Simple E-Mail Retention Policy
-
@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.
-
-
@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.
Yup, that's why you don't keep a warehouse of DVDs if that's the risk and you have no value to storing them
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yup, that's why you don't keep a warehouse of DVDs if that's the risk and you have no value to storing them
But there is value, the problem is where is this risk coming from.
You've still not identified how it is legal or even possible for a complete random to compel me to pay them to search them.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
You've still not identified how it is legal or even possible for a complete random to compel me to pay them to search them.
You might be compelled by a court to have an independent audit of your email records as a means to protecting your self from further prosecution or suit.
Keeping more email (or any at all) puts you into a place where you are then required to be able to provide those records upon demand.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Yup, that's why you don't keep a warehouse of DVDs if that's the risk and you have no value to storing them
But there is value, the problem is where is this risk coming from.
You've still not identified how it is legal or even possible for a complete random to compel me to pay them to search them.
What do you want identified? This is just how US law works.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
You've still not identified how it is legal or even possible for a complete random to compel me to pay them to search them.
They might not be able to compel you to pay them. but as Dustin said, you might be required to bring in an outsider to do an audit, so then YOU are paying them (the outside auditor) to do said audit. But if you have nothing to audit, there is nothing to pay. Or in this case, if you limited yourself to two years of back email, they would only be spending time going through the last two years, not the last 20+
