Re: Email Policy Changes

[Craig Freyman <craigfreyman () gmail com>]

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