So many social networking sites, so many ways to reconnect with people from your past. For Facebook user and singles website designer Mike Wilbur, that includes ex-girlfriends.
"I'm talking to two on a regular basis," he told ABC11 Eyewitness News.
He says the online chats are innocent, but can see how it could cross the line.
"It's a little more intimate I guess," he said.
Experts say connections with old flames that do cross the line can often wind up in divorce court.
"In a huge percentage of our cases now," offered divorce attorney Lee Rosen.
Rosen says people no longer have to go out of their way to meet someone outside their home. They're right there in their home on their computer.
"It's literally like people are knocking at your door asking you to have an affair," he said.
So, social networking sites have become a gold mine for divorce attorneys.
"When somebody is tempted by the opportunity that Facebook presents them, it takes a weak marriage and destroys them," said Rosen.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: abclocal.go.com
By: Shae Crisson
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
4 Cheap Options to Monitor Networks for Evidence
Computer forensics don't have to solely focus on recovering and searching for evidence on storage devices. Although programs like Encase and FTK 3.0 are excellent tools to help find documents, photographs and other files for your investigation, they cut short on collecting network traffic your suspect sends and receives.
Viewing stored URL visits and local cache only paint a limited picture of the suspect's Internet usage and sometimes amount to the same as reading tea leaves. A document opened online, an incriminating instant message or even a VOIP call can and should be forensically captured and reviewed for your investigations.
Below are four free or low-cost options to monitor your target's network connection, capture forensic traffic and review the data for evidence. Consult with your company's legal and IT departments before monitoring Internet connections. This may be illegal in some areas or against company policy.
Before getting started you have to decide which of the four monitoring options best work for your investigation. Each option has its own unique function that works for different scenarios that are rated below based on Level of Expertise to setup it up, Covert Application (risk of getting caught) and Network Type (wireless vs. LAN):
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerworld.com
By: Brandon Gregg
Viewing stored URL visits and local cache only paint a limited picture of the suspect's Internet usage and sometimes amount to the same as reading tea leaves. A document opened online, an incriminating instant message or even a VOIP call can and should be forensically captured and reviewed for your investigations.
Below are four free or low-cost options to monitor your target's network connection, capture forensic traffic and review the data for evidence. Consult with your company's legal and IT departments before monitoring Internet connections. This may be illegal in some areas or against company policy.
Before getting started you have to decide which of the four monitoring options best work for your investigation. Each option has its own unique function that works for different scenarios that are rated below based on Level of Expertise to setup it up, Covert Application (risk of getting caught) and Network Type (wireless vs. LAN):
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerworld.com
By: Brandon Gregg
eDiscovery And The Law Firm
Nick Croce of Inference Data wrote some good stuff in his vendor-neutral white paper, "Transforming the Law Firm: The Impact of Technology on Law Firms & Their Clients." He points out that a survey of corporate General Counsels showed that they were profoundly concerned with legal discovery's cost control or lack thereof. At the head of the list is the cost of outside counsel and the inherent frustration in matching invoiced costs to services rendered.
Outside law firms are uncomfortably aware that their corporate clients - who are making tracks with their pocketbooks -- are unhappy with discovery costs and lack of accountability with traditional law firm invoicing practices. We're not talking chump change here. Yearly attorney review fees in the U.S. alone reach well into the billions of dollars. Adding insult to injury, the vast majority of reviewed documents are irrelevant. Granted, the idea behind review is to identify relevance, but there has to be a way to cut down on the amount of documents that hit the review platform in the first place.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Christine Taylor
Outside law firms are uncomfortably aware that their corporate clients - who are making tracks with their pocketbooks -- are unhappy with discovery costs and lack of accountability with traditional law firm invoicing practices. We're not talking chump change here. Yearly attorney review fees in the U.S. alone reach well into the billions of dollars. Adding insult to injury, the vast majority of reviewed documents are irrelevant. Granted, the idea behind review is to identify relevance, but there has to be a way to cut down on the amount of documents that hit the review platform in the first place.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Christine Taylor
Businesses are ill-prepared for e-discovery, warn lawyers
In-house lawyers are concerned that their businesses are unable to respond to legal demands to retrieve electronic documents, a survey of lawyers at 200 global companies reveals.
The KPMG Forensic and Harris Interactive survey found that 38% of lawyers surveyed said that it would be difficult to retrieve data in their organisation, potentially exposing their firms to high costs or reputational damage in the event of a legal dispute.
"Companies have to deal with a mind-bogglingly large amount of data being generated every day, which not only has to be stored but made searchable and retrievable in the future," said Paul Tombleson, head of forensic technology at KPMG Forensic in the UK.
