Our attorneys say IM is also discoverable
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM, teacher1st <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello People, > > The problem may be wrong technology. Perhaps in many instances IM should be > used rather than email. > > At the last company I worked we had a situation where an email was sent > rather than an instant message. > > Two problems were: > - email with a very long threads and something "embarrassing" way down would > be sent > - short, casual, unfiltered [can't think of a better work] emails > > We set up training program that, first of all, encouraged using Instant > Messages and, second, discussed email etiquette. > > Follow up showed the training worked. > > Best, > > teacher1st > > > On 1/18/2011 12:57 PM, David Kovar wrote: > > Greetings, > This policy is becoming standard in a lot of corporations. I think the > powers that be have more market research for their point of view than you > can drum up for yours. > -David > On Jan 18, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Craig Freyman wrote: > > I agree that the policy is very bad and Bugbear is 100% correct. They don't > understand the technology piece at all. However, we've fought it HARD and > lost. I'm going to bring all these points up though, much thanks for your > insight. > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Jack Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Bill Swearingen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I dont understand why you wouldnt want to comply with policy? >> > The reason the lawyers have made this decision is because of ediscovery. >> > If >> > their is a policy (and technical restraints) to not keep stuff past 60 >> > days, >> > then they cant be requested to discover email and documents older than >> > that. >> > Sounds like you are looking for a good way of being fired! >> > $0.02 >> > >> Good point Bill, but I interpreted the request as trying to cover all >> the bases to help enforce the policy, and framed answers as such. >> >> That said, this is such a bad policy that it will be defeated. People >> are going to do their jobs, in spite of policy- you are much more >> likely to be disciplined or fired for not doing your job than you are >> to be disciplined for not following policy (at least in almost every >> biz I've ever dealt with) >> >> This shows it isn't just us security types who ignore the realities of >> business when crafting policy. The dangers of e-discovery damage would >> have to be insanely high for this to be in the best interest of the >> company as a whole. But, we security types ask for dumb stuff all the >> time, too. >> >> Jack >> _______________________________________________ >> Pauldotcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom >> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > > _______________________________________________ > Pauldotcom mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > > _______________________________________________ > Pauldotcom mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > > _______________________________________________ > Pauldotcom mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > _______________________________________________ Pauldotcom mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
