Simple E-Mail Retention Policy
-
@scottalanmiller said:
With email, in the US at least, you have to be able to prove that you have retained everything and then either search it, pay to search it or let the opposition search it (depending on the scenario I assume) and often all three. When you retain email you risk exposure because someone else might subpoena your emails!! Email retention is a big risk, even if you don't do anything wrong here.
Ok let's assume they do subpoena them, you let them search them, they find nothing because there is nothing for them to find.
Where's the problem for you? If it's their money and their time to search through the emails?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That's a very outsider view. Inside finance they would have welcomed having those records.
So who is responsible for this:
@scottalanmiller said:
Coming from big banking, email retention is not encouraged
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
With email, in the US at least, you have to be able to prove that you have retained everything and then either search it, pay to search it or let the opposition search it (depending on the scenario I assume) and often all three. When you retain email you risk exposure because someone else might subpoena your emails!! Email retention is a big risk, even if you don't do anything wrong here.
Ok let's assume they do subpoena them, you let them search them, they find nothing because there is nothing for them to find.
Where's the problem for you? If it's their money and their time to search through the emails?
Because someone that is suing you has access to all of your internal communications. Is that something you want? Do you just print your emails and put them on bulletin boards in public? Because that's a little what it is like. Every single private conversation, every business transaction, every deal, every discussion.... shared with people who hate you to a point they will pay to see you in court?
Not something I want to have happen.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The concern is not finding "something", it is proving that there is "nothing."
It's an absurdity. How can a court say "Prove you did not do this" - Imagine being sued for selling racist neo nazi sports-wear, would the court ask you to prove you did not sell them? Or would the burden of proof be on the plantiff?
@Dashrender said:
Exactly - look at the Hilary thing - she's trying to prove that classified stuff was never sent to her personal non protected account. Which is pretty much impossible to prove.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Maybe they should arrest people at random for shop-lifting and ask "can you prove you did NOT steal those sweets?"
I totally get where you're going here. In the case of Hilary, She was provided with an acceptable (by the government) solution, yet she chose to roll her own solution. In this case, I really do feel that it is her responsibility to provide everything that can possibly be provided... clearly everything is NOT being provided... she should be drummed out of public service... compared to Bill's scandle, she deserves to burn at the stake.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That's a very outsider view. Inside finance they would have welcomed having those records.
So who is responsible for this:
@scottalanmiller said:
Coming from big banking, email retention is not encouraged
The government mostly, and the media. Lots of money to be made by getting the people worked up and nationalizing healthy banks against their will. So they got people to go crazy with things they didn't understand and got the populace to demand nationalizing banks thinking that the banks had done something when, in fact, the banks were being taken advantage of both before and after. Not that no banks did not do predatory lending, but there is another term for predatory lending..... predatory borrowing. Both parties are at fault unless someone was lying and if that was the case, there was already plenty of protection for that. So that could not have been the situation here or it would have been resolved that way.
-
@Dashrender said:
I totally get where you're going here. In the case of Hilary, She was provided with an acceptable (by the government) solution, yet she chose to roll her own solution. In this case, I really do feel that it is her responsibility to provide everything that can possibly be provided... clearly everything is NOT being provided... she should be drummed out of public service... compared to Bill's scandle, she deserves to burn at the stake.
And what she did was legal, just not a good idea.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I totally get where you're going here. In the case of Hilary, She was provided with an acceptable (by the government) solution, yet she chose to roll her own solution. In this case, I really do feel that it is her responsibility to provide everything that can possibly be provided... clearly everything is NOT being provided... she should be drummed out of public service... compared to Bill's scandle, she deserves to burn at the stake.
And what she did was legal, just not a good idea.
Legal as long as no classified documents where transmitted? That I didn't know.
-
@Dashrender said:
Legal as long as no classified documents where transmitted? That I didn't know.
That's what I've heard. They state department policy was followed. The real issue was around the policy, but that's not what people are talking about. I'm not much of a Hilary fan, but from what I can tell this is a made up issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Not something I want to have happen.
So if someone sues you in a court, they can disclose those emails publicly even if they have no relevance to the case at hand? So current clients, pricing, invoices, that kind of thing? Are there not severe legal penalties for doing such a thing?
On another note.
I was given this piece of advice by someone retiring from business some time ago. If you don't want people to read it, Don't write it, He of course was more used to fax and traditional letters.
With some of the cyber-breaches we've been able to see some of the email threads of big corporates (Sony, etc) and how toxic and blunt they are with those communications. They thought no one would read them but whoops! Now we have.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Legal as long as no classified documents where transmitted? That I didn't know.
That's what I've heard. They state department policy was followed. The real issue was around the policy, but that's not what people are talking about. I'm not much of a Hilary fan, but from what I can tell this is a made up issue
OK, then I will stop railing against her. I thought she did break the law, or at minimum protocol.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Every single private conversation, every business transaction, every deal, every discussion.... shared with people who hate you to a point they will pay to see you in court?
Hang on, I thought the lawyers looked at this for evidence pertaining to the action they are bringing or am I severely mistaken?
-
@Breffni-Potter You're friend has an excellent point - one I try to follow.
As for releasing that information publicly - come on, how are you going to prove they leaked it? They give it to someone who gives it to someone who gives it to someone, etc.. then it's released.
Or just as bad - the company you gave the records to has the electronically, but has horrible IT security, they get hacked and now all of those emails are in the hands of the hackers to do with as they please. And don't think for one instant that just because the case is over that they will delete the emails, OHHHH no.. they will keep them for 20+ years.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Every single private conversation, every business transaction, every deal, every discussion.... shared with people who hate you to a point they will pay to see you in court?
Hang on, I thought the lawyers looked at this for evidence pertaining to the action they are bringing or am I severely mistaken?
Typically, yes. But the lawyer who works for the opposing side. And often you are forced to pay for that lawyer.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Every single private conversation, every business transaction, every deal, every discussion.... shared with people who hate you to a point they will pay to see you in court?
Hang on, I thought the lawyers looked at this for evidence pertaining to the action they are bringing or am I severely mistaken?
That's true.. but they are looking at EVERYTHING to make sure it does or does not apply to the case at hand. And what's worse, through this process they might find something more damning to use against you in a completely unrelated way. Never give anything more than you absolutely must.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Legal as long as no classified documents where transmitted? That I didn't know.
That's what I've heard. They state department policy was followed. The real issue was around the policy, but that's not what people are talking about. I'm not much of a Hilary fan, but from what I can tell this is a made up issue
OK, then I will stop railing against her. I thought she did break the law, or at minimum protocol.
My understanding is that only common sense was broken, no law or policy. Could be wrong, but that's what I have gathered and I've heard it stated and I've heard no one aware that that was the case or the claim and was aware of anything to the contrary. If that made sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Typically, yes. But the lawyer who works for the opposing side. And often you are forced to pay for that lawyer.
Eh-hem, pardon? Is this not what happens when you are ruled against? What do you mean I have to pay for them to search my records?
-
@Dashrender said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Every single private conversation, every business transaction, every deal, every discussion.... shared with people who hate you to a point they will pay to see you in court?
Hang on, I thought the lawyers looked at this for evidence pertaining to the action they are bringing or am I severely mistaken?
That's true.. but they are looking at EVERYTHING to make sure it does or does not apply to the case at hand. And what's worse, through this process they might find something more damning to use against you in a completely unrelated way. Never give anything more than you absolutely must.
Right, they can learn everything about you and they have a lot of money vested in using it against you, partially because making you at fault means that you pay their tab too, normally. Sure, legally they can't disclose that stuff, but if you are innocent and in this situation what are the chances that they are that evil yet would not use what they have against you if they could? It's the innocent most at risk in this scenario.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Typically, yes. But the lawyer who works for the opposing side. And often you are forced to pay for that lawyer.
Eh-hem, pardon? Is this not what happens when you are ruled against? What do you mean I have to pay for them to search my records?
It's you who decided to keep records, I suppose.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's you who decided to keep records, I suppose.
That's akin to suggesting because I have a warehouse of 1000 DVD players which they want to check, I have to pay them for their time to check it.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's you who decided to keep records, I suppose.
That's akin to suggesting because I have a warehouse of 1000 DVD players which they want to check, I have to pay them for their time to check it.
There is a good chance you would have to.
