Forensic Update

Reflections on information management within the legal and regulatory arena

  • Follow @ForensicUpdate

    Follow @ForensicUpdate

    Follow on Twitter

  • Follow @ Linked In

    Follow @ Linked In
  • Recent Tweets

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 18 other followers

Archive for the ‘Records Retention’ Category

Test your systems to avoid embarrassment…

Posted by Johnny Lee on June 9, 2017

Before advancing undue burden arguments about being unable to find key documents, you may want to test your systems to avoid embarrassment…

Posted in Computer Forensics, Data Governance, ECM, eDiscovery, Litigation Hold, Records Retention | Leave a Comment »

Minimize Business Email Compromise risk in 6 steps…

Posted by Johnny Lee on December 11, 2016

…a mix of training, process & technology to strengthen controls.gt_logo

ow.ly/Gqzx304SvS0

Posted in CyberSecurity, Data Breach, Data Governance, ECM, Information Security, Investigations, Privacy, Records Retention | Leave a Comment »

What can we learn from the rash of revelations related to sizable hacks in 2012?

Posted by Johnny Lee on September 9, 2016

bitglass_wheres_your_data_thumbnail1Posit the research, which indicates that the average length of an un-detected compromise is in excess of 200 days. Couple that with research from security outfit Bitglass, and you’ve got some shocking correlations that put 2012 into a broader perspective.

That experiment employed data-tracking technology to track the traverse of sensitive data on the dark web post-compromise.
The upshot: In 12 days, these data were access 1,100 times within 22 countries, with two different cyber-crime syndicates sharing data with their peers…imagine how often compromised 2012 data changed hands over 4 years!

Bitglass Research

Posted in Computer Forensics, Data Governance, eDiscovery, Fraud, Information Security, Investigations, Privacy, Records Retention | Leave a Comment »

Employers continue to wrestle with BYOD policies…

Posted by Johnny Lee on March 16, 2015

What follows is an excerpt from an article for which I was asked to contribute last Fall.  I hope that you find it of interest.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In your opinion, how much control a company should have over an employee-owned device?

Organizations are under increasing scrutiny to protect sensitive data of all kinds, regardless of the industry in which they operate. Some regulations provide for strict liability to the employer for actions taken (and/or disclosures made) by employees, regardless of whether such actions/disclosures originate from a personally owned device. Similarly, there are legal nuances to consider related to ownership, control, and consent — especially when obligations to preserve data in litigation arise. For these reasons, organizations should carefully review their risk profile with these legal and regulatory obligations in mind.

This risk profile should govern an organization’s exercise of control over employee-owned devices. Not all risk profiles are the same; to illustrate, a traditional manufacturing company that manufactures mechanical widgets will have a very different risk profile than an organization selling specialized securities or financial instruments.

Many of these devices include personal data, like photos and private email. Should the company be able to wipe out an employee’s personal data just because the owner broke IT policies?

This is a nuanced question, so I’ll answer that “it depends.” For some organizations, the risks attendant with employee-owned devices are quite onerous. Accordingly, those organizations might take the position that an employee’s access of company-owned assets (e.g., email, secure systems, etc.) grants the employer a broad measure of control over both the content involved with that access and the accessing device. I would also say that the justification for the remote wiping would be highly fact-specific as well. In your question, you mention a violation of an IT policy; this leaves a lot to interpretation and could range from posting a sticky note with your password to your monitor to downloading the personal financial information of the organization’s entire customer database. The remedy an organization would take for the former violation might be vastly different than the remedy sought for the latter.

Obviously there should be some kind of policy in place regarding wiping data from personally owned devices. What do you think should be included in that policy?

I agree that an organization’s stance related to employee-owned devices should be memorialized in a clearly worded policy; this protects both the employer and the employee in the event that something later occurs that implicates these issues. Such companies are well advised to reinforce such policy stances through carefully crafted policies that are both monitored for compliance and enforced consistently over time. These policies should include clear statements related to ownership (of device, data, and the underlying systems involved), consent (to access, secure, and/or destroy data as well as consent to cooperate when certain matters arise related to these data), and control (of the devices, data, and systems involved).

