Yes, there is exponentially much more information generated and to be found when it comes to electronic discovery. YES, the costs involved are also exponentially greater than the costs in dealing only with paper documents. BUT, [ i am not a lawyer nor a spokes person ] The point of 'electronic discovery' is to share the communications between parties in a law suit, which communications were generated upon, and are stored on, electronic media; just like paper documents used for communications between parties are shared in a law suit. Our society has evolved to using electronic media INSTEAD OF PAPER, they say, 90% of the time, now, for communications, so, as far as sharing the communications in a law suit goes (which is for the purpose of building a case, or proof of something, or evidencing something), regardless of the costs involved, unless our society stops using electronic media for communications, how can electronic discovery "just go away" ? it cannot. What will happen is that basic fundamentals for reducing the costs will be instituted and eventually taught as basics.
If one is interested in reading informed articles, 'standards', etc., about all of this, you can start with The Sedona Conference (thesedonaconference.org).
after reading most of the 35 'replys' received in the 1/2 hour or so since the article was posted, it seems that most reply-ers may not be familiar with the requirements of 'electronic discovery'. If an entity becomes a participant in a federal law suit (even a non-party participant), and, increasingly in the state courts, a logical inventory of your network is the minimum that must be ready to be shared with the other parties in the suit (basically). [i am not an attorney, nor a spokesperson] I say minimum because the rest of the requirements are a whole lot more detailed; inventories of all network devices and data storage devices, including how each may be used, when it was last reformatted, last replaced, what happened to that replaced storage device, whether or not there is any policy for that, how it may be enforced, etc., all data on any part of your network, how\why it is accumulated, what types of document formats, policies & procedures for the same and including data destruction, all users and their permissions to that data, back-ups, web sites, blogs relative to the entity or where entity-specific information may be located, emails, etc, etc... . . oh, and then there is also the data authentication procedures if you hope to use anything electronically stored in court. And by the way, data in RAM may also be an issue, sometimes!!?? - just some incentive for all of us to work this out.
voice mail is included in the definition of 'electronically stored information'. I have read that already the federal courts say that parties in a law suit must preserve, and make available for review, all relevant electronically stored information. -immediate transcription to text for all calls, every time, may save some headache. I believe the state courts model their rules after the federal and, at the least, try to bring their rules to being able to boost those of the federal.
I did not read all previous posts, but, wOw!!??
Everyone who is concerned about the incidence of identity theft, and or fraud, and or the use of YOUR own personal information by an unauthorized person or organization who uses that information against you, or in such a manner that the result of their use\manipulation of YOUR data hurts you or your desires and or goals, especially financially, knows that we should secure all information not intentionally placed by YOU into the public domain, including its metadata.
Because the information about YOU can be used both -for- and -against- YOU, and FOR someone elses benefit at YOUR expense, those individuals or organizations that you share your information with need to be accountable for the -use- and security of YOUR information to ensure that it is not used in any manner not consistent with your desires when you shared it with them for YOUR benefit. â"You do not, usually, intend that when you fill-in the required blanks to get a free offering over the internet, a white paper or something, that your information is OR CAN BE then sold to or obtained by any one else FOR THEIR BENEFIT, or to your detriment.
I believe that ultimately we can and will accomplish this, however, -waiting for technology to solve this- is not, and can not, get us there. If we want to experience this in our lifetime, each user has to take responsibility for the steps necessary to ensure this, with all of the data s\he comes into contact with.
Basically, the purposes for -computing in the cloud- would be for lower costs or for greater\easier access, or both.
We havent yet secured the information in our own house, why does anyone think we can do it any better in the cloud?
Determining ownership of information and\or its meta-data -in the cloud- would enable finger-pointing when the inevitable happens, but since we know its going to happen with the current user-enabled approach to data security, does it make any difference who we point the finger at?
-Just rereading the title as I am posting I see the title is "...application delivery meta-data..." which is not the same thing as document meta-data; it would be the meta-data created as a result of the delivery of the application to you through the cloud. hmmmm -lemme think about the consequences of others learning that you are computing in the cloud . . . hmmm . ..they would know that it is much harder for you to claim that the information\data that you have or are offering is confidential, or authentic, or available.
My.02. carry on
Partially quoting from above with my own editing:
[There are] several problems with "open market" set top boxes and\or Cable Cards in regard to having\running a profitable business:
The scenario is that Video Signal Providers download code to the set top boxes and cable cards to ensure that they are receiving the correct channels and that they decrypt the incoming signals properly. The Video Signal Providers [do not] support 3rd party equipment because of the potential costs involved in attempting to train their techs to be able to support [all possible] 3rd party equipment, unless, maybe, the user subscribes to or purchases PREMIUM SUPPORT, [so] if an 'open market' set top box or cable card cannot handle the code sent at it from the provider, then... the consumer may not be able to get support for the 3rd party equipment from the provider. If the consumer is using a supplied-by-the-signal-provider set top box or cable card, then it is 100% supported and if it can't handle the code, then the signal provider takes care of it.
-Business.
I just wonder if the response to this article (or lack of response as compared to responses to a lot of other [types] of articles here on/.) is an indication of the state of concern for this important topic.
E-Discovery . . . On 12-1-2006 The Federal Court enacted new rules of procedure which not only recognize and legitimize electronically stored information as being equally as "discoverable" as information contained in all other traditional forms of communications, for all cases heard in the Federal courts, but it also placed requirements on all parties to litigations in the Federal Courts to preserve and to produce as evidence when required, except in limited situations unless otherwise required by the Court, all relevant electronically stored information. This has included all metadata and even the information contained in RAM. So, considering the volatile nature of electronically stored information, a requirement for an investigator's license along with forensics expertise [ when conducting investigations and\or collecting the electronically stored information for possible presentation as evidence ] can only benefit all parties, the courts, and the taxpayers.
Traditionally, for uniformity and recognition, the State courts have looked to the Federal Court for direction.
Slashdot Mirror
ahh, ohh, yess.
Just because someone tweets, does that mean someone else sees it ?
Yes, there is exponentially much more information generated and to be found when it comes to electronic discovery. YES, the costs involved are also exponentially greater than the costs in dealing only with paper documents. BUT, [ i am not a lawyer nor a spokes person ] The point of 'electronic discovery' is to share the communications between parties in a law suit, which communications were generated upon, and are stored on, electronic media; just like paper documents used for communications between parties are shared in a law suit. Our society has evolved to using electronic media INSTEAD OF PAPER, they say, 90% of the time, now, for communications, so, as far as sharing the communications in a law suit goes (which is for the purpose of building a case, or proof of something, or evidencing something), regardless of the costs involved, unless our society stops using electronic media for communications, how can electronic discovery "just go away" ? it cannot. What will happen is that basic fundamentals for reducing the costs will be instituted and eventually taught as basics. If one is interested in reading informed articles, 'standards', etc., about all of this, you can start with The Sedona Conference (thesedonaconference.org).
after reading most of the 35 'replys' received in the 1/2 hour or so since the article was posted, it seems that most reply-ers may not be familiar with the requirements of 'electronic discovery'. If an entity becomes a participant in a federal law suit (even a non-party participant), and, increasingly in the state courts, a logical inventory of your network is the minimum that must be ready to be shared with the other parties in the suit (basically). [i am not an attorney, nor a spokesperson] I say minimum because the rest of the requirements are a whole lot more detailed; inventories of all network devices and data storage devices, including how each may be used, when it was last reformatted, last replaced, what happened to that replaced storage device, whether or not there is any policy for that, how it may be enforced, etc., all data on any part of your network, how\why it is accumulated, what types of document formats, policies & procedures for the same and including data destruction, all users and their permissions to that data, back-ups, web sites, blogs relative to the entity or where entity-specific information may be located, emails, etc, etc... . . oh, and then there is also the data authentication procedures if you hope to use anything electronically stored in court. And by the way, data in RAM may also be an issue, sometimes!!?? - just some incentive for all of us to work this out.
voice mail is included in the definition of 'electronically stored information'. I have read that already the federal courts say that parties in a law suit must preserve, and make available for review, all relevant electronically stored information. -immediate transcription to text for all calls, every time, may save some headache. I believe the state courts model their rules after the federal and, at the least, try to bring their rules to being able to boost those of the federal.
I did not read all previous posts, but, wOw!!?? Everyone who is concerned about the incidence of identity theft, and or fraud, and or the use of YOUR own personal information by an unauthorized person or organization who uses that information against you, or in such a manner that the result of their use\manipulation of YOUR data hurts you or your desires and or goals, especially financially, knows that we should secure all information not intentionally placed by YOU into the public domain, including its metadata. Because the information about YOU can be used both -for- and -against- YOU, and FOR someone elses benefit at YOUR expense, those individuals or organizations that you share your information with need to be accountable for the -use- and security of YOUR information to ensure that it is not used in any manner not consistent with your desires when you shared it with them for YOUR benefit. â"You do not, usually, intend that when you fill-in the required blanks to get a free offering over the internet, a white paper or something, that your information is OR CAN BE then sold to or obtained by any one else FOR THEIR BENEFIT, or to your detriment. I believe that ultimately we can and will accomplish this, however, -waiting for technology to solve this- is not, and can not, get us there. If we want to experience this in our lifetime, each user has to take responsibility for the steps necessary to ensure this, with all of the data s\he comes into contact with. Basically, the purposes for -computing in the cloud- would be for lower costs or for greater\easier access, or both. We havent yet secured the information in our own house, why does anyone think we can do it any better in the cloud? Determining ownership of information and\or its meta-data -in the cloud- would enable finger-pointing when the inevitable happens, but since we know its going to happen with the current user-enabled approach to data security, does it make any difference who we point the finger at? -Just rereading the title as I am posting I see the title is "...application delivery meta-data..." which is not the same thing as document meta-data; it would be the meta-data created as a result of the delivery of the application to you through the cloud. hmmmm -lemme think about the consequences of others learning that you are computing in the cloud . . . hmmm . . .they would know that it is much harder for you to claim that the information\data that you have or are offering is confidential, or authentic, or available.
My .02. carry on
The fact that you'd be required to pay for support for 3rd party equipment WOULD be your problem. It is this way for every company.
Partially quoting from above with my own editing: [There are] several problems with "open market" set top boxes and\or Cable Cards in regard to having\running a profitable business: The scenario is that Video Signal Providers download code to the set top boxes and cable cards to ensure that they are receiving the correct channels and that they decrypt the incoming signals properly. The Video Signal Providers [do not] support 3rd party equipment because of the potential costs involved in attempting to train their techs to be able to support [all possible] 3rd party equipment, unless, maybe, the user subscribes to or purchases PREMIUM SUPPORT, [so] if an 'open market' set top box or cable card cannot handle the code sent at it from the provider, then ... the consumer may not be able to get support for the 3rd party equipment from the provider. If the consumer is using a supplied-by-the-signal-provider set top box or cable card, then it is 100% supported and if it can't handle the code, then the signal provider takes care of it.
-Business.
I just wonder if the response to this article (or lack of response as compared to responses to a lot of other [types] of articles here on /.) is an indication of the state of concern for this important topic.
Haven't we known about this vulnerability for years ?
E-Discovery . . . On 12-1-2006 The Federal Court enacted new rules of procedure which not only recognize and legitimize electronically stored information as being equally as "discoverable" as information contained in all other traditional forms of communications, for all cases heard in the Federal courts, but it also placed requirements on all parties to litigations in the Federal Courts to preserve and to produce as evidence when required, except in limited situations unless otherwise required by the Court, all relevant electronically stored information. This has included all metadata and even the information contained in RAM. So, considering the volatile nature of electronically stored information, a requirement for an investigator's license along with forensics expertise [ when conducting investigations and\or collecting the electronically stored information for possible presentation as evidence ] can only benefit all parties, the courts, and the taxpayers. Traditionally, for uniformity and recognition, the State courts have looked to the Federal Court for direction.
But Wait !! ECW on Sci Fi has Kelly !! I can cope.