May 21
Courts are becoming increasingly cognizant of the eDiscovery burdens that the information explosion has placed on organizations. Indeed, the cases from 2012 are piling up in which courts have rejected demands that sanctions be imposed for seemingly reasonable information retention practices. The recent case of Grabenstein v. Arrow Electronics (D. Colo. April 23, 2012) is another notable instance of this trend.
In Grabenstein, the court refused to sanction a company for eliminating emails pursuant to a good faith document retention policy. The plaintiff had argued that drastic sanctions (evidence, adverse inference and monetary) should be imposed on the company since relevant emails regarding her alleged disability were not retained in violation of both its eDiscovery duties and an EEOC regulatory retention obligation. The court disagreed, finding that sanctions were inappropriate because the emails were not deleted before the duty to preserve was triggered: “Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Defendant deleted e-mails after the litigation hold was imposed.”
Furthermore, the court declined to issue sanctions of any kind even though it found that the company deleted emails in violation of its EEOC regulatory retention duty. The court adopted this seemingly incongruous position because the emails were overwritten pursuant to a reasonable document retention policy:
To Continue Reading:
In Grabenstein, the court refused to sanction a company for eliminating emails pursuant to a good faith document retention policy. The plaintiff had argued that drastic sanctions (evidence, adverse inference and monetary) should be imposed on the company since relevant emails regarding her alleged disability were not retained in violation of both its eDiscovery duties and an EEOC regulatory retention obligation. The court disagreed, finding that sanctions were inappropriate because the emails were not deleted before the duty to preserve was triggered: “Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Defendant deleted e-mails after the litigation hold was imposed.”
Furthermore, the court declined to issue sanctions of any kind even though it found that the company deleted emails in violation of its EEOC regulatory retention duty. The court adopted this seemingly incongruous position because the emails were overwritten pursuant to a reasonable document retention policy:
To Continue Reading:
May 21
When IBM loosened its restrictions on the smartphones and tablets its employees could use for work, the company got a lesson in IT management of the kind it usually sells to clients.
In 2010, like many large companies in recent years, IBM adopted a “bring your own device” policy, meaning that employees who want to work outside the office don’t have to use a smart phone provided by the company. Although IBM still gives BlackBerrys to about 40,000 of its 400,000 employees, 80,000 other workers now reach internal IBM networks using other smartphones and tablets, including ones they purchased for themselves.
The trend toward employee-owned devices isn’t saving IBM any money, says Jeanette Horan, who is IBM’s chief information officer and oversees all the company’s internal use of IT. Instead, she says, it has created new challenges for her department of 5,000 people, because employees’ devices are full of software that IBM doesn’t control.
Horan says that when IBM surveyed several hundred employees using mobile devices, many were “blissfully unaware” of what popular apps could be security risks.
Since then, Horan’s team has established guidelines about which apps IBM employees can use and which they should avoid. On the list of banned apps are public file-transfer services such as Dropbox; Horan says IBM fears that using such software could allow sensitive information to get loose. In the survey, other employees were found to be violating protocol by automatically forwarding their IBM e-mail to public Web mail services or using their smart phones to create open Wi-Fi hotspots, which make data vulnerable to snoops.
“We found a tremendous lack of awareness as to what constitutes a risk,” says Horan. So now, she says, “we’re trying to make people aware.”
To Continue Reading:
In 2010, like many large companies in recent years, IBM adopted a “bring your own device” policy, meaning that employees who want to work outside the office don’t have to use a smart phone provided by the company. Although IBM still gives BlackBerrys to about 40,000 of its 400,000 employees, 80,000 other workers now reach internal IBM networks using other smartphones and tablets, including ones they purchased for themselves.
The trend toward employee-owned devices isn’t saving IBM any money, says Jeanette Horan, who is IBM’s chief information officer and oversees all the company’s internal use of IT. Instead, she says, it has created new challenges for her department of 5,000 people, because employees’ devices are full of software that IBM doesn’t control.
Horan says that when IBM surveyed several hundred employees using mobile devices, many were “blissfully unaware” of what popular apps could be security risks.