Any other thoughts on BYOD and when to wipe data?

I would add that there are certainly risks with an employer wiping data from an employee-owned device. These risks range from morale impacts to legal implications, and companies are approaching this area in more circumspect ways in recent years. Increasingly, companies with high-risk profiles are either moving away from a BYOD policy outright or moving toward technologies that “compartmentalize” the organization’s data in a manner that is separately stored (and separately accessible) from the employee’s personal data. These technologies allow the organization the ability to both secure and to remotely wipe the information that is self-evidently the organization’s, and these technologies also allow for the non-organizational data to persist (unmolested) when a remote-wiping context arises. This, in concert with a clearly worded policy, provides the employer with the protections it requires while not seeking to place any undue burden on the employee.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Please see the disclaimer associated with content published on (and associated with) this site.

Posted in CyberSecurity, Data Breach, Data Governance, ECM, eDiscovery, Information Security, Investigations, Litigation Hold, Privacy, Records Retention | Leave a Comment »

Enjoyed presenting to SCCE…

Posted by Johnny Lee on May 23, 2014

SCCE_website_banner_[1]

 

Another wonderful time presenting with the good folks at SCCE.  What I appreciate most about this group is their willingness to tailor an audience to the topic (and vice versa).  I’m impressed with their professionalism, and I hope that the attendees gained value from my commentary.

Posted in Computer Forensics, Data Governance, ECM, eDiscovery, Information Security, Investigations, Litigation Hold, Privacy, Records Retention | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Looking forward to my keynote @ #AIIM14

Posted by Johnny Lee on March 31, 2014

#AIIM14

Looking forward to some excellent networking and good feedback on my keynote presentation on #InfoGov and #eDiscovery at this year’s AIIM Conference in Orlando.

 

 

 

 

 

 

———-

Please see the disclaimer associated with content published on (and associated with) this site.

 

Posted in Computer Forensics, Data Governance, ECM, eDiscovery, Investigations, Litigation Hold, Records Retention | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Information Governance & eDiscovery: Flip Sides of the Same Coin…

Posted by Johnny Lee on January 7, 2014

78be66a8bffe4c4c85edf0b44a1f04e6[1]I’m excited to have been selected to present a keynote address at the upcoming AIIM Conference in April 2014.  As a furtherance to that invitation, I was asked a series of questions about my presentation.  As these were excellent questions, I thought I’d re-post them here, along with my answers to same.  I hope that you find these valuable.

Q: Briefly define information governance

A: I would define Information Governance as an enterprise-wide program that incorporates multiple organizational disciplines and that contemplates policies, procedures, processes, and controls designed and implemented to manage information at an enterprise level. Properly derived, Information Governance supports an organization’s immediate and long-term operational, regulatory, legal, and risk management requirements as they relate to the management of information.

Q: We keep reading about ediscovery and governance, who cares?

A: Organizations with a strategic view of these things recognize that Information Governance and eDiscovery are flip sides of the same coin. Simply put, the only way to diminish the significant risks attendant with eDiscovery is to go “upstream” of that triggering event, working to put in place the very policies, procedures, processes, and controls referenced above. The failure to “care” about this means that an organization will always venture into the eDiscovery game on a reactive (and thereby less effective) footing.

Q: Who SHOULD care? And Why?

A: Historically, the province of eDiscovery has been handled between an organization’s IT department and legal counsel. That said, as missteps in both eDiscovery and general data management practices carry increasingly severe penalties, creating proactive, long-term solutions is becoming the province of numerous groups across the enterprise — from the compliance and legal departments to the operational, financial, and executive branches as well (i.e., those with the best knowledge of the content being sought and analyzed).

Q: You mention an IT and legal disconnect in your description, how do you bridge that gap?

