"As the Internet of Things continues to expand, so too will the sources of potentially material evidence. Xively, a part of LogMeIn, claims to connect 400 million devices, from usual suspects like computers down to individual light switches. The usefulness of that information those devices collect will continue to increase as IoT manufacturers improve their ability to connect device interaction with individuals. Just last Thursday, LogMeIn announced Xively Identity Manager which seeks to link device usage to individuals.
Take a nap? Turn off a light? Turn down the A/C? The Internet of Things knows and it's keeping a record."
This will be interesting to watch. Lawyers are already struggling with eDiscovery from mobile devices and things we've already had for years. As the Internet of Things starts tracking lots of information about us, how will that data play out, and how will we verify that the data is correct? How many people really think about whether the reporting can be hacked, making it appear that our car was in a specific area, when it really wasn't, for example?
Never a dull moment!
Google is really doing a lot for apps customers to make it easier to store data in the cloud. Security improvements, and now improvements to make it easier for companies to use Google Drive without losing what they need in terms of Information Governance and eDiscovery, mean that corporations can seriously think about storing data in Google Drive as part of their IG plan, rather than an IG nightmare. Good for Google.
The obvious answer here is yes, of course.
Is there a job where those aren't important?
The whole thing was bizarre, but yes, no matter how much it might freak you out that someone is going to be going through your cell phone, destroying it in the face of an investigation only makes you look guilty.
In this case, the team didn't issue Brady's cell phone so there can be some debate as to whether or not he had to turn it over to the NFL, but in cases where your employer issues your cell phone, at least in the US, they can pretty much do what they want with it. That's a really good case for having two cell phones, one for business and one for personal use.
Assuming you can reasonably make that work!
"Over the course of the one-hour presentation, the panel covered the following forms of analytics:
Identification of near duplicates.
Communications and social network analysis.
Fuzzy and advanced search.
Technology assisted review (TAR).
What these tools have in common, Noel explained, is that they let us take a big mass of data and slice it along different dimensions. This allows us to see different patterns in the data and different ways it is organized so we can drill in and find what is important to the case."
Now this is a webinar I might have to set some time aside to watch. There are lots of tools available to legal teams, it makes little sense not to use some of them!
I didn't manage to get to sessions where data security was the main topic, but I know it was a large topic of conversation all around the conference. Law firms are being held reaponsible by clients for keeping data that belongs to those clients secure, but it's a tough thing to do when you don't even know what data you have or where it's been stored. Trying to do that is the first challenge many firms are facing.
This a good article talking about chat/messaging apps like Bloomberg and how it alters what we're used to doing with eDiscovery. The one thing I have had numerous discussion about during training classes in the idea of keyword searching. In the informal world of chat, doing keyword searching without considering alternate spellings is a huge risk. What are the chances that someone used that word, but didn't spell it correctly, either on purpose by using text-speak, or just by being careless?
It's vital that you have a plan to include those possibilities in your searching, whether it's using fuzzy searching tools, or custodian interviews to ask about their chat use, or analyze a sample of the char before coming up with your terms.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not qualified to tell you what the plan should be, but don't think we don't discuss exactly these types of things when we get to the part of class that talks about fuzzy search! ;-)
How have you dealt with this possibility? Or are you still hoping all this mobile phone, chat, IM, stuff will just go away?
Not surprising at all is it? If you want to target sensitive data, a third party who doesn't have the same strong sense of protecting it, and an industry that has a reputation for somewhat lax security measures, would be a pretty tempting place to start.
Admittedly, this article had me at the headline.
You can buy all the expensive tech toys you want, and in the eDiscovery world, there are plenty of them out there, but if you don't have the people in place to use them properly, they do you no good. The real power over eDiscovery, investigations and what have you on the legal front, is having smart, talented, people included in the process, and believe it or not, much of the time, those people aren't lawyers.
Lawyers, you might have to get used to that idea...;-)
The main concern for eDiscovery is what email communication is no longer available, but I'd suggest a secondary concern, whether the recipient grabbed a screen capture or saved it some other way before it expired, and how we would locate those. Still, it's not like we don't already have concerns with people deleting emails or other items.
"The parties themselves agreed at oral argument that an individual who, in the course of reviewing discovery documents, undertakes tasks that could otherwise be performed entirely by a machine cannot be said to engage in the practice of law."
There is a potential of some very far-reaching implications from this ruling. If doc review can be so tightly defined ahead of time that reviewers are not doing legal work, then why pay legal work prices? Why not just use a machine, or hire anyone off the street?
Craig Ball does a great job describing how hash values are created, and used to deduplicate identical copies of documents, and also how that technology would fail to identify the same content existing in different types of files. That's why having a near-duplicate tool is also a good thing. It can help you find the same content in different files, or very similar content across multiple files by analyzing the content as opposed to just the hash values.
That's an important part of any eDiscovery workflow, finding out where content is being used in different document formats, or being altered slightly when creating a new copy of a file. Imagine, for example, an employee leaking corporate information. A hash-match may find where she has been sending exact copies of the files out, near-duplication technology would also help locate where she scanned a printed copy, or created a PDF, or made a small change to the data before sending it on.
"Given how fast things changed, he said, he finds himself visualizing the next 5-10 years; planning for the next 2-4 years; hiring for today’s problems; and managing everything with yesterday’s budget."
I think that pretty much sums up the eDiscovery landscape right now. All the more reason to make sure that folks who work in this field have skills that translate beyond being a "button-pusher". You don't know what else you're going to need them to be doing 3-5 years from now.
How about just one, there's too much of it laying around everywhere and you have no idea how to find anything because of that? ;-)
Seriously, go check out the post and the report linked therein. Good information to get your head around before you have an immediate need!
My favorite one - "Trigger #3: Counsel is out of its league and won’t admit it
Solution: Turn to an expert, or decline the representation"
As much as this article is full of what should be obvious advice, things like this tend to get forgotten on a regular basis!
-- Find the emails you already know how to handle based on the domain or address they were sent from, instead of paying to review them!
Click in to find related links.