Re: Email Policy Changes

[Craig Freyman <craigfreyman () gmail com>]

Jack - the ediscovery costs of a current litigation we're in are
astronomical. This is where this reactionary policy is coming from.

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