I've been hearing a lot more pro-cloud chest-thumping lately. One article basically said, "Fears of the cloud are overblown. You need to get off it!"
I don't think the creators of "Binky" would agree.
What I'd like to know is, were there backups? If so, were those deleted, too?
We started with a premise: A disaster has occurred. What now?
We segued into a limited examination: Were we properly prepared? Why or why not?
Now, comes the all-too-familiar Watergate-esque finale: What did we know; and when did we know it?
According to this comprehensive report, officials were warned that there was a 10% risk within a 50-year span of a tsunami swamping the protective barriers of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant – and disregarded it. What result?
I could go on, but you get the idea. Now for the bad news. That's not the worst of it. How about:
You know what? I have to stop now. This feels ghoulish.
The point I'm making is, certainly, this is about as bad as a disaster gets, but we can all learn from it because there's only one item we need to change – scale. Plus, the most important thing relevant to us in the real-life case study we're now seeing is what happens when we're wrong.
Worried eDiscovery clients always ask me how they're ever going to do everything right. I tell them, there is no such thing. It's impossible to anticipate everything, but as a rule of thumb, the fallback position is the basic negligence standard:
Knew, or should have known.
If they acted in good faith based on what they knew or should have reasonably anticipated at a given point in time – and present a defensible position as to why they acted – they'll likely preserve safe harbor. Naturally, one can never completely account for the odd rogue judge. The day all judges rule alike is the day I give a specific answer. In the meantime, you do the best you can.
The key is in making sure you have the appropriate harbor pilot.
In an attempt to unclog the logjam of pending cases, Los Angeles County has implemented an expedited-jury-trial option. It came into being at the start of 2011. The goal is to complete a trial – that encompasses relatively non-complex issues – in about a day.
That's the key. The moment things get messy, it's not going to work. But that's not the point, is it? For a lot of cases, it will work, and anything that speeds up the wheels of justice – so long as equity is maintained – is a good thing.
The last time I linked you to some eDiscovery calculators was over two years ago. What’s new? Well, I happened upon one for my PDA from BlueStar Case Solutions, and the cool thing is, it’s available in Blackberry, iPhone, Android and Windows 7 flavors (even though it says “coming soon!” for Blackberry, the app is available).
Now, you know I don’t endorse products (I’d never even heard of BlueStar until I saw this) – and aside from fiddling with this app, I can’t tell you whether the calculations are accurate or not. But, if you’re in the middle of a conversation or meeting – or sitting at your desk – and you want to get an idea of what the project cost or time might be, you can create a quick estimate; it’s not like you can’t run the comprehensive numbers later to confirm…
One handy module is an eDiscovery Glossary, with definitions for well over 100 of the terms we use on a daily basis. So, if you’re just getting into this space, that might be helpful to you as a kind of ‘cheat sheet’ (of course, you may refer to it as ‘reference material’). I knew the definition to every single term, without having to check. I’m not sure whether I’m proud or worried!
It's been roughly two weeks since the devastating events in Japan. As I mentioned in my initial post regarding their disaster-recovery efforts, we weren't going to know all of the elements we needed to know at that time in order to make an assessment – and we don't know them now. On the other hand, we know enough to put them under a magnifying glass. If you're part of a disaster-preparedness team, a cursory examination of their nuclear mess is a true 'teachable moment'.
Why do I keep harping on this? Because litigation may take on all of the elements of a disaster-recovery operation in that out of nowhere, you're tasked with finding, restoring and producing massive quantities of information – possibly from several sources and/or geographic locations. And, somebody has to pay for it (Zubulake, Toshiba, et al). Oh, and tic-toc – the clock is ticking…
Let me preface this by saying that armchair quarterbacking is easy – and this is not a 'bash Japan' post. You don't kick someone when they're down (but you do try to learn from their mistakes). Nor is it an "I told you so" post – at least, not by me. Let's be honest, for a moment. Sometimes, when a person says "I told you so", they really did tell you so. So what? The issue isn't what they told you, the issues are:
[Add your own questions here]
What are questions nine and eleven about? You should always be prepared to justify and/or defend your position. After all, you may have to persuade your bosses today, but you never know who you might have to persuade tomorrow (I'm thinking…a judge? A jury?)
Last night I read this article from the Washington Post (and others over the past few days) regarding how the Japanese authorities considered risk when assessing how to protect their nuclear plants. In my opinion, if you commit to the short amount of time necessary to read the entire story, you'll learn more about disaster-preparedness than you ever could in a classroom; unless, of course, they're studying this disaster.
In an island nation, surrounded by volcanic activity, "experts" didn't even consider a major tsunami as part of the plan for the Fukushima Daiichi power plant because it was considered "unlikely". But, here's an even better question, raised at the conclusion of the story:
"To what degree must regulators design expensive safeguards against once-a-millennium disasters, particularly as researchers learn more about the world’s rarest ancient catastrophes?"
Which leads me to the obvious follow-up:
Two weeks ago, the experts may have thought that the risks were worth it. But now that radiation is showing up in drinking water as far away as Tokyo? My guess is, they wish they'd have built the retaining walls a few feet higher.
"Nobody anticipated…"
Confidential records of two million current and former customers are missing – 845,000 of which are from California.
I've simply had enough of reading about the latest person who has been reprimanded, sued and/or fired due to inappropriate tweets.
From now on, they're going on my "Twit List" along with a description of their infraction. Maybe if the list gets long enough, it'll stop happening.
What if? Those two words form the initial basis of a disaster-recovery conversation. Like you, I've seen the heartbreaking pictures from Japan and what gets me is, a country that is known for having the best earthquake-disaster-preparedness in the world has suffered tremendous losses in spite of that fact.
The best laid plans…
Japan's nuclear facilities prepared for a monstrous earthquake, but not an 8.9. Is there any way to plan for an 8.9? And if so, at what cost? Obviously, when contrasted with the devastation we've seen – and may yet see – I wouldn't blame you if you said money is no object. But in reality, we're rarely given a blank check. We're required to work within parameters; sometimes very constrictive ones.
Lessons learned: No matter how thoroughly you plan, it's impossible to prepare for absolutely every contingency that may befall you. In the future – when memory of this disaster has faded and the passage of time blunts the impact – when envisioning a worst-case-scenario for your disaster-recovery program, if those around you are prone to cut corners, remember Japan.
Love don't cost a thing…love means never having to say you're sorry…stop me when you've heard enough…
Just after the new year, I posted about a defamation suit filed against Courtney Love. Well, that suit has been settled by Love for $430,000 plus interest, as noted in the headline.
Think about this for a moment, folks. Love creates a free account on a service that didn't exist a few years ago. She proceeds to use it to defame (according to the plaintiff, anyway) and ends up settling for what most of us would consider to be a very painful sum.
It used to be if you were angry at someone, they'd tell you to go home and punch your pillow. Heck, there was always Primal Scream therapy. No matter how foolish it may have been for Love to take to Twitter with her rampage, I doubt it ever crossed her mind that this would be the end result.
Technology has provided no shortage of outlets. What we need are a few more inlets.
…while we're already on the subject of sinning…
The accompanying photo is an illustration of Rep. Christopher Lee's future career in politics. Please note: this post is included in the 'Cost' category. Why? Because cost isn't always measured in currency, is it?