Re: Email Policy Changes -- encourage im instead of email

[Bugbear <gbugbear () gmail com>]

Our attorneys say IM is also discoverable

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM, teacher1st <teacher1st () bellsouth net> 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 <jackadaniel () gmail com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Bill Swearingen <hevnsnt () i-hacked com>
> > 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
> > Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
> > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com