|
 |
 |
Computerworld
Universal Data Retention Specification Demoed... without Data Integrity Safeguards?
Computerworld reported last week on a new "universal" data retention spec
that "divorces data from the applications that created it". While the
article doesn't really offer much detail on how the technology actually
works, the really interesting omission is any mention of security or control mechanisms
in the proposed protocol. Brings to mind an early large-scale XML
implementation at a large financial services firm that a ProofSpace
staffer worked on in a previous life, where nobody gave access control
a moment's thought... and the systems ended up being wide open to
anyone who got their hands on the data definitions.
Vendors such as EMC
Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Sun Microsystems Inc. and Vignette Corp.
demoed their software interfaces for the new specification that offers
a universal way for users to store and access unchanging or fixed data
regardless of the application that created it. The specification,
eXtensible Access Method (XAM), was demonstrated at Storage Networking
World last week for the first time. The specification was announced
last spring and is expected to be presented to the American National
Standards Institute for review as a standard early next year. Read
the full article.
|
 |
 |
Law.com
Chain-of-Custody.. Or Chain-Saw?
“Exploring
the issues surrounding chain of custody for electronic evidence may
sound like a great cure for insomnia... But a string of recent judicial
sanctions over chain of custody for electronic evidence has made the
dry issue a hot topic: One that can make or break your case.” In other
words, unless you can prove chain-of-custody and data integrity for any
electronic documents that your lawyers are trying to submit into
evidence, you’re going to find yourself up a legal creek without a paddle.
That’s what Christy Burke writes in this month’s Law.com Legal
Technology column. “...in the next two to four years, most or all
states will be creating legislation with real teeth when it comes to
keeping scrupulous security measures to secure digital evidence and
ensure a proper chain of custody.” Read the full article.
|
 |
 |
Computerworld
Storage on Trial
What is a good data-retrieval plan worth to a company caught up in litigation? For Morgan Stanley, $15 million.
The average Fortune 500 company has over 150 lawsuits in active
litigation at any given time. As document retrieval requests from the
legal department start piling up, IT departments are just starting to
realize how big and scary the eDiscovery monster really is, with
retrieval eating up increasing amounts of IT time and budget.
In 2006, Morgan agreed to pay the hefty $15M fine to
resolve an investigation by U.S. regulators into its failure to retain
e-mail messages. E-mail played a central role in the (later overturned)
$1.58 billion judgment in favor of Ronald
Perelman in the case of MorganStanley v. Coleman. Perelman is a
billionaire investor who said he was defrauded by the firm over the
sale of a business. The judge, frustrated by Morgan Stanley’s inability
to produce e-mails demanded by Perelman’s lawyers (the firm said backup
tapes had been overwritten), took the unusual step of shifting the burden of proof to Morgan Stanley, so that the firm had to prove its innocence. Read the full article.
|
 |
|
