EDRM has posted their proposed Model Code of Conduct and they're asking us to weigh in. The comment period is open through September 30th, 2011.
Never mind Predictive Coding; what is Predictive Policing? The answer is coming up in my next post. Have a great weekend, everybody!
Receipts are going digital. Great. Now I can lose them electronically instead of accidentally throwing them into a physical trash bin. But seriously folks…
The upside? No more wasting paper (which not only makes the ‘green’ folks happy, but also lowers costs), ease of organization, tracking, recall and portability. The longer the item is warranted, the more useful this is, of course (unless you enjoy digging up that receipt nine-years after a device warranted for ten-years goes on the fritz). And has anyone noticed that when they go back through those older heat-created receipts, some of them have faded to the point of being completely unreadable?
The downside? Privacy. In order to get the receipt, the sender needs your information such as an e-mail address (although there are ways around that, if you wish, but some of them are clunky). One way to retain privacy would be for the retailer to project your receipt on a screen as a Bar or Q-code. Then you could scan it onto your PDA with the appropriate app.
Just spit-ballin’ here, but eventually, this will be the standard way of doing things.
Folks, I don't know what else to say about this, except to provide you with the following excerpt I received this morning:
"The United States Library of Congress has selected your website for inclusion in the historic collection of Internet materials related to Legal Blawgs. The Library of Congress preserves the Nation's cultural artifacts and provides enduring access to them. The Library's traditional functions, acquiring, cataloging, preserving and serving collection materials of historical importance to the Congress and the American people to foster education and scholarship, extend to digital materials, including websites."
I think I just achieved immortality!!!
In the navy / No, you can't put your mind at ease.
I beat (not disco, usually) the privacy drum a lot because many times, the invasion is subtle. I experienced it again with my new Droid. The way Google would like us to sync contacts is to – among other methods – use Google Sync, sending our private information to their cloud, then delivering it to the device. EarthLink tried to get at my contacts in a similar manner – by claiming I had to upload my address book in order to enable their custom spam filter.
My answer to both was the same – "Ain't gonna happen". My EarthLink issue is old news; as far as the Droid is concerned, with a little time and research, I was able to sync via USB directly from the database on my local PC.
It's all about control.
I'm quite well aware that some of you think I go overboard (no pun intended, based on today's headline), but read this story from the Washington Post about the increase in Navy commanding-officer firings – and how technology is literally destroying the ranks from the inside-out – then tell me I'm overreacting. I'm not going to pontificate. For those who don't read the article, I'll let the following two quotes do it for me:
From the reporter, describing part of his conversation with Admiral Gary Roughead (chief of naval operations): "He attributed the rise in part to the revolution in communications and technology, which has made it easier for sailors and their families to snoop on one another and then instantly spread the word — even from once-isolated ships at sea." (italics/bold added)
And from Adm. Roughead, himself: “The divide between our private and professional lives is essentially gone". (italics/bold added)
Maybe that's what they meant by "Learn science technology"…
Normally, this would be relegated to the 'Twit List', but I'm making an exception. A lot of people are still laughing about this issue…but is it funny? Let's review. A guy initiates some sexting, takes a few raunchy photos of himself and…that's about it. Unfortunately, this guy happens to be a U.S. Congressman, but a couple of weeks ago, that was his claim to fame. Now, look at what's changed:
You know what else? He could be you. What's the only thing that distinguishes him?
Circumstances.
In a New York Times story, awakening fond memories of the Cold War, Russia's largest retail bank is experimenting with an ATM that incorporates a lie detector. This would be a target-rich environment for jokes if the implications weren't so serious. Nevertheless, I expect we'll see cartoons about this in our weekend newspapers.
Meanwhile, from the, "we just don't get it", department:
“We are not violating a client’s privacy,” he said. “We are not climbing into the client’s brain. We aren’t invading their personal lives. We are just trying to find out if they are telling the truth. I don’t see any reason to be alarmed.”
Yeah…what could possibly go wrong???
Coming to you from the 'cutting my own throat' department today…
Recruiters, you've proven that you're deft at performing keyword search for the word "eDiscovery". Now, how about giving all of us techies and attorneys a break and actually doing some document review. What do I mean?
READ THE DAMN RESUME!!!
For the (I kid you not) fourth time in a week, I've been appproached by a different recuiter for the same IT eDiscovery desktop support position. One of them apparently continues to forget that he already contacted me – and received a polite response – and has contacted me two more times. Never mind that the last time I did any type of direct desktop support was for Hughes Space & Communications in 1993, but my resume has a title. It says "eDiscovery Attorney and Consultant".
Oh, the irony…
I have nothing against recruiters. I've gotten lots of excellent work through many of them, and I'm certain I will in the future. However, when they do these searches, then send an email blast to everyone with the term "eDiscovery" in their resume, they're telling us that we're meaningless to them – and they don't mind wasting our time. Why? Because, many of them also call, so I will always either return the call or email them back. I will never ignore an inquiry from a recruiter because its unprofessional and just plain rude. However, it doesn't exactly entice me to want to work with them.
You think I'm being too hard on them? At least recruiter number one was honest about the position. The others apparently could already tell it probably wasn't an appropriate position, so they attempted to 'dress it up' by changing it to desktop analyst and desktop engineer. Shame on you!
There. I said it. I feel much better. Now, where are those band-aids?!?!
From LeClairRyan’s e-Discovery 4-1-1 Newsletter:
“CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE AND DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE”
I’m forced to use disclaimers a lot during my presentations. Of course, this applies to many other areas of law practice, however, with the dizzying speed in which contradictory case rulings are being decided in eDiscovery specifically, I think their disclaimer is far more eloquent than what I usually say:
“It depends…”
Mari J. Frank is one of my colleagues on the California State Bar's LPMT Section Executive Committee. She is none too pleased about the Governor's proposal to close the California Office of Privacy Protection. Below are her comments to the media including a letter she sent to the Governor's office. Am I the media? Kinda…sorta. Ultimately, I agree with her sentiments. See her (slightly edited) comments and a link to the letter below:
Dear Members of the Media-
We are currently living in the information age, where privacy issues are at the top of the list of consumer concerns. California has been the leader in privacy protection in our country, and in promoting legislation insisting on transparency. For example, we were the first state to pass a security breach notification law, the first state to insist on the confidentiality of social security numbers, which are essentially the key to the kingdom of identity theft.
The California Office of Privacy Protection has been a great resource for consumers, businesses and even for you as journalists and media for all kinds of information privacy and identity theft information and resources. However, new State Budget Proposals propose to completely remove funding for this small but influential office. From my perspective it is outrageous that the Governor would even consider the huge jump backwards associated with closing a small but highly influential and necessary office for less than $500,000 savings.
I am so thankful for you, members of the press, since you are the ones who bring important issues that are often hidden (like this one) to the public. Please read my letter and visit the California Office of Privacy Protection’s website at www.privacy.ca.gov/ to see the tremendous guidance and outreach that is provided.
Thank you for the opportunity to share with you this letter that I recently sent to Governor Brown, various California Budget Committees and the California Senate Privacy Committee. I hope you consider addressing this issue or at the very least excerpt a portion of my letter to share with your readership.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important office.
Best,
Mari Frank
