Slashdot Mirror
Metadata In Arizona Public Records Can't Be Withheld
jasonbuechler writes in with news of the first state to declare that metadata is part of public records and must be released when the records are. "Hidden data embedded in electronic public records must be disclosed under Arizona's public records law, the state Supreme Court said Thursday... The Supreme Court's unanimous decision, which overturned lower court rulings, is believed to be the first by a state supreme court on whether a public records law applies to so-called metadata. 'This is at the cutting edge — it's the law trying to catch up with technology,' [one lawyer said]. The Arizona ruling came in a case involving a demoted Phoenix police officer's request for data embedded in notes written by a supervisor. The officer got a printed copy but said he wanted the metadata to see whether the supervisor backdated the notes to before the demotion."
of an ordinary "Audit Trail". Now, you don't have to rely on manual log-entries and sign-out sheets.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Probably deserves a promotion.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Timon! Pumbaa! The words to that song ARE NOT "Vagina Dentata"!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
From the desk of the Chief of Police:
Effective immediately all precinct officers should destroy all electronic devices with central processing units. All document production will be performed using manual typewriters.
~dijjnn
Quoth the lawyer:
'This is at the cutting edge — it's the law trying to catch up with technology'
So it's not really the cutting edge then, is it? It's the law only now trying to cope with decades-old technology.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Bah! Totally posted to the wrong thread. fail. =(
Metadata ARE part of the records. They're plural, bitches.
Sooner or later you'll see departments classify "temporary working notes" as mandatory-shred items, and require all "permanent records" to go through some process that strips them of non-visible information.
One relatively cheap way to do this is to print all documents to a digitally signed PDF or a graphics format. The digital signature is a bonus that authenticates the document.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Hopefully, the supervisor didn't know how to use the basic filesystem tools when pre-dating the notes. Assuming he pre-dated the notes.
I feel safe mentioning that. By now the file, with all its appropriate metadata, is backed up somewhere that the supervisor can't write to without bullying someone.
are you sure you know what thread you're posting in?
I don't know what kind of American you are, but I have plenty of manhood to go around. I really don't mind sharing my mahood with the Italians at all. I assure you, it's all in the interest of international relations and world peace. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
So I want to know if they really were back dated. And if so, I hope his supervisor gets fired and that they re-hire this officer. And give him a medal.
Every source I can find says that "data" can be either singular or plural.
If you have an authoritative source* that claims it can only be plural, please cite it. Otherwise, as your supervisor, I'm going to demote you to a lower rank within the grammar police.
(*An authoritative english language source. We're not speaking Latin, here)
yeah yeah...court case, metadata, blah blah.
Did he actually get the metadata? Were the notes backdated? I MUST KNOW. The truth is out there, hidden in the bits.
That's why you establish a policy. "It's our policy to feed all non-essential homework to the dog after 90 days in order to manage storage costs" is totally acceptable to the courts. The key is to include that explanatory clause to provide plausible deniability that evidentiary value drove your decision.
Duh.
are you sure you know what thread you're posting in?
There's an app for that.
Say my boss says "create a report on such and so." In the days of typewriters, I would've drafted a report, sent it around for review, had my secretary type up the final copy, and sign it and date it then file it.
In recent times, I draft a report, send it around for review, correct it in place with metadata showing the history, then file it.
The proposed method, which a lot of companies will do unless there's some law or rule saying they can't, is to draft the report, send it around for review, sterilize it, then save the final copy as if it were the only version that ever existed. There will be no official record that you had something in at one point but it was taken out, or that a reviewer recommended a particular change be made but you declined the change. Of course, in certain industries laws or customs may dictate that every change and proposed change be logged. In those environments, if you want something done "off the record" you discuss it over lunch or over a round of golf, or, if any such things would be overly suspicious, you play mental games like "how can I get my boss to seriously consider changing X before the draft becomes final without there being any record that the change was anyone's idea but his?"
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't know if anyone actually read the order, but it seems like they actually denied the fact that metadata was public information. Or am I missing something?
CV-09-0036-PR
It's not English that's fun, it's English borrowing foreign words that English speakers don't understand the rules for declension for that are fun. "Datus/Data/Datum" is the perfect passive participle of the Latin verb "dare", which means "to give". It's basically an adjective used as a substantive (i.e., a non-noun being used as a noun thanks to the power of implication) in this case.
As used in English, "Datum" (the neuter nominative singular) would most literally mean "(implied, but unspecified thing) having been given". "Data" would be the neuter nominative plural meaning "(implied, but unspecified things) having been given". So unless someone is transmitting only one unspecified thing, "data" is most appropriate in its level of mass noun vagueness.
Haha, I actually just finished reading that. The comments are great. So many people freaking out because a jew with a tattoo made it to the front page of CNN.
I also lol'd every time I saw them spell it 'G-d'. Apparently, "The general concern with writing G-d in its true form is that it might be erased, defaced by being crossed out or scribbled upon [...]," but I'd be thoroughly shocked if there was no backlash to someone taking a dump on a piece of paper with 'G-d' written on it.
The federal rules for civil procedure (FRCP) were updated in 2006 to address issues like this. Part of the FRCP is what guides production formats during civil suits. A lot of state courts are now using the FRCP as a guide for developing their own standards with regards to management of electronic data for legal purposes. This is the rule, pretty clear. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule34.htm
Previously if you have 10,000 emails you could just print them out to loose piles of paper and turn over boxes (sometimes 100s of boxes) of paper to opposing counsel. After 2006 there is a default that the other side of a lawsuit is entitled to the documents in the same format they are kept in the course of business. This includes meta data and it is specifically mentioned in the FRCP. Most lawyers will make agreements during their discovery conferences (aka 30b6) to agree to production formats that both sides won't find unduly burdensome.
This is not entirely fair, because people are often advised against investing in a company (or even industry), where they themselves work. Doing so could, some day, result in a "double whammy" if/when your company goes down (or the entire industry gets into turmoil): you lose both your job and your investment.
Similarly, a broker following his own (or his co-workers') stock-picks is exposing himself to both risks. Whereas the client risks only their investment, should the advice be poor, the broker also risks his job — even though the reward is the same.
Expecting people to bet their own farm on the advice they charge you money for is unrealistic — and their not doing so is not, in itself, a reflection of the quality of the advice.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you are a small player have enemies at HQ and are fearful of a we-want-to-fire-you-so-we-are-auditing-you-to-nail-you audit wasting your time by calling into question every decision you made, you'll make sure only the things you want to wind up "on the record" exist on paper, and make sure any meetings and other decision-making processes that you want "off the record" stay "off the record"/oral only.
If on the other hand if neither you nor the boss you like has enemies inside or outside the company and your company doesn't have enemies outside, then you can write everything down and having this audit trail will probably help you run your department and company better.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If the guy was dishonest enough to backdate the document, he may very well backdate the metadata too.
I use the competitor's product. I have a map for that.
More than anything, it tells me that the whole basis of the economy is upside down.
In other words, we've all become mercenaries.
Well, it does feel upside down to me. And standing on my head to look at it some more doesn't seem to straighten the moral issues out, either. It's kind of like the way economists torture the word "service" when they use it to describe the "service economy".
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Anyone who posts here should have access to enough evidence to already know that the law is even further behind than that.
Electronic "evidence" is extremely easy to kludge together. Should not be allowed in courts.
You can examine paper to find out what it's made of, and where it might have been made. Likewise ink. You can analyze handwriting in probabilistic terms. Etc.
Noise is noise when you're trying to communicate a message reliably, but when you're needing to analyze the source of the data and such, noise is data.
But when noise is deliberately turned into data and stored, once again, it's easy to manipulate.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
And sterilizing the documents tells everyone that the company wants everyone to believe that the document's history is irrelevant.
The document's history is the closest thing electronic data has to things like ink and paper chemical analysis. (Not to say that it even comes close to that, not to say that said electronic history can't be manipulated.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I've already posted. Should I log out and log back in as one of my sock puppets to see if any has mod points I can mod that up with?
I mean, that one post sums up everything directly relevant in the thread. (Not saying that the irrelevant is unimportant, just that this post needs modded up. The long way. Saying it the long way, I mean, not modding it up the long way.)
erm
1. There is more to being human than just a focus on the material, monetary valuation, or the world itself.
2. What motivates the mercenary? What motivates the free-lancer?
3. Money is not the only profit.
And, as far as self-interest goes, when self interest exceeds certain bounds (ergo, when it becomes a euphemism for greed), if it ever was enlightened, it has become entirely unenlightened. Adam Smith knew this, and was focusing on two ways of looking at things to get the reader to engage his mind on the question of what, ultimately, benefits us.
Enlightened self interest understands and embraces benevolence.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Which do you think is cheaper, asking for a bunch of .DOC files as data put on a 25 cent CD, or an 8" stack of paper printouts?
And then once you get 'em, you have the ability to run searches.
Running up the costs by printing dead trees out is an old trick that can now be beat by asking for metadata.