"Storing and searching large volumes of data, often across borders and across different legacy IT systems, continues to be a major challenge for many companies. Whilst this might seem like an IT issue, when an investigation arises, it can become an urgent reputational and financial one," he said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Cliff Saran
The KPMG Forensic and Harris Interactive survey found that 38% of lawyers surveyed said that it would be difficult to retrieve data in their organisation, potentially exposing their firms to high costs or reputational damage in the event of a legal dispute.
"Companies have to deal with a mind-bogglingly large amount of data being generated every day, which not only has to be stored but made searchable and retrievable in the future," said Paul Tombleson, head of forensic technology at KPMG Forensic in the UK.
"Storing and searching large volumes of data, often across borders and across different legacy IT systems, continues to be a major challenge for many companies. Whilst this might seem like an IT issue, when an investigation arises, it can become an urgent reputational and financial one," he said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: computerweekly.com
By: Cliff Saran
Sunday, November 22, 2009
So Much Data, So Little Encryption
We surveyed almost 500 business technology professionals and found little end-to-end encryption use. Instead, we're doing only what auditors demand.
If you go solely by top-level stats on encryption use, you'll come away feeling pretty secure--86% of the the 499 business technology professionals responding to our InformationWeek Analytics State of Encryption Survey employ encryption of some type. But that finding doesn't begin to tell the real story. Only 14% of respondents say encryption is pervasive in their organizations. Database table-level encryption is in use by just 26%, while just 38% encrypt data on mobile devices. And 31%--more than any other response--characterize the extent of their use as just enough to meet regulatory requirements.
The reasons for this dismal state of affairs range from cost and integration challenges to entrenched organizational resistance exacerbated by a lack of leadership. The compliance focus is particularly galling. Encrypting a subset of data amounts to a "get-out-of-jail-free card" because it may relieve companies from having to notify customers of a breach. But knowingly doing the bare minimum to check a compliance box isn't security; it's a cop-out.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Michael A. Davis
If you go solely by top-level stats on encryption use, you'll come away feeling pretty secure--86% of the the 499 business technology professionals responding to our InformationWeek Analytics State of Encryption Survey employ encryption of some type. But that finding doesn't begin to tell the real story. Only 14% of respondents say encryption is pervasive in their organizations. Database table-level encryption is in use by just 26%, while just 38% encrypt data on mobile devices. And 31%--more than any other response--characterize the extent of their use as just enough to meet regulatory requirements.
The reasons for this dismal state of affairs range from cost and integration challenges to entrenched organizational resistance exacerbated by a lack of leadership. The compliance focus is particularly galling. Encrypting a subset of data amounts to a "get-out-of-jail-free card" because it may relieve companies from having to notify customers of a breach. But knowingly doing the bare minimum to check a compliance box isn't security; it's a cop-out.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Michael A. Davis
EDD Tale: Caught in the Middle
Computer forensic examiners can find themselves the scapegoats in discovery battles
When Midwest Data Group was assigned the job of looking for e-mail evidence in a recent business dispute over sales commissions, it seemed like just another job. But when no responsive e-mails were found and Midwest discovered that approximately 70,000 files had been deleted from a computer system, investigators suspected evidence might have been destroyed.
The court had given the company protocols to work by, but those didn't offer much direction beyond directing computer examiners to look for e-mails pertinent to the case. But this discovery forced examiners to decide if they should simply report that the search was unproductive, or report suspicions of spoliation to the lawyers or the court.
Unfortunately, Midwest took its findings to just the plaintiff's attorneys, and quickly found itself on the receiving end of a motion for a contempt sanction for failing to disclose its findings evenly. "We got sucked into the battle. Our examiner's report conclusions sounded a little too much like advocacy," says Mark Vassel, the CEO and chief forensic examiner at Midwest Data Group. "We've had to learn to keep the language of our reports neutral and to save anything else for the courtroom or deposition."
That case, Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., Nos. 07-11745, 08-13365 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009), demonstrates the sometimes precarious position of the computer forensic examiner in litigation. "It gets particularly troublesome when the opposing counsel won't play nice and the forensic examiners can get caught in the middle," says John Simek, vice president of Sensei Enterprises, a computer forensics company in Virginia. "I always tell our people, 'make sure you talk to both parties, tell them what our interpretation of the information is, and then let them argue it out.'"
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Jason Krause
When Midwest Data Group was assigned the job of looking for e-mail evidence in a recent business dispute over sales commissions, it seemed like just another job. But when no responsive e-mails were found and Midwest discovered that approximately 70,000 files had been deleted from a computer system, investigators suspected evidence might have been destroyed.
The court had given the company protocols to work by, but those didn't offer much direction beyond directing computer examiners to look for e-mails pertinent to the case. But this discovery forced examiners to decide if they should simply report that the search was unproductive, or report suspicions of spoliation to the lawyers or the court.