A: For the most part, the legal and IT camps have been separated by a common language. Many of the issues related to Infobesity (or the unnecessary storage of data that carries no operational value — and, worse, that carries significant risk) have arisen from the failure of these groups to communicate effectively about the long-term ramifications of maintaining the status quo. The only way to bridge this gap is for these two groups to meet in the middle, with each understanding the particular challenges the other is facing. This is not easy, but it is the only meaningful way that organizations can hope to reduce the digital haystacks before they are forced to sift through them in search of a few needles.

Q: What’s one key enabling tool for ediscovery and/or governance?

A: While we’re still many years away from any so-called magic bullet, there have been tremendous advances in technologies that can assist in these efforts. One of the most promising technological developments in recent years is the concept of predictive coding (or auto-classification) of large document sets. This technology holds a lot of promise for organizations looking for a cost-effective and defensible means to shrink their digital haystacks.

Q: One key best practice for ediscovery?

A: One of the most game-changing best practices in the eDiscovery space is good, old-fashioned project management. Proactive communication, scope-setting, and right-expertise-at-the-right time can make all the difference between a successful eDiscovery exercise and one that falters. This sounds simplistic, but many organizations still struggle to recognize this fundamental truth.

———-

Please see the disclaimer associated with content published on (and associated with) this site.

 

Posted in Computer Forensics, Data Governance, ECM, eDiscovery, Information Security, Investigations, Litigation Hold, Privacy, Records Retention | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

2013 in review

Posted by Johnny Lee on January 1, 2014

The WordPress.com stats team prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.

Click here to see the complete report.

———-

Please see the disclaimer associated with content published on (and associated with) this site.

 

Posted in Announcement, Computer Forensics, Data Governance, ECM, eDiscovery, Fraud, Information Security, Investigations, Litigation Hold, Privacy, Records Retention, Social Networking | Leave a Comment »

Through the Google Glass Darkly…

Posted by Johnny Lee on December 10, 2013

BowtieLaw

It’s always a challenge to summarize the year for a subject matter as volatile and complicated as Electronic Discovery.  One could spend a few hours looking through the lens of a Google search engine, and days digesting the results, or you could simply peruse the superb summary penned by Joshua Gilliland, the blogger for Bow Tie Law, one of the two attorney bloggers for The Legal Geeks, and a Litigation World columnist.

It’s this last forum where we find the year-in-review that neatly summarizes the four most prominent “lessons learned” from the 2013 eDiscovery trenches.  I commend this to all in this space, as it captures the major themes and provides the most cogent excerpts from the key court opinions that shaped this very interesting year for our industry.

Gilliland readily focuses on the four lessons that “rise above all others: (1) the duty to preserve remains a hot button issue, (2) litigators still fight over the form of production, (3) proportionality is alive and well, and (4) taxation of costs is a sleeping giant we need to confront.”  Please do take the time to review this update…you won’t regret it.

———-

Please see the disclaimer associated with content published on (and associated with) this site.

Posted in Computer Forensics, Data Governance, ECM, eDiscovery, Fraud, Investigations, Litigation Hold, Privacy, Records Retention | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Panel Discussion on Data Preservation @ 2013 IT-LEX Conference…

Posted by Johnny Lee on October 2, 2013

IT-LEX Logo“Technology is outpacing the law. IT-Lex is a technology law 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization dedicated to narrowing this gap with entertaining educational experiences.  We are pleased to offer our first annual conference, Innovate.”  The Innovate Conference is an active learning experience with a focus on user participation, and ForensicUpdate editor Johnny Lee will participate in a panel discussion on Friday, October 18th on the topic of data preservation and evidence collection.  Please click here for more details.

———-

Please see the disclaimer associated with content published on (and associated with) this site.

Posted in Computer Forensics, Data Governance, ECM, eDiscovery, Investigations, Litigation Hold, Privacy, Records Retention | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: