Jack - the ediscovery costs of a current litigation we're in are astronomical. This is where this reactionary policy is coming from.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Jack Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Bill Swearingen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I dont understand why you wouldnt want to comply with policy? > > The reason the lawyers have made this decision is because of ediscovery. > If > > their is a policy (and technical restraints) to not keep stuff past 60 > days, > > then they cant be requested to discover email and documents older than > that. > > Sounds like you are looking for a good way of being fired! > > $0.02 > > > Good point Bill, but I interpreted the request as trying to cover all > the bases to help enforce the policy, and framed answers as such. > > That said, this is such a bad policy that it will be defeated. People > are going to do their jobs, in spite of policy- you are much more > likely to be disciplined or fired for not doing your job than you are > to be disciplined for not following policy (at least in almost every > biz I've ever dealt with) > > This shows it isn't just us security types who ignore the realities of > business when crafting policy. The dangers of e-discovery damage would > have to be insanely high for this to be in the best interest of the > company as a whole. But, we security types ask for dumb stuff all the > time, too. > > Jack > _______________________________________________ > Pauldotcom mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com >
_______________________________________________ Pauldotcom mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
