Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Document Retention And E-mail

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the what-goes-around-comes-around dept.

innocent_white_lamb writes "An interesting column by Jim Carroll about email within companies, document retention, how hard it is to actually get rid of an email, and how all of this can come back to bite you later on. "

4 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting moral position by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it fascinating that people openly discuss ways of destroying evidence in case of possible legal action. Is this going to be a standard MBA course from now on: "How to cover your tracks" or "Case Studies: Failures in Shredding Policy from Watergate to Enron"?

    It makes you wonder why nobody looks at it from the opposite side. If you don't do anything illegal then your e-mail archive could prove valuable for your own defense. Trading companies, for example, keep all records of customer interaction, including phone calls, for use in the event of a dispute. You can never claim that your broker did something without authorisation because they archive everything.

    --
    It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  2. Netscape history by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Jamie Zawinski has a rather unpleasant story about this on his site:

    http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html

    A very good example of how essentially harmless email can be seriously misinterpreted.

  3. What is the legal status of email? by mir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Emails can be forged so easily, how is their authenticity established?
    I guess any decent sysadmin in the world could show the court a whole bunch of threatening emails from the CEO of his company, what would a court do in such a case?

    --
    Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. (Terry Pratchett)
  4. Plead the 5th by pryan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A corporation is a legal construct designed to give a business the same rights as a person, right? If so, in the face of a subpoena duces tecum, why can't a corporation plead the fifth amendment? I assume there's a clear legal answer, but IANAL.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.