Unfortunately, Midwest took its findings to just the plaintiff's attorneys, and quickly found itself on the receiving end of a motion for a contempt sanction for failing to disclose its findings evenly. "We got sucked into the battle. Our examiner's report conclusions sounded a little too much like advocacy," says Mark Vassel, the CEO and chief forensic examiner at Midwest Data Group. "We've had to learn to keep the language of our reports neutral and to save anything else for the courtroom or deposition."
That case, Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., Nos. 07-11745, 08-13365 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009), demonstrates the sometimes precarious position of the computer forensic examiner in litigation. "It gets particularly troublesome when the opposing counsel won't play nice and the forensic examiners can get caught in the middle," says John Simek, vice president of Sensei Enterprises, a computer forensics company in Virginia. "I always tell our people, 'make sure you talk to both parties, tell them what our interpretation of the information is, and then let them argue it out.'"
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Jason Krause
Lanier Announces Settlement in Cloud Computing Lawsuit
The Lanier Law Firm announced that a settlement and federal judgment issued in favor of inventor Mitchell Prust in a patent infringement lawsuit over cloud storage and cloud computing technology that allows individuals to access computer applications through Internet browsers.
According to a press release by Lanier, the judgment signed Nov. 19, 2009, by Judge T. John Ward in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that McKinney, Texas-based NetMass Inc. infringed three different online storage and computing patents owned by Prust, including US Patent No. 6,714,968; No. 6,735,623; and No. 6,952,724. The judgment also includes a permanent injunction that orders NetMass to cease the company’s infringement of the three patents in the future.
Christopher D. Banys, who leads The Lanier Law Firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group, represented Prust along with firm founder Mark Lanier and firm attorney Hogene Choi. Attorneys from the Tyler, Texas, law firm of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley served as local counsel for Prust.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: ag-ip-news.com
By: ag-IP-news
According to a press release by Lanier, the judgment signed Nov. 19, 2009, by Judge T. John Ward in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that McKinney, Texas-based NetMass Inc. infringed three different online storage and computing patents owned by Prust, including US Patent No. 6,714,968; No. 6,735,623; and No. 6,952,724. The judgment also includes a permanent injunction that orders NetMass to cease the company’s infringement of the three patents in the future.
Christopher D. Banys, who leads The Lanier Law Firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group, represented Prust along with firm founder Mark Lanier and firm attorney Hogene Choi. Attorneys from the Tyler, Texas, law firm of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley served as local counsel for Prust.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: ag-ip-news.com
By: ag-IP-news
Friday, November 20, 2009
COFEE Break Turns Messy
A common challenge of cybercrime investigations is the need to conduct forensic analysis on a computer before it is powered down and restarted. As some active system processes and network data are volatile and may be lost after the computer is turning off, investigators were in search of a tool that could assist them in the very limited space of time they may have to investigate a crime. It is for this reason, that in October, Microsoft and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) announced an agreement establishing NW3C as the first U.S.-based distributor of the Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor (COFEE).
Recently there seems to be a leak of the software onto the Internet. On Tuesday November 10, someone using the pseudonym DrWeird of Eti.in posted the documentation and a working build from Version 1.1.2 online.
Here are some details I collected from one of the posted manuals.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: trustedsource.org
By: McAfee Research Blog
Recently there seems to be a leak of the software onto the Internet. On Tuesday November 10, someone using the pseudonym DrWeird of Eti.in posted the documentation and a working build from Version 1.1.2 online.
Here are some details I collected from one of the posted manuals.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: trustedsource.org
By: McAfee Research Blog
The ESIs of Texas
My home state of Texas was the first to enact a discovery rule dealing with electronically stored information. Years before the federal rules amendments, and in four simple sentences, Rule 196.4 addressed a litigant's right to discover ESI, the scope of e-discovery, forms of production and cost shifting. The rule was either so completely successful or so utterly ignored that it wasn't cited in a published decision for nearly a decade.
So, when the Texas Supreme Court — the state's highest tribunal — issued its first e-discovery opinion, I listened to oral arguments. In re: Weekley Homes, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1231 (2009), concerned a litigant's right to directly access an opponent's storage media. The plaintiff wanted to run 21 search terms against the hard drives of four of defendant's employees in an effort to find deleted e-mails from 2004. I eagerly anticipated insightful arguments by advocates who grasped the important technical and legal issues afoot, but what I heard would make a hearse horse snicker. Judge for yourself by listening to the arguments at http://tinyurl.com/weekleyhomes.
Fortunately for Texans and all e-discovery practitioners inspired by well-reasoned opinions, the lawyers' confusion didn't infect the Court's decision. The Weekley Homes standards that emerged from the Court's remand serve as a sensible guide to those seeking to compel an opponent to recover and produce deleted e-mail, to wit:
1.) Parties seeking production of deleted e-mails should specifically request them and specify a form of production.
2.) Responding parties must produce reasonably available information in the format sought. They must object if the information is not reasonably available or if they oppose the requested format.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Craig Ball
So, when the Texas Supreme Court — the state's highest tribunal — issued its first e-discovery opinion, I listened to oral arguments. In re: Weekley Homes, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1231 (2009), concerned a litigant's right to directly access an opponent's storage media. The plaintiff wanted to run 21 search terms against the hard drives of four of defendant's employees in an effort to find deleted e-mails from 2004. I eagerly anticipated insightful arguments by advocates who grasped the important technical and legal issues afoot, but what I heard would make a hearse horse snicker. Judge for yourself by listening to the arguments at http://tinyurl.com/weekleyhomes.
Fortunately for Texans and all e-discovery practitioners inspired by well-reasoned opinions, the lawyers' confusion didn't infect the Court's decision. The Weekley Homes standards that emerged from the Court's remand serve as a sensible guide to those seeking to compel an opponent to recover and produce deleted e-mail, to wit:
1.) Parties seeking production of deleted e-mails should specifically request them and specify a form of production.
2.) Responding parties must produce reasonably available information in the format sought. They must object if the information is not reasonably available or if they oppose the requested format.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Craig Ball
Digital Voicemail in E-Discovery -- or Dealing with Cerberus, the Three-Headed Dog from Hell
You have one new voice message. First message: Monday, 4:45pm --
I must have just missed you, Vice President Joe.
It's Mike van Dyke, your CEO.
Remember that complicated widget invention --
Our best-seller you copied from the Widget Convention?
The one in your job interview that you mentioned,
And stole from your last boss for withholding your pension?
Well, they've sued us for patent infringement and such,
And theft of trade secrets -- it's really too much.
So I need you to shred all the documentation:
The tech drawings you stole; design specifications.
And that memo you wrote, before everything,
Saying that they had a patent, worth copying.
And yes, it goes without saying, too, Joe --
Please immediately delete this voicemail also.
End of new messages.
A lawyer who finds a copy of this voicemail buried in the other side's electronic document production will immediately splurge on champagne and party hats. And who can blame him? But here's the question: would this message be captured in the net of responsive material, or would it slip through the cracks? The answer may depend less on the skill of document retrieval experts, and more on how your company (or client's) voicemail system works.
It's old news that voicemail systems have graduated from analog to digital. Now, while the self-contained answering machine is still around, the digital era has also ushered in various types of integrated systems. The most complex, like the famed mythological dog Cerberus guarding the gates of Hell to prevent the dead who cross the river Styx from escaping, have three heads: the company telephone system, e-mail system, and computer system. And while a message on a self-contained machine can be difficult for a company -- let's call it Hades, Inc. -- to track and easy for an individual employee to get rid of, life with Cerberus is akin to life in the underworld: there is no escape, and nowhere to hide.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: ediscovery.quarles.com
By: Wendy Akbar
I must have just missed you, Vice President Joe.
It's Mike van Dyke, your CEO.
Remember that complicated widget invention --
Our best-seller you copied from the Widget Convention?
The one in your job interview that you mentioned,
And stole from your last boss for withholding your pension?
Well, they've sued us for patent infringement and such,
And theft of trade secrets -- it's really too much.
So I need you to shred all the documentation:
The tech drawings you stole; design specifications.
And that memo you wrote, before everything,
Saying that they had a patent, worth copying.
And yes, it goes without saying, too, Joe --
Please immediately delete this voicemail also.
End of new messages.
A lawyer who finds a copy of this voicemail buried in the other side's electronic document production will immediately splurge on champagne and party hats. And who can blame him? But here's the question: would this message be captured in the net of responsive material, or would it slip through the cracks? The answer may depend less on the skill of document retrieval experts, and more on how your company (or client's) voicemail system works.
It's old news that voicemail systems have graduated from analog to digital. Now, while the self-contained answering machine is still around, the digital era has also ushered in various types of integrated systems. The most complex, like the famed mythological dog Cerberus guarding the gates of Hell to prevent the dead who cross the river Styx from escaping, have three heads: the company telephone system, e-mail system, and computer system. And while a message on a self-contained machine can be difficult for a company -- let's call it Hades, Inc. -- to track and easy for an individual employee to get rid of, life with Cerberus is akin to life in the underworld: there is no escape, and nowhere to hide.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: ediscovery.quarles.com
By: Wendy Akbar
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Key Ruling in BofA Securities Class Action Gives Plaintiffs Access to Treasure Trove of Documents
Let's hope the plaintiffs lawyers in the Bank of America securities class action suit have some big wheelbarrows, or at least terabytes of computer hard drive space. On Tