requests for production, plaintiff and counterdefendants undertook the review and rolling production of responsive materials. Citing costs, plaintiff and counterdefendants rejected the idea of hiring an outside vendor to search and narrow their electronically stored information. Consequently, relying on approximately five attorneys, those parties undertook the review of “every bit of that giant mass of information for responsive documents.” Unsurprisingly, the review did not proceed quickly and, as the discovery deadline approached, it became clear that the production would not be completed with enough time to allow Cisco to “actually do anything” with the documents. Accordingly, Cisco sought an order directing the plaintiff and counterdefendants to retain a third party vendor to assist them in their efforts. Moreover, Cisco offered to pay for half the cost. Recognizing that “something must be done”, the Magistrate Judge recommended an order directing the retention of a third party vendor. Having reviewed the relevant record, the District Court agreed and adopted the recommendation, including that Cisco pay half of the cost.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscoverylaw.com
Observing that plaintiff and counterdefendants had insisted upon “a review process that guarantees that they will not finish this extensive project in any reasonable amount of time”, namely reviewing large volumes of information without first narrowing the material using search terms, the court acknowledged the need to expedite production and directed plaintiff and counterdedendants to retain a third party vendor to assist in their discovery efforts. Accepting defendant’s offer, the court further ordered that Cisco would bear half the cost.
In response to defendant’s requests for production, plaintiff and counterdefendants undertook the review and rolling production of responsive materials. Citing costs, plaintiff and counterdefendants rejected the idea of hiring an outside vendor to search and narrow their electronically stored information. Consequently, relying on approximately five attorneys, those parties undertook the review of “every bit of that giant mass of information for responsive documents.” Unsurprisingly, the review did not proceed quickly and, as the discovery deadline approached, it became clear that the production would not be completed with enough time to allow Cisco to “actually do anything” with the documents. Accordingly, Cisco sought an order directing the plaintiff and counterdefendants to retain a third party vendor to assist them in their efforts. Moreover, Cisco offered to pay for half the cost. Recognizing that “something must be done”, the Magistrate Judge recommended an order directing the retention of a third party vendor. Having reviewed the relevant record, the District Court agreed and adopted the recommendation, including that Cisco pay half of the cost.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscoverylaw.com
Convenience beats privacy, security concerns - KPMG survey
Ireland has been slower to embrace mobile-based transactions, even though consumers have been rapidly embracing mobile commerce-creating opportunities and challenges around the world, a survey by KPMG has found.
Eamonn Russell, head of Information, Communications & Entertainment in KPMG Ireland, says the upward trend in multiple usage of mobile devices is inevitable but consumers still have major concerns.
“Privacy continues to be an important issue,” Russell said. “Interestingly, whilst many consumers appear willing to allow their online usage patterns and personal profile information to be tracked if it were to result in lower costs or free services or content, they continue to express more anxiety about data privacy than in earlier studies.’’
Ireland has a much lower penetration of retail and financial transactions than other countries, with only 8pc of consumers in Ireland having purchased a product via their mobile phone. Globally, that figure is 28pc, and 58pc of global respondents said their banks offered mobile banking. In Ireland, 38pc of respondents said the same.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: siliconrepublic.com
Eamonn Russell, head of Information, Communications & Entertainment in KPMG Ireland, says the upward trend in multiple usage of mobile devices is inevitable but consumers still have major concerns.
“Privacy continues to be an important issue,” Russell said. “Interestingly, whilst many consumers appear willing to allow their online usage patterns and personal profile information to be tracked if it were to result in lower costs or free services or content, they continue to express more anxiety about data privacy than in earlier studies.’’
Ireland has a much lower penetration of retail and financial transactions than other countries, with only 8pc of consumers in Ireland having purchased a product via their mobile phone. Globally, that figure is 28pc, and 58pc of global respondents said their banks offered mobile banking. In Ireland, 38pc of respondents said the same.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: siliconrepublic.com
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Court Affirms Dismissal As Sanction For "Egregiously Improper And Abusive" Discovery Misconduct
In Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 2010 WL 2294538 (6th Cir. 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a trial court's decision to sanction the Plaintiffs in the form of dismissal for "[making] numerous false statements, [destroying] or [hiding] evidence, [fabricating] evidence, [suborning] perjury, and generally [abusing] the legal process."
There, Fharmacy Records accused the Defendant of infringing on a copyrighted "rhythm line" or "beat" in producing "the rap song ‘Shot Down,' a track on rap artist DMX's platinum-selling album ‘Grand Champ,' which was released in 2003." The Court found that the Plaintiffs' discovery failures included: Promising to produce authentic CD recordings and later claiming the CD was lost; backdating a 2006 computer file to claim it was created in 2001 on a specific computer, when the computer was manufactured in 2003 and the hard drive in 2005; Promising to produce original copies of agreements, and later claiming they were lost; Offering a forensic computer expert to the Court and submitting a report, falsely stating it to be authored by him and claiming him to be an expert, where the individual testified that he is not a computer forensic expert; and counsel's submission of a false declaration claiming his client gave him a copy of the beat 2-3 years prior to meeting him.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: rcalaw.com
There, Fharmacy Records accused the Defendant of infringing on a copyrighted "rhythm line" or "beat" in producing "the rap song ‘Shot Down,' a track on rap artist DMX's platinum-selling album ‘Grand Champ,' which was released in 2003." The Court found that the Plaintiffs' discovery failures included: Promising to produce authentic CD recordings and later claiming the CD was lost; backdating a 2006 computer file to claim it was created in 2001 on a specific computer, when the computer was manufactured in 2003 and the hard drive in 2005; Promising to produce original copies of agreements, and later claiming they were lost; Offering a forensic computer expert to the Court and submitting a report, falsely stating it to be authored by him and claiming him to be an expert, where the individual testified that he is not a computer forensic expert; and counsel's submission of a false declaration claiming his client gave him a copy of the beat 2-3 years prior to meeting him.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: rcalaw.com
It pays to think before you click
US Senator Carl Levin: “And when you heard that your employees, in these e-mails, when looking at these deals, said God, what a shitty deal, God what a piece of crap – when you hear your own employees or read about those in the e-mails, do you feel anything?"
David Viniar, chief financial officer, Goldman Sachs: “I think that’s very unfortunate to have on e-mail.”
It was. Mr Viniar went on to clarify that “it’s very unfortunate for anyone to have said that in any form” but, in April, when US lawmakers heard testimony from executives at Goldman Sachs in long hearings about the financial crisis, e-mail played a starring role. Congressional leaders grilled various representatives from the bank about electronic communication among bankers, which lawmakers thought might indicate that they knowingly sold lousy investments to their clients. In hindsight, these sometimes snarky and sarcastic missives from the height of the credit bubble looked embarrassing at best and potentially incriminating at worst.
Goldman last week settled a fraud lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that it misled investors in a mortgage-based security. This was another case in which e-mail featured prominently, with Goldman banker Fabrice Tourre referring to himself in messages as “fabulous Fab” and to collateralised debt obligations as “monstrosities”.
Goldman and its bankers are not the first to stumble with e-mail correspondence and are unlikely to be the last. Over the past decade, as e-mail has become ubiquitous and devices such as the BlackBerry have often turned e-mail into the main source of communication between busy executives, there have been a number of high-profile mishaps. They have ranged from potentially damning comments to embarrassing misfires and point to the need for executives and companies to develop a more careful approach towards managing e-mail.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: ft.com
By: Nicole Bullock and Telis Demos
David Viniar, chief financial officer, Goldman Sachs: “I think that’s very unfortunate to have on e-mail.”
It was. Mr Viniar went on to clarify that “it’s very unfortunate for anyone to have said that in any form” but, in April, when US lawmakers heard testimony from executives at Goldman Sachs in long hearings about the financial crisis, e-mail played a starring role. Congressional leaders grilled various representatives from the bank about electronic communication among bankers, which lawmakers thought might indicate that they knowingly sold lousy investments to their clients. In hindsight, these sometimes snarky and sarcastic missives from the height of the credit bubble looked embarrassing at best and potentially incriminating at worst.
Goldman last week settled a fraud lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that it misled investors in a mortgage-based security. This was another case in which e-mail featured prominently, with Goldman banker Fabrice Tourre referring to himself in messages as “fabulous Fab” and to collateralised debt obligations as “monstrosities”.
Goldman and its bankers are not the first to stumble with e-mail correspondence and are unlikely to be the last. Over the past decade, as e-mail has become ubiquitous and devices such as the BlackBerry have often turned e-mail into the main source of communication between busy executives, there have been a number of high-profile mishaps. They have ranged from potentially damning comments to embarrassing misfires and point to the need for executives and companies to develop a more careful approach towards managing e-mail.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: ft.com
By: Nicole Bullock and Telis Demos
Commentary: 'Quon' Has No Message for Texting
In Ontario v. Quon, the U.S. Supreme Court was confronted with the issue of whether an employer conducted a search, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, when reading text messages which were personal to the employee, but which were sent and received on a pager owned by the employer and issued to the employee for work purposes.
The question, however, was complicated by the fact that the employer was a police department, which triggered Fourth Amendment protections applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and even further complicated by the fact that while department policy gave no police officer any reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her text messages, Quon's supervisor had, at one point, said he would not look at them.
Given these factors, those interested in issues involving privacy and digital media were awaiting the results of the high court's first attempt to address these complex issues, where technology intersects with privacy jurisprudence.
The Court, however, followed Falstaff's famous pronouncement that discretion is the better part of valor and unanimously decided to avoid the issue. Instead, it chose to decide the case by taking a jurisprudentially questionable, but, nevertheless, prudent leap over the threshold question of what constitutes a search and agreed that, even assuming a search was performed, the police department followed Fourth Amendment dictates.
In so doing, the court provided the lower courts with no guidance in performing the daunting task of trying to understand timeless concerns regarding privacy in the context of ever-changing technology.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Leonard Deutchman
The question, however, was complicated by the fact that the employer was a police department, which triggered Fourth Amendment protections applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and even further complicated by the fact that while department policy gave no police officer any reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her text messages, Quon's supervisor had, at one point, said he would not look at them.
Given these factors, those interested in issues involving privacy and digital media were awaiting the results of the high court's first attempt to address these complex issues, where technology intersects with privacy jurisprudence.
The Court, however, followed Falstaff's famous pronouncement that discretion is the better part of valor and unanimously decided to avoid the issue. Instead, it chose to decide the case by taking a jurisprudentially questionable, but, nevertheless, prudent leap over the threshold question of what constitutes a search and agreed that, even assuming a search was performed, the police department followed Fourth Amendment dictates.
In so doing, the court provided the lower courts with no guidance in performing the daunting task of trying to understand timeless concerns regarding privacy in the context of ever-changing technology.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Leonard Deutchman
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
A Search Term Turkey
In a Fair Labor Standards Case against Butterball, the Plaintiffs claimed the Defendants’ ESI production was incomplete. The Defendants in turn claimed that the “burden” of producing the discovery was burdensome, justifying cost shifting. Helmert, et al., v. Butterball, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60777 (May 27, 2010).
While that sounds like a standard e-Discovery dispute, something was not right in the kitchen.
Searching for the Right Recipe
Search terms were an “iron chef-esq” battle in the case.
The Defendants ran search terms over active and archived email databases of twenty-two custodians. Helmert, at *4.
The Plaintiffs sought to compel the Defendants to run an additional 70 search terms over forty-three custodians. Helmert, at *9.
The two sides debated and narrowed search terms across a significant portion of the opinion, with the number of custodians and search terms fluctuating.
One element of the search term dispute was searching “Donning and Duffing” cases against one of the Defendants and its subsidiaries. Helmert, at *11.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Bow Tie Law's Blog
By: Joshua Gilliland
While that sounds like a standard e-Discovery dispute, something was not right in the kitchen.
Searching for the Right Recipe
Search terms were an “iron chef-esq” battle in the case.
The Defendants ran search terms over active and archived email databases of twenty-two custodians. Helmert, at *4.
The Plaintiffs sought to compel the Defendants to run an additional 70 search terms over forty-three custodians. Helmert, at *9.
The two sides debated and narrowed search terms across a significant portion of the opinion, with the number of custodians and search terms fluctuating.
One element of the search term dispute was searching “Donning and Duffing” cases against one of the Defendants and its subsidiaries. Helmert, at *11.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Bow Tie Law's Blog
By: Joshua Gilliland
Federal Judge Approves Discovery Agreement in Toyota MDL
The judge in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) against Toyota Motor Corp. over sudden unintended acceleration approved a joint discovery plan on Tuesday, forestalling a fight over access to evidence.
The agreement, endorsed by U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., allows Toyota's lawyers to investigate the vehicles at issue and plaintiffs attorneys to depose executives about the automaker's electronic throttle control system. Toyota will turn over some of the documents that it gave to Congress earlier this year.
The parties reached agreement on Friday regarding the scope of documents and depositions during the first phase of discovery, scheduled to last for 100 days.
"We are pleased that the court has approved the agreement we reached with plaintiffs' counsel that establishes an equitable discovery process for this complex litigation," Toyota said in a prepared statement. "Toyota looks forward to defending this case, and we are confident that reliable scientific evidence will demonstrate the safety of our vehicles."
Last week, following news reports indicating that driver error was to blame for several complaints of sudden acceleration filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Toyota issued a written statement: "Toyota's own vehicle evaluations have confirmed that the remedies it developed for sticking accelerator pedal and potential accelerator pedal entrapment by an unsecured or incompatible floor mat are effective. We have also determined a number of other reasons for customer concerns about unintended acceleration, including cases where an increase in engine speed is normal, such as engine idle up, as well as pedal misapplication. In no case have we found electronic throttle controls to be a cause."
The MDL involves more than 200 lawsuits against Toyota following its recall of more than 8 million vehicles. Most cases involve economic losses to consumers of recalled vehicles, while others claim that the vehicles caused injuries or deaths.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Amanda Bronstad
The agreement, endorsed by U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., allows Toyota's lawyers to investigate the vehicles at issue and plaintiffs attorneys to depose executives about the automaker's electronic throttle control system. Toyota will turn over some of the documents that it gave to Congress earlier this year.
The parties reached agreement on Friday regarding the scope of documents and depositions during the first phase of discovery, scheduled to last for 100 days.
"We are pleased that the court has approved the agreement we reached with plaintiffs' counsel that establishes an equitable discovery process for this complex litigation," Toyota said in a prepared statement. "Toyota looks forward to defending this case, and we are confident that reliable scientific evidence will demonstrate the safety of our vehicles."
Last week, following news reports indicating that driver error was to blame for several complaints of sudden acceleration filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Toyota issued a written statement: "Toyota's own vehicle evaluations have confirmed that the remedies it developed for sticking accelerator pedal and potential accelerator pedal entrapment by an unsecured or incompatible floor mat are effective. We have also determined a number of other reasons for customer concerns about unintended acceleration, including cases where an increase in engine speed is normal, such as engine idle up, as well as pedal misapplication. In no case have we found electronic throttle controls to be a cause."
The MDL involves more than 200 lawsuits against Toyota following its recall of more than 8 million vehicles. Most cases involve economic losses to consumers of recalled vehicles, while others claim that the vehicles caused injuries or deaths.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Amanda Bronstad
EU Data Sharing: European Commission Lays Out Core Principles of Data Sharing And Results Of First Ever Audit
In a communication today, the European Commission laid out the various data gathering and sharing tools on EU citizens by various EU bodies as well as member states. According to the European Commission, there are about 20 programmes that govern the exchange of personal data of EU citizens.
Most of these systems are geared towards facilitating travel in the Schengen area and in the effective functioning of the EU internal market as well as in countering terrorism and other serious crimes within the EU. Some of the information systems are used to control immigration to the European Union.
Some of the data sharing goes well beyond the borders of the EU, especially in the case of airline travel where for example, data about European air passengers and certain banking details are regularly passed over to the United Stated. Some of the information systems used involve only one member state such as the "Swedish Initiative" to programmes that involve a few of the member states such as the Pruem Decision.
The Pruen Decision, which enables exchange of DNA information was an instrument used by only seven member states are now used by ten member states. While the data retention directive is a Pan European mechanism that allows for storing of EU citizens telecoms data.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: egovmonitor.com
Most of these systems are geared towards facilitating travel in the Schengen area and in the effective functioning of the EU internal market as well as in countering terrorism and other serious crimes within the EU. Some of the information systems are used to control immigration to the European Union.
Some of the data sharing goes well beyond the borders of the EU, especially in the case of airline travel where for example, data about European air passengers and certain banking details are regularly passed over to the United Stated. Some of the information systems used involve only one member state such as the "Swedish Initiative" to programmes that involve a few of the member states such as the Pruem Decision.
The Pruen Decision, which enables exchange of DNA information was an instrument used by only seven member states are now used by ten member states. While the data retention directive is a Pan European mechanism that allows for storing of EU citizens telecoms data.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: egovmonitor.com
Database Access and the Defense
Today, the principal witness against the accused is often a computer database. While the right of confrontation was intended to address human witnesses, defendants are facing evidence drawn from computer-generated sources. And when identifications are constructed from computer profiles, the right of the accused to access a database to challenge the reliability of a match or unearth the existence of alternate suspects is critical.
There have been some groundbreaking developments that point out the importance of meaningful pretrial electronic discovery.
Too often, computer and database errors are revealed after the fact, when their early discovery might have prevented unwarranted prosecutions and convictions.
Hundreds of DWI prosecutions since 2008 in the District of Columbia, for example, have been called into question because the baseline alcohol concentration levels for the breathalyzers used by the police had been incorrectly set.[FOOTNOTE 1] According to the D.C. attorney general, "The District's badly calibrated equipment would show a driver's blood-alcohol content to be about 20 percent higher than it actually was."[FOOTNOTE 2]
The D.C. attorney general's office began its investigation in February after being alerted by an outside consultant hired by the District that there might be a problem. Since then, the equipment has been replaced and new standards for compliance testing are being developed. This occurrence highlights the problem of human error, which is only one of many possible sources of computer mistakes and by extension database inaccuracy.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Ken Strutin
There have been some groundbreaking developments that point out the importance of meaningful pretrial electronic discovery.
Too often, computer and database errors are revealed after the fact, when their early discovery might have prevented unwarranted prosecutions and convictions.
Hundreds of DWI prosecutions since 2008 in the District of Columbia, for example, have been called into question because the baseline alcohol concentration levels for the breathalyzers used by the police had been incorrectly set.[FOOTNOTE 1] According to the D.C. attorney general, "The District's badly calibrated equipment would show a driver's blood-alcohol content to be about 20 percent higher than it actually was."[FOOTNOTE 2]
The D.C. attorney general's office began its investigation in February after being alerted by an outside consultant hired by the District that there might be a problem. Since then, the equipment has been replaced and new standards for compliance testing are being developed. This occurrence highlights the problem of human error, which is only one of many possible sources of computer mistakes and by extension database inaccuracy.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Ken Strutin
Monday, July 19, 2010
Survey of 103 e-Discovery Cases in the First Half of 2010, the “Campbell Soup” case, and the Wisdom of Andy Warhol
A new survey on 103 e-discovery cases from the first half of 2010 shows that sanctions are up, along with motions to compel. It also shows that judges are fed up with hide-the-ball aggressive tactics, and continue to urge attorneys to learn how to cooperate. Cooperation is an important trend, but it requires hard work to make it happen. In the words of Andy Warhol: “They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.”
The Law Firm Behind the Survey
This survey was created by Gibson Dunn, an 1,000 plus attorney firm with offices around the world. Gibson Dunn started a practice group earlier this year that they call Electronic Discovery and Information Law. A quick review of their website shows that none of the four partners who chair the firm’s group are full-time e-discovery lawyers. They are instead accomplished trial lawyers in various fields. But the Vice-Chair of the group, an attorney promoted to an Of Counsel position because of her work in this field, Farrah Pepper, is a full-time professional in electronic discovery. The firm’s press release explains that she was the driving force behind the formation of this new practice group. As Andy Warhol said: “It’s not what you are that counts, it’s what they think you are.”
Farrah Pepper and her group did an excellent job of research and analysis of 103 e-discovery opinions issued between January 1st and June 30th 2010. This does not purport to be exhaustive list. In fact, they do not share how they selected these cases. This is one suggestion I have for them to improve the year-end report, which they promise to prepare and share for all of 2010.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Ralph Losey
The Law Firm Behind the Survey
This survey was created by Gibson Dunn, an 1,000 plus attorney firm with offices around the world. Gibson Dunn started a practice group earlier this year that they call Electronic Discovery and Information Law. A quick review of their website shows that none of the four partners who chair the firm’s group are full-time e-discovery lawyers. They are instead accomplished trial lawyers in various fields. But the Vice-Chair of the group, an attorney promoted to an Of Counsel position because of her work in this field, Farrah Pepper, is a full-time professional in electronic discovery. The firm’s press release explains that she was the driving force behind the formation of this new practice group. As Andy Warhol said: “It’s not what you are that counts, it’s what they think you are.”
Farrah Pepper and her group did an excellent job of research and analysis of 103 e-discovery opinions issued between January 1st and June 30th 2010. This does not purport to be exhaustive list. In fact, they do not share how they selected these cases. This is one suggestion I have for them to improve the year-end report, which they promise to prepare and share for all of 2010.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Ralph Losey
EU data protection laws too fragmented, says EU Commission
Data cannot currently flow freely between member states, and individuals' rights are not sufficiently safeguarded, suggests the European Commission's vice president
Justice, fundamental rights and citizenship commissioner Viviane Reding has said that laws adopted by the European Union's 27 member states need to be amended so that they are closer to each other and to EU privacy directives.
Addressing the Article 29 Working Party, a committee comprising data protection watchdogs from EU members, Reding stated that current data protection law was not fulfilling its mandate.
"One of the main concerns expressed by businesses in the recent consultations is the lack of harmonisation and the differences in national measures and practices around implementing our 1995 [Data Protection] Directive," said Reding. "It is therefore clear that we need to provide further harmonisation and approximation of data protection rules at EU level.
"I believe we need to strengthen individuals' rights by ensuring that they enjoy a high level of protection and are able to maintain control over their data. This is particularly important in the online environment, where privacy policies are often unclear, non-transparent and not always in full compliance with existing rules.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: sott.net
By: Stuart Summer
Justice, fundamental rights and citizenship commissioner Viviane Reding has said that laws adopted by the European Union's 27 member states need to be amended so that they are closer to each other and to EU privacy directives.
Addressing the Article 29 Working Party, a committee comprising data protection watchdogs from EU members, Reding stated that current data protection law was not fulfilling its mandate.
"One of the main concerns expressed by businesses in the recent consultations is the lack of harmonisation and the differences in national measures and practices around implementing our 1995 [Data Protection] Directive," said Reding. "It is therefore clear that we need to provide further harmonisation and approximation of data protection rules at EU level.
"I believe we need to strengthen individuals' rights by ensuring that they enjoy a high level of protection and are able to maintain control over their data. This is particularly important in the online environment, where privacy policies are often unclear, non-transparent and not always in full compliance with existing rules.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: sott.net
By: Stuart Summer
E-discovery sector has room to grow: experts
Canada’s legal industry continues its shift into the world of electronic discovery, and the group of specialized firms helping to manage the transformation has room to grow with it, according to experts.
Only the largest companies have in-house e-discovery departments, meaning outside consultants like Martin Felsky still have lots of business.Dominic Jaar, CEO of Ledjit Consulting Inc., says e-discovery specialists have broken into different areas of the e-discovery reference model, which moves along a continuum ranging from information-management practices to courtroom presentation techniques and services.
“We’re really a minority of people and we sort of informally, without necessarily agreeing, went with our preference and chose different parts of the [reference] model to specialize in,” says Jaar. “It happened naturally and it’s a good thing because I think we’re covering the whole spectrum.”
Jaar’s firm focuses on the first two steps of the e-discovery process: information management and document identification. Ledjit helps companies develop document-retention policies and implement relevant technologies, for example.
The identification step comes into play after a company has been sued and must determine what materials are potentially relevant for discovery purposes and find a way to preserve and collect it.
For the preservation and collection step, companies typically retain e-discovery vendors such as Commonwealth Legal Inc. and H&A eDiscovery to process the data. This helps trim the volume of information collected by eliminating duplicates and other redundant data.
Firms like Toronto’s Wortzman Nickle Professional Corp. and LexLocom are next on the scene. They specialize in the document-review stage of the reference model by providing the team of lawyers required to review the massive set of information that remains. Jaar says mainstream law firms are the main handlers of the fifth stage, which involves the production of documents.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: lawtimesnews.com
By: Robert Todd
Only the largest companies have in-house e-discovery departments, meaning outside consultants like Martin Felsky still have lots of business.Dominic Jaar, CEO of Ledjit Consulting Inc., says e-discovery specialists have broken into different areas of the e-discovery reference model, which moves along a continuum ranging from information-management practices to courtroom presentation techniques and services.
“We’re really a minority of people and we sort of informally, without necessarily agreeing, went with our preference and chose different parts of the [reference] model to specialize in,” says Jaar. “It happened naturally and it’s a good thing because I think we’re covering the whole spectrum.”
Jaar’s firm focuses on the first two steps of the e-discovery process: information management and document identification. Ledjit helps companies develop document-retention policies and implement relevant technologies, for example.
The identification step comes into play after a company has been sued and must determine what materials are potentially relevant for discovery purposes and find a way to preserve and collect it.
For the preservation and collection step, companies typically retain e-discovery vendors such as Commonwealth Legal Inc. and H&A eDiscovery to process the data. This helps trim the volume of information collected by eliminating duplicates and other redundant data.
Firms like Toronto’s Wortzman Nickle Professional Corp. and LexLocom are next on the scene. They specialize in the document-review stage of the reference model by providing the team of lawyers required to review the massive set of information that remains. Jaar says mainstream law firms are the main handlers of the fifth stage, which involves the production of documents.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: lawtimesnews.com
By: Robert Todd
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Data protection: Duty to disclose
Multinational companies with UK and US facilities find themselves in what is often a no-win situation when it comes to e-disclosure. On one hand, they are legally obligated to respond to discovery requests in cases before US courts that require the collection, review and production of electronically stored information (ESI) - email and other electronic documents - stored on the computers of their UK employees. On the other hand, they are faced with the fact that UK data protection laws disfavour the collection and transfer of ESI due to stringent protections of employee privacy.
US court rules require litigants to produce to their adversaries any documents, including all ESI relevant to subject matter of the action (or those requested that may be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence), in their possession, custody or control anywhere in the world. This can be a vast amount of ESI, significantly broader than the quantities typically collected and produced in UK disclosure.
The broad US e-disclosure requirements raise data protection issues that are a challenge to navigate but, as discussed below, there are suggested best practices and technologies for building processes best able to reduce the legal risks.
UK protections for personal data
The crux of the dilemma is the concept of 'personal data'. In the UK, personal data includes any email or electronic document that includes an employee's email address, name or other identifying information that can possibly be tied to that employee. In most cases, it must be assumed that data collected from employees' laptops, workstations or shared drives will fall within the definition of personal data.
This is why corporate counsel at multinational companies charged with meeting US e-disclosure obligations requiring ESI from the UK are expanding their understanding of the substantive UK privacy laws - beginning with the UK Data Protection Act 1998. Unfortunately, published decisions and regulatory guidance are scarce in this area. Data protection authorities have been unwilling to commit themselves in writing to clear statements of the restrictions applicable to e-disclosure, leaving multinationals vulnerable whenever ESI is collected in the UK and transferred to the US.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: legalweek.com
By: Patrick Burke
US court rules require litigants to produce to their adversaries any documents, including all ESI relevant to subject matter of the action (or those requested that may be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence), in their possession, custody or control anywhere in the world. This can be a vast amount of ESI, significantly broader than the quantities typically collected and produced in UK disclosure.
The broad US e-disclosure requirements raise data protection issues that are a challenge to navigate but, as discussed below, there are suggested best practices and technologies for building processes best able to reduce the legal risks.
UK protections for personal data
The crux of the dilemma is the concept of 'personal data'. In the UK, personal data includes any email or electronic document that includes an employee's email address, name or other identifying information that can possibly be tied to that employee. In most cases, it must be assumed that data collected from employees' laptops, workstations or shared drives will fall within the definition of personal data.
This is why corporate counsel at multinational companies charged with meeting US e-disclosure obligations requiring ESI from the UK are expanding their understanding of the substantive UK privacy laws - beginning with the UK Data Protection Act 1998. Unfortunately, published decisions and regulatory guidance are scarce in this area. Data protection authorities have been unwilling to commit themselves in writing to clear statements of the restrictions applicable to e-disclosure, leaving multinationals vulnerable whenever ESI is collected in the UK and transferred to the US.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: legalweek.com
By: Patrick Burke
Social Media and eDiscovery: More Bark than Bite?
Much has been made of social media’s explosive growth the past 3-4 years, from quirky technology used solely by the under-20 crowd to ubiquitous medium that is increasingly dominating communication – even at the corporate level. Just how quickly has social media become a force to be reckoned with? Facebook is reportedly worth more than $10 billion, and CEO Mark Zuckerburg is one of the most sought after meetings around. The mighty FTC focused its ire on 4-year-old Twitter for allegedly failing to secure consumer information before settling with the social media darling, a remarkable development considering the fact that Twitter did not exist until 2006. Not wanting to be outdone, the Library of Congress announced plans to archive every tweet ever created. Even Gartner Group joined the fray, proclaiming that social media would become the communication method of choice for 20% of businesses by 2014.
Which brings us to eDiscovery. Discovery has long been the province of figuring out who knew and said what, to whom, when; in this context, social media is a treasure trove of ESI that makes email look like child’s play. As we have discussed early and often, social media is unique among all other forms of communication in at least 5 ways, all of which make it a plaintiff lawyer’s dream and a complexity for any litigant:
1. Social media’s speed and breadth amplify communication velocity – which can be good when the content being communicated is appropriate and important, and bad (in some cases very bad) when the content is misleading, inaccurate, proprietary or fraudulent
2. Social media is not a secure form of communication; Facebook and Twitter accounts can be co-opted or faked, which can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences (just ask Tony LaRussa)
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: INFOcus
By: Craig Carpenter
Which brings us to eDiscovery. Discovery has long been the province of figuring out who knew and said what, to whom, when; in this context, social media is a treasure trove of ESI that makes email look like child’s play. As we have discussed early and often, social media is unique among all other forms of communication in at least 5 ways, all of which make it a plaintiff lawyer’s dream and a complexity for any litigant:
1. Social media’s speed and breadth amplify communication velocity – which can be good when the content being communicated is appropriate and important, and bad (in some cases very bad) when the content is misleading, inaccurate, proprietary or fraudulent
2. Social media is not a secure form of communication; Facebook and Twitter accounts can be co-opted or faked, which can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences (just ask Tony LaRussa)
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: INFOcus
By: Craig Carpenter
Searching for documents does not create them
There is a good article on Practical Law’s construction blog by James Clarke, a solicitor at Pinsent Masons. Called Is the ESI questionnaire the future of case management?, it is generally supportive of what is now called the Electronic Documents Questionnaire, and gives a good explanation of the reasons why those of us who drafted it felt that it was necessary.
There are a couple of points towards the end, however, which have not, I suspect, come out quite as the author intended. I cannot let them pass without comment because they might otherwise serve to feed some misconceptions which bedevil any explanation of the subject. My purpose is clarification not contradiction.
The first such sentence reads as follows:
Before committing to the questionnaire at an early stage, your client needs to realise that it could commit them to search terms and sources of electronic documents resulting in a disproportionately large number of documents to review – at significant cost.
We know from the rest of the article that its author well appreciates the value of early identification of electronic sources. This sentence, however, appears to imply (indeed, says in terms) that completing the questionnaire could lead to many documents being found. Well, if the documents exist, then we need to know about them, don’t we? The alternative is relief that the documents lay undisturbed, which seems to me to fly somewhat in the face of the primary disclosure obligations. Furthermore, the fact that you have found them does not mean that you have to disclose them, still less review them – see Master Whitaker’s judgment in Goodale v Ministry of Justice, referred to approvingly by the article’s author. If you end up reviewing everything you find, then you have almost certainly been in breach of the disclosure rules, to say nothing of the overriding objective.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: e-Disclosure Information Project
By: Chris Dale
There are a couple of points towards the end, however, which have not, I suspect, come out quite as the author intended. I cannot let them pass without comment because they might otherwise serve to feed some misconceptions which bedevil any explanation of the subject. My purpose is clarification not contradiction.
The first such sentence reads as follows:
Before committing to the questionnaire at an early stage, your client needs to realise that it could commit them to search terms and sources of electronic documents resulting in a disproportionately large number of documents to review – at significant cost.
We know from the rest of the article that its author well appreciates the value of early identification of electronic sources. This sentence, however, appears to imply (indeed, says in terms) that completing the questionnaire could lead to many documents being found. Well, if the documents exist, then we need to know about them, don’t we? The alternative is relief that the documents lay undisturbed, which seems to me to fly somewhat in the face of the primary disclosure obligations. Furthermore, the fact that you have found them does not mean that you have to disclose them, still less review them – see Master Whitaker’s judgment in Goodale v Ministry of Justice, referred to approvingly by the article’s author. If you end up reviewing everything you find, then you have almost certainly been in breach of the disclosure rules, to say nothing of the overriding objective.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: e-Disclosure Information Project
By: Chris Dale
Is the ESI questionnaire the future of case management?
I recently attended a seminar, co-hosted by Kroll Ontrack, Dorsey & Whitney and Pinsent Masons on the use of an electronic disclosure questionnaire in court proceedings. The questionnaire’s proposed introduction illustrates some significant changes in case management that I think will have a real impact on how we litigate.
What is the ESI questionnaire?
The questionnaire is often referred to as the ESI questionnaire (where ESI stands for electronically stored information). Part 1 of the questionnaire gathers together details of:
• The type, location and custodians of electronic information that a party has control of.
• What searches (such as date ranges, keywords and other search tools) a party intends to deploy to discharge its disclosure obligations under Part 31 of the CPR.
Part 2 allows a party to give an indication as to the scope of searches that it expects from the other party in the litigation.
The questionnaire’s purpose is to assist the case management of disputes where the vast majority of a party’s documents (that it is required to disclose) are in electronic form. Given the overwhelming volume of documents now created, stored and duplicated electronically, this is a problem area for the case management of disputes. It is also a frequent source of additional cost and interim applications over a party’s compliance with its disclosure obligations.
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is currently considering introducing the questionnaire. It was recommended by Senior Master Whitaker in Gavin Goodale and others v Ministry of Justice, where he commented on the increasing challenges to case management presented by the volume of electronic information now in the hands of parties to litigation. The questionnaire is appended to Senior Master Whitaker’s judgment and is recommended reading for any party about to embark on litigation involving electronic disclosure.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: construction.practicallaw.com
By: James Clarke
What is the ESI questionnaire?
The questionnaire is often referred to as the ESI questionnaire (where ESI stands for electronically stored information). Part 1 of the questionnaire gathers together details of:
• The type, location and custodians of electronic information that a party has control of.
• What searches (such as date ranges, keywords and other search tools) a party intends to deploy to discharge its disclosure obligations under Part 31 of the CPR.
Part 2 allows a party to give an indication as to the scope of searches that it expects from the other party in the litigation.
The questionnaire’s purpose is to assist the case management of disputes where the vast majority of a party’s documents (that it is required to disclose) are in electronic form. Given the overwhelming volume of documents now created, stored and duplicated electronically, this is a problem area for the case management of disputes. It is also a frequent source of additional cost and interim applications over a party’s compliance with its disclosure obligations.
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is currently considering introducing the questionnaire. It was recommended by Senior Master Whitaker in Gavin Goodale and others v Ministry of Justice, where he commented on the increasing challenges to case management presented by the volume of electronic information now in the hands of parties to litigation. The questionnaire is appended to Senior Master Whitaker’s judgment and is recommended reading for any party about to embark on litigation involving electronic disclosure.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: construction.practicallaw.com
By: James Clarke
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Who Really Controls Your Electronic Devices?
Always connected means corporations can control, even shut down, your gadget
With Wi-Fi, cable, and cellular connections now virtually everywhere, staying connected to the digital world is a snap. But that connection is a two-way street and it's becoming increasingly clear that corporations can use it to control or even shut down something you own.
The question of who really controls your electronic devices is turning into a thorny issue for service providers, regulators, and consumers, who may falsely assume the gadgets in their home are theirs to do with as they like.
The latest example involves a technology called selectable output control. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has approved a plan by cable and satellite companies there to reach into homes and temporarily shut off analog output connections on set-top boxes during certain programs.
The claim is that it will allow cable and satellite companies to offer premium movies-on-demand, before the movies are released on DVD. The companies say without the new power, viewers might simply record the films on a DVD recorder or other device, through the analog outputs on the back of the set-top box, and then upload copies to the internet. So, the FCC is letting providers embed a signal in new movies that will disable the analog outputs.
"We've got high-value content and we want to make it easily available to consumers, but easily available in a way that can't be easily copied, that's all," Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said in an interview.
The move has plenty of critics who argue that it amounts to temporarily breaking a device and infringes on consumer rights. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based consumer rights' group, is worried cable providers will push for similar limits for popular sporting events, concerts, and other programs.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Steve Lambert
With Wi-Fi, cable, and cellular connections now virtually everywhere, staying connected to the digital world is a snap. But that connection is a two-way street and it's becoming increasingly clear that corporations can use it to control or even shut down something you own.
The question of who really controls your electronic devices is turning into a thorny issue for service providers, regulators, and consumers, who may falsely assume the gadgets in their home are theirs to do with as they like.
The latest example involves a technology called selectable output control. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has approved a plan by cable and satellite companies there to reach into homes and temporarily shut off analog output connections on set-top boxes during certain programs.
The claim is that it will allow cable and satellite companies to offer premium movies-on-demand, before the movies are released on DVD. The companies say without the new power, viewers might simply record the films on a DVD recorder or other device, through the analog outputs on the back of the set-top box, and then upload copies to the internet. So, the FCC is letting providers embed a signal in new movies that will disable the analog outputs.
"We've got high-value content and we want to make it easily available to consumers, but easily available in a way that can't be easily copied, that's all," Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said in an interview.
The move has plenty of critics who argue that it amounts to temporarily breaking a device and infringes on consumer rights. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based consumer rights' group, is worried cable providers will push for similar limits for popular sporting events, concerts, and other programs.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Steve Lambert
Friday, July 16, 2010
Hosting eDiscovery in the Cloud: Know What You’re Getting
There is a lot of confusion over what constitutes the cloud. “Clouds” can be an umbrella term for pretty much anything at all that involves either storage pooling, delivery of some service over the Internet, or a nifty idea that came out of your marketing team’s Monday morning meeting. “Heh! Let’s call the product a cloud! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
So let’s define some cloud terminology narrowed down by eDiscovery. Essentially eDiscovery applications and services are cloud-based when they are delivered online by third-party providers. Titles are fluid and indistinct, but a couple of the major examples include Software as a Service (SaaS) or cloud-based application delivery, and hosted eDiscovery or cloud-based eDiscovery. (Believe me, different vendors will define these terms according to what they think will sell the best.) Below are some decent working definitions.
Cloud-based eDiscovery Application: The eDiscovery software vendor hosts their application on their own networks and delivers it to customers via the Internet. Customers use the application for various eDiscovery tasks such as analysis or review. This can be quite useful when the corporation does not want to make major investments in on-premise eDiscovery technology, or when the corporation wants its law firms to use the same eDiscovery software. Impact on IT: Must provide sufficient bandwidth for smooth application delivery, but will not have to install or maintain hosted application. This means that IT is responsible for how fast (or not) the application is running over the pipes, but can cheerfully refer end-users to the application provider for all other support.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Enterprise Storage Forum
By: Christine Taylor
So let’s define some cloud terminology narrowed down by eDiscovery. Essentially eDiscovery applications and services are cloud-based when they are delivered online by third-party providers. Titles are fluid and indistinct, but a couple of the major examples include Software as a Service (SaaS) or cloud-based application delivery, and hosted eDiscovery or cloud-based eDiscovery. (Believe me, different vendors will define these terms according to what they think will sell the best.) Below are some decent working definitions.
Cloud-based eDiscovery Application: The eDiscovery software vendor hosts their application on their own networks and delivers it to customers via the Internet. Customers use the application for various eDiscovery tasks such as analysis or review. This can be quite useful when the corporation does not want to make major investments in on-premise eDiscovery technology, or when the corporation wants its law firms to use the same eDiscovery software. Impact on IT: Must provide sufficient bandwidth for smooth application delivery, but will not have to install or maintain hosted application. This means that IT is responsible for how fast (or not) the application is running over the pipes, but can cheerfully refer end-users to the application provider for all other support.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Enterprise Storage Forum
By: Christine Taylor
Gibson Dunn Releases 2010 Mid-Year E-Discovery Update
Gibson Dunn has released its 2010 Mid-Year Electronic Discovery and Information Law Update, which surveys 103 cases from the first half of this year and analyzes the emerging e-discovery trends. Highlights from the report include:
• Like last year, sanctions and cooperation were dominant themes in the first half of 2010.
• Motions to compel and privilege disputes also continued at a steady pace.
• Gibson Dunn noted fewer decisions regarding preservation, form of production, and accessibility of data.
• Courts have concentrated on more nuanced factual scenarios and discovery disputes arising farther along in the discovery process, such as iterative search terms, application of protective orders and application of Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: EDD Update
By: Farrah Pepper
• Like last year, sanctions and cooperation were dominant themes in the first half of 2010.
• Motions to compel and privilege disputes also continued at a steady pace.
• Gibson Dunn noted fewer decisions regarding preservation, form of production, and accessibility of data.
• Courts have concentrated on more nuanced factual scenarios and discovery disputes arising farther along in the discovery process, such as iterative search terms, application of protective orders and application of Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: EDD Update
By: Farrah Pepper
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Future of Automated Document Review
A Posse List blog post earlier this year, Computer-aided document review has arrived (12 January 2010), comments on a thought-provoking e-discovery study described in an academic journal article. The premise of the underlying study, which compares computer classification of documents with manual review, is that automated systems are capable of categorizing documents at least as well as teams of human reviewers in an e-discovery setting. While it raises interesting points, I am not convinced that the evidence supports the authors’ conclusion that computer-aided review has arrived quite yet. It is still a stretch to suggest that human document reviewers face an imminent risk of being supplanted by artificial intelligence-based processes.
The underlying study by a trio of recognized experts in cognitive science, information management, and e-discovery, Herb Roitblat, Anne Kershaw, and Patrick Oot, is described in detail in their journal article, Document Categorization in Legal Electronic Discovery: Computer Classification vs. Manual Review, published in the January 2010 issue of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (link is to PDF at the Posse List).
There is no question that software can detect ever-more sophisticated language patterns in documents and classify them by theme. Whether this translates readily into a persuasive argument that legal document review will be more fully automated in the near future, or even that such a development is inevitable, is a different question. And I don’t think the study provides conclusive support for the proposition that computer classification could reasonably substitute for human review.
Before turning to my reservations about the study, I want to raise a potentially bigger issue. Irrespective of advances in technology and compelling statistics, we need to ask whether courts and litigators will accept a discovery process that is ever more reliant on technology in pursuit of efficiency. I think the likely answer is, ‘only to a point.’
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: www.integreon.com
By: Foster Gibbons
The underlying study by a trio of recognized experts in cognitive science, information management, and e-discovery, Herb Roitblat, Anne Kershaw, and Patrick Oot, is described in detail in their journal article, Document Categorization in Legal Electronic Discovery: Computer Classification vs. Manual Review, published in the January 2010 issue of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (link is to PDF at the Posse List).
There is no question that software can detect ever-more sophisticated language patterns in documents and classify them by theme. Whether this translates readily into a persuasive argument that legal document review will be more fully automated in the near future, or even that such a development is inevitable, is a different question. And I don’t think the study provides conclusive support for the proposition that computer classification could reasonably substitute for human review.
Before turning to my reservations about the study, I want to raise a potentially bigger issue. Irrespective of advances in technology and compelling statistics, we need to ask whether courts and litigators will accept a discovery process that is ever more reliant on technology in pursuit of efficiency. I think the likely answer is, ‘only to a point.’
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: www.integreon.com
By: Foster Gibbons
Citing Rule 37(e), Court Denies Spoliation Sanctions Despite the Existence of a Duty to Preserve
Oslon v. Sax, 2010 WL 2639853 (E.D. Wis. June 25, 2010)
Citing a lack of evidence that defendants “engaged in the ‘bad faith’ destruction of evidence for the purpose of hiding adverse evidence” and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), the court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for defendants’ destruction of relevant videotape, despite the existence of a duty to preserve.
On July 31, 2008, defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment alleging that she had “filed [sic] out false credit slips”. In her subsequent lawsuit, plaintiff alleged she was terminated for discriminatory reasons. The alleged theft was apparently recorded on videotape on July 22, 2008. Plaintiff asked to see the tape upon her termination. It is unclear if her request was granted at that time. The tape was also requested in the normal course of discovery, although the date of that request is also unclear. Regardless, defendants were unable to produce the tape because it had been erased. Plaintiff sought sanctions precluding defendants from producing evidence of the alleged theft and an award of expenses for bringing the motion.
Defendants argued that they were protected from sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e), which precludes the imposition of sanctions where electronically stored information is lost as the result of “routine, good faith operation[s] of an electronic information system.” Specifically, the defendants asserted that the lost recording was created using a digital video recorder that saved surveillance footage for approximately 29 days before automatically recording over it. Defendants further asserted that they were unaware of the possibility of litigation until receipt of a letter from plaintiff’s counsel on February 24, 2009 – approximately seven months after the alleged theft occurred (and long after the tape had been erased).
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscoverylaw.com
Citing a lack of evidence that defendants “engaged in the ‘bad faith’ destruction of evidence for the purpose of hiding adverse evidence” and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), the court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for defendants’ destruction of relevant videotape, despite the existence of a duty to preserve.
On July 31, 2008, defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment alleging that she had “filed [sic] out false credit slips”. In her subsequent lawsuit, plaintiff alleged she was terminated for discriminatory reasons. The alleged theft was apparently recorded on videotape on July 22, 2008. Plaintiff asked to see the tape upon her termination. It is unclear if her request was granted at that time. The tape was also requested in the normal course of discovery, although the date of that request is also unclear. Regardless, defendants were unable to produce the tape because it had been erased. Plaintiff sought sanctions precluding defendants from producing evidence of the alleged theft and an award of expenses for bringing the motion.
Defendants argued that they were protected from sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e), which precludes the imposition of sanctions where electronically stored information is lost as the result of “routine, good faith operation[s] of an electronic information system.” Specifically, the defendants asserted that the lost recording was created using a digital video recorder that saved surveillance footage for approximately 29 days before automatically recording over it. Defendants further asserted that they were unaware of the possibility of litigation until receipt of a letter from plaintiff’s counsel on February 24, 2009 – approximately seven months after the alleged theft occurred (and long after the tape had been erased).
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: eDiscoverylaw.com
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Russian Spies' Use of Steganography Is Just the Beginning
One of the ways the 10 Russian spies that the U.S. just sent home to the motherland in a spy swap communicated with their handlers was via steganography - the act of embedding secret information in some other signal.
In this case, the spies were embedding messages in images that were then uploaded to public websites. The messages weren't encrypted - just invisible to the naked eye; lost in the endless stream of communications transmitted daily through the web.
Here's the thing about steganography: it doesn't take much to implement it in almost any signal you can imagine - and doing so is surprisingly trivial. There are over 600 different known steganography programs, according to digital forensics firm WetStone Technologies, and the one the Russian spies used was custom-made.
Indeed, it's so easy to write a steganography program that Jon McLoone, head of international business and strategic development at Wolfram, wrote one in Mathematica with just a handful of lines of code. He helpfully points out that his version, unlike the one the spies were using, isn't likely to crash.
But this is just the beginning: the principles of steganography can be applied even to continuous communications, such as conventional wireless networks. Using this approach, Krzysztof Szczypiorski and Wojciech Mazurczyk figured out how to pour up to a megabyte per second into an open wireless network.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: www.technologyreview.com
By: Christopher Mims
In this case, the spies were embedding messages in images that were then uploaded to public websites. The messages weren't encrypted - just invisible to the naked eye; lost in the endless stream of communications transmitted daily through the web.
Here's the thing about steganography: it doesn't take much to implement it in almost any signal you can imagine - and doing so is surprisingly trivial. There are over 600 different known steganography programs, according to digital forensics firm WetStone Technologies, and the one the Russian spies used was custom-made.
Indeed, it's so easy to write a steganography program that Jon McLoone, head of international business and strategic development at Wolfram, wrote one in Mathematica with just a handful of lines of code. He helpfully points out that his version, unlike the one the spies were using, isn't likely to crash.
But this is just the beginning: the principles of steganography can be applied even to continuous communications, such as conventional wireless networks. Using this approach, Krzysztof Szczypiorski and Wojciech Mazurczyk figured out how to pour up to a megabyte per second into an open wireless network.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: www.technologyreview.com
By: Christopher Mims
Google Apps Expands Mobile Device Controls
Securing corporate data on mobile devices just got a bit easier for Google Apps admins
Administrators for Google Apps Premier and Education editions on Tuesday were granted new powers over their companies' mobile devices.
Building upon enterprise support capabilities introduced last year and in February for BlackBerry, iPhone, Nokia, and Windows Mobile devices, Google has added six new mobile device management options to help IT administrators secure corporate data.
The added capabilities include: requiring devices to use data encryption; auto-wiping devices after a set number of failed password entry attempts; disabling the device's camera; ensuring that old passwords are not reused; requiring password changes after a set period of time; and disabling data synchronization when roaming to reduce data charges.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Thomas Claburn
Administrators for Google Apps Premier and Education editions on Tuesday were granted new powers over their companies' mobile devices.
Building upon enterprise support capabilities introduced last year and in February for BlackBerry, iPhone, Nokia, and Windows Mobile devices, Google has added six new mobile device management options to help IT administrators secure corporate data.
The added capabilities include: requiring devices to use data encryption; auto-wiping devices after a set number of failed password entry attempts; disabling the device's camera; ensuring that old passwords are not reused; requiring password changes after a set period of time; and disabling data synchronization when roaming to reduce data charges.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Thomas Claburn
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Microsoft Ends Support For Windows XP SP2
Almost half of all PCs still run the operating system, which could leave organizations exposed to new malware, with no way of patching the vulnerabilities.
Microsoft will end support for both its Windows 2000 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) operating systems this Patch Tuesday.
Unfortunately, the security implications could be a rude awakening for many organizations, because 45% of all PCs still run Windows XP SP2, and 77% of organizations run it on at least 10% of their PCs. Those findings come from a study released last month by Softchoice, of about 280,000 PCs running in 117 private and public sector organizations in the United States and Canada.
"We were surprised by the number of people who have not yet deployed Service Pack 3," said Dean Williams, services development manager for Softchoice, in a statement. "If organizations aren't already on top of this, they should be moving quickly to update their systems." The upgrade is free, but Williams notes that it can take a significant amount of time to test and apply it.
Still, there's little reason to wait. "While there were some documented issues when Service Pack 3 first launched, this was much more of an incremental upgrade compared to the major overhaul represented by Service Pack 2," he said. "Many users rightfully delayed their SP2 deployments but at this point there really isn't a compelling reason to delay the move to SP3."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Matthew Schwartz
Microsoft will end support for both its Windows 2000 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) operating systems this Patch Tuesday.
Unfortunately, the security implications could be a rude awakening for many organizations, because 45% of all PCs still run Windows XP SP2, and 77% of organizations run it on at least 10% of their PCs. Those findings come from a study released last month by Softchoice, of about 280,000 PCs running in 117 private and public sector organizations in the United States and Canada.
"We were surprised by the number of people who have not yet deployed Service Pack 3," said Dean Williams, services development manager for Softchoice, in a statement. "If organizations aren't already on top of this, they should be moving quickly to update their systems." The upgrade is free, but Williams notes that it can take a significant amount of time to test and apply it.
Still, there's little reason to wait. "While there were some documented issues when Service Pack 3 first launched, this was much more of an incremental upgrade compared to the major overhaul represented by Service Pack 2," he said. "Many users rightfully delayed their SP2 deployments but at this point there really isn't a compelling reason to delay the move to SP3."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Matthew Schwartz
Lawyers finding their niche
The thought of turning a special interest into a niche practice remains a pipe dream for most lawyers.
After all, it’s one thing to cultivate a curiosity for a vague subject during leisure time but it can be hard to believe that passion will put food on the table.
However, those who have taken the leap and turned their side interest into a law practice say it can be done — and remain profitable — if approached in the right way with the proper zeal.
The first and perhaps most obvious step to becoming a legal specialist is getting involved. Susan Wortzman, founder of Wortzman Nickle Professional Corp. in Toronto, started her concentration on e-discovery while working as litigation counsel at a law firm.
She gradually gained experience in e-discovery through the files she worked on, got involved with the Sedona Conference, and spoke about the topic at various events. But there came a time when she had to make a decision.
“Nobody was referring any work to me because I was at a firm,” she says. Luckily for her, when it came time to make a move and hang her own shingle, the groundwork had been laid.
“As soon as I opened up our doors, the work just started pouring in, and we were very, very busy,” she says.
But not all lawyers are willing to take the type of risk that Wortzman did in setting up her own shop. Others may look to people like Davis LLP associate
Tudor Carsten, who says it’s important to keep your head up and look for opportunities to follow your passion.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: Law Times
By: David Todd
After all, it’s one thing to cultivate a curiosity for a vague subject during leisure time but it can be hard to believe that passion will put food on the table.
However, those who have taken the leap and turned their side interest into a law practice say it can be done — and remain profitable — if approached in the right way with the proper zeal.
The first and perhaps most obvious step to becoming a legal specialist is getting involved. Susan Wortzman, founder of Wortzman Nickle Professional Corp. in Toronto, started her concentration on e-discovery while working as litigation counsel at a law firm.
She gradually gained experience in e-discovery through the files she worked on, got involved with the Sedona Conference, and spoke about the topic at various events. But there came a time when she had to make a decision.
“Nobody was referring any work to me because I was at a firm,” she says. Luckily for her, when it came time to make a move and hang her own shingle, the groundwork had been laid.
“As soon as I opened up our doors, the work just started pouring in, and we were very, very busy,” she says.
But not all lawyers are willing to take the type of risk that Wortzman did in setting up her own shop. Others may look to people like Davis LLP associate
Tudor Carsten, who says it’s important to keep your head up and look for opportunities to follow your passion.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: Law Times
By: David Todd
How to design secure SLAs for SaaS
Hosted security services are increasingly seen as a viable option for security management, thanks in part to their ability to reduce the strain on the security organization. With a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) approach, enterprises can offload much of the responsibility for maintaining security technology to service providers, introduce new features and functions seamlessly and handle configuration and management from virtually anywhere.
If this sounds like management nirvana, security pros may want to step back a bit and consider the full ramifications of adopting a SaaS model for security technology. In this tip, we'll explore why more may be involved than meets the eye, and how to assess and manage the effects that a security SaaS transition will have on an IT infrastructure and management processes.
SaaS evaluation: Managing the transition
The advantages of security SaaS can be many, but, as with any new approach to management, they may come at a cost. Understanding the impact of moving to a service-based model, knowing how to recognize a successful service option and leveraging the advantages of new and emerging approaches are just a few of the ways prospective customers can make the most of the SaaS option:
• Understand the impact of service adoption, both initially and ongoing. In order to understand how the service will impact normal business processes, have the provider walk your team through the normal process of service adoption and use before making a commitment. If the service looks promising, probe the initial adoption process in detail, from start to finish. Verify the provider's description with reference customers if possible, and ask them if adoption turned out as expected. If not, or if the provider does not describe actions to take if the adoption fails to go as planned, take a hard look at where the adoption could go wrong and what the organization's response would be. Ask the provider -- and reference customers if possible -- how the provider handles changes to the service to keep it up to date. When maintenance requires service interruption, terms such as acceptable advance notice should be defined in the SaaS service-level agreement (SLA ).
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: searchsecurity.techtarget.com.au
By: Scott Crawford
If this sounds like management nirvana, security pros may want to step back a bit and consider the full ramifications of adopting a SaaS model for security technology. In this tip, we'll explore why more may be involved than meets the eye, and how to assess and manage the effects that a security SaaS transition will have on an IT infrastructure and management processes.
SaaS evaluation: Managing the transition
The advantages of security SaaS can be many, but, as with any new approach to management, they may come at a cost. Understanding the impact of moving to a service-based model, knowing how to recognize a successful service option and leveraging the advantages of new and emerging approaches are just a few of the ways prospective customers can make the most of the SaaS option:
• Understand the impact of service adoption, both initially and ongoing. In order to understand how the service will impact normal business processes, have the provider walk your team through the normal process of service adoption and use before making a commitment. If the service looks promising, probe the initial adoption process in detail, from start to finish. Verify the provider's description with reference customers if possible, and ask them if adoption turned out as expected. If not, or if the provider does not describe actions to take if the adoption fails to go as planned, take a hard look at where the adoption could go wrong and what the organization's response would be. Ask the provider -- and reference customers if possible -- how the provider handles changes to the service to keep it up to date. When maintenance requires service interruption, terms such as acceptable advance notice should be defined in the SaaS service-level agreement (SLA ).
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
Source: searchsecurity.techtarget.com.au
By: Scott Crawford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