Since then, Horan’s team has established guidelines about which apps IBM employees can use and which they should avoid. On the list of banned apps are public file-transfer services such as Dropbox; Horan says IBM fears that using such software could allow sensitive information to get loose. In the survey, other employees were found to be violating protocol by automatically forwarding their IBM e-mail to public Web mail services or using their smart phones to create open Wi-Fi hotspots, which make data vulnerable to snoops.
“We found a tremendous lack of awareness as to what constitutes a risk,” says Horan. So now, she says, “we’re trying to make people aware.”
To Continue Reading:
May 21
Do you think EU data protection legislation has slowed the uptake of cloud computing among businesses?
Gail Crawford, partner, Latham & Watkins: Not significantly. Worryingly, privacy and security are often overlooked when there are significant cost savings to be made, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) where there is less likely to be an understanding of the legal and operational risks of using the cloud.
Conversely, smart cloud vendors have generated business by building models that address privacy concerns, while clouds operated by EU providers can market the fact that they are not subject to the US Patriot Act, allaying fears that data could be accessed by US authorities.
Richard Graham, partner, Edwards Wildman: It is important to distinguish between information security and data protection when we look at cloud computing. Information security is wider in nature than data protection as it seeks to secure all the intangible assets of a business in the cloud, including its IP, confidential information and other customer, employee and financial data.
For any chief information officer (CIO), the protection of all of the organisation’s intangible assets is of paramount importance and must be impact-assessed and understood before the organisation is able to outsource. For some businesses, including those in regulated sectors, it is concern around information security and the location of the cloud service that is hindering uptake.
Compliance with EU data protection legislation is part of this concern and the existing framework is arguably not flexible enough to adapt to these emerging solutions.
To Continue Reading:
Gail Crawford, partner, Latham & Watkins: Not significantly. Worryingly, privacy and security are often overlooked when there are significant cost savings to be made, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) where there is less likely to be an understanding of the legal and operational risks of using the cloud.
Conversely, smart cloud vendors have generated business by building models that address privacy concerns, while clouds operated by EU providers can market the fact that they are not subject to the US Patriot Act, allaying fears that data could be accessed by US authorities.
Richard Graham, partner, Edwards Wildman: It is important to distinguish between information security and data protection when we look at cloud computing. Information security is wider in nature than data protection as it seeks to secure all the intangible assets of a business in the cloud, including its IP, confidential information and other customer, employee and financial data.
For any chief information officer (CIO), the protection of all of the organisation’s intangible assets is of paramount importance and must be impact-assessed and understood before the organisation is able to outsource. For some businesses, including those in regulated sectors, it is concern around information security and the location of the cloud service that is hindering uptake.
Compliance with EU data protection legislation is part of this concern and the existing framework is arguably not flexible enough to adapt to these emerging solutions.
To Continue Reading:
Interesting Articles
- New Part Leaks Include Taller iPod Touch Front Panel, ‘iPhone 5′ Cameras
- Are Cells Communicating With Each Other By Emitting Light?
- Doctor jokes-God
- WhatsApp PLUS v1.4 Apk App
- Espectáculos | Los Ratings del Domingo 20/05
- Espectáculos | Los Ratings del Domingo 20/05
- GM’s Doing it Wrong: Facebook Marketing Lessons
- Redes sociales en defensa del medio ambiente
- Microsoft Plans to Kill the Aero UI Prior To Final Windows 8 Release
- una de barcos
- La Mesa de Enlace desmiente acuerdos con bloques políticos por la aprobación del impuesto rural bonaerense y pide la continuidad del debate
- "Las cooperativas de radiodifusión tienen una misión social"
- LAN dio a conocer las primeras imágenes de su nuevo Boeing 787
- Tipos de Investigación de Mercados según la etapa del Ciclo de Vida del Producto.
- Para emprender no hay que tener miedo al fracaso
- El INTA y el Conicet descifraron los genes de dos rizobacterias que influyen en cultivos
- Se celebrará mañana el Día Internacional contra la Homofobia y la Transfobia (IDAHO)
- Apple’s iPad Security lock To Be Designed By a School Boy From Agra (India)
- Gaxa joins Chiefs
- Perú se convertirá en primer exportador de frutas y hortalizas del mundo
- El dólar blue llegó a $5,60.