Slashdot Mirror
Deleting Emails Costs Morgan Stanley $1.45B
DoubleWhopper writes "The financial giant Morgan Stanley lost a $1.45 billion judgement yesterday due, in part, to their failure to retain old email. The judge in the case, 'frustrated at Morgan Stanley's repeated failure to provide [the plaintiff's] attorneys with e-mails, handed down a pretrial ruling that effectively found the bank had conspired to defraud' their former client. The CEO of a record retention software company noted, 'Morgan Stanley is going to be a harbinger'."
From TFS:
I'd sure hate to be the system administrator who dropped the ball there...
"What do you mean we don't have them archived??? You just cost us 1.45 billion dollars!"
"Don't worry though...you can pay it back....we'll just dock your paychecks by...say...$1000 per pay period. At that rate you can have it all paid back in a little over 55,769 YEARS!!!
^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Big investment firms like Morgan Stanley are obligated by law to retain lots of records. This is more of an "Almighty Buck" type of story, IMO.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
I deleted an e-mail that gave me $10 off at tigerdirect...dont think I will ever recover.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Wow. I can delete mine for free.
I know that where I work there is a basic 6 month email retention policy, which states that all email will be deleted if it is 6 months old. I have always wondered if and when this will change.
There is probably an opportunity here for a company to come up with an extension to an email system which will manage keeping old emails. Something which will allow for the catagorizing of unstructured data. That way the system can trash the not to serious emails and keep the 'important' ones.
Ted Tschopp
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
(I work at a Bank) Since Sarbaines kicked in, we have to keep a backup of every single file you use for work purposes, not just email. This means archiving every word doc, spreadsheet, database...etc. Starting January 1, they also blocked our access to all external sources of email and external instant messaging clients as well. After seeing this judgement, now I understand why.
I was a client of MS/DW. I kept trying to let my financial advisor know about this wonderful pill that would make his penis bigger, and I get the feeling that MY emails were deleted as well!
-- sometimes AND gates turn me on.
I think the issue is "selective memory loss" - Microsoft plays this card all the time in court. Emails from a relevant time period are "deleted" when convenient, while older or newer or even contemporaneous mail is saved... the judge in this case was simply smart enough to call shenanigans.
You can delete old email if you're that hard up for space, just have a rock-solid deletion policy you can prove you adhered to in a court of law.
It also helps to audit your archives and backups regularly, and document what data was lost when. 'Cuz face it, every admin at some point or other loses some data to corruption, hardware failure, bookeeping mixups or user error. Knowing what you forgot and when you forgot it can help in situations where not having the data on hand can cost a billion bucks or so.
SoupIsGood Food
where are my moderator points when I need them.
Most companies purposefully choose short retention policies, in an attempt to avoid these kinds of settlements... it isn't a sysadmin's fault.
The theory was that this would let them discard old emails without having it be intentional obstruction of justice. I guess that theory will be out the window now.
Aha! Maybe they aren't so innocent, and the email tends to reveal their real intentions and actions.
Point one: You can't make a lot of money by being completely and absolutely honest. Just how much a "lot" means is subject to debate. The original quote was $1 million, if I recall correctly, but that isn't so much money these days, so I think it would sound better with $1 billion.
Point two: I don't really blame them for going along with the modern trend. Look at the political leaders we have these days--and their popular support. I think Cheney is the No.1 poster child for corporate corruption. A few years of government "service", then he goes to Haliburton and rakes in the big bucks, then goes back to politics and starts an unnecessary war that "purely coincidentally" throws billions of dollars back to his old company--which is STILL paying him deferred compensation. However, he'll be back in business before the government has to try and pay the piper. If he lives so long, I'll have to count it as evidence against the existence of a just God. I really think a just God would have thoroughly smitten Cheney a good while ago.
You'll note that BushCo is also very eager to control their little secrets, and I'd bet they'd be delighted to erase all of their email, too. The next interesting question is whether or not they can do it, given the state of modern technology. How can they make sure someone hasn't burned a CD that contains the truth?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Think about it...
If it can cost Morgan-Stanley $1.5 billion for not storing email. And 90% of email is SPAM. The risk of deleting/filtering SPAM and losing valid email is going to be too risky.
Therefore, it will become extremely cost effective for Morgan-Stanley (and other large firms) to hire lobbyists to make unsolicited SPAM (with no valid return email addresses) illegal, criminal, and enforced.
I think Cheney is the No.1 poster child for corporate corruption. A few years of government "service", then he goes to Haliburton and rakes in the big bucks, then goes back to politics and starts an unnecessary war that "purely coincidentally" throws billions of dollars back to his old company--which is STILL paying him deferred compensation.
I hate to defend Dick Cheney, but saying he only has a few years of government service under his belt is flat-out false.
==
His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.
When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.
After he returned to his home state of Wyoming in 1977, Mr. Cheney was elected to serve as the state's sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988.
==
From Whitehouse.gov
It's "no one," not "noone." Who the hell is noone anyway?
Lots of other things considered "hard evidence" don't meet those standards either. The threee big standards for rejecting evidence are:
irrelevant,
immaterial
violates rules against "hearsay"
Judges and courts are fine dealing with information that may or may not be true. They are set up to evaluate those sorts of things.
And hey, at least we don't burn out like a lightbulb after a few years.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Actually, I've come to the opposite conclusion. I don't know every e-mail system, and I don't know what Morgan Stanley was using, but I have administered serious e-mail systems for about 15 years, and I can tell you that in many, it is in fact very difficult to insert a fake message into the message store in the right place, with the right semantic context. Don't forget that in all these cases the recovery is from (presumably) dated and logged backup tapes, possibly under the observation of opposing counsel's expert, and under penalty of perjury. So go ahead, tell me how you insert (or even alter) a message into a multi-gigabyte message store coming off a tape that's been archived and logged at Iron Mountain for the last five years. Will it have the right SMTP transit headers? The correct "In-Reply-To:"? What about the context of the message? Are you replying to someone? Do they later reply to you? Does it all fit together? This is a distinctly non-trivial exercise. Possible, yes, but maybe only theoretically so. And the grunt doing the recovery is *very unlikely* to want to risk going to jail to cover up some fraud he was probably never associated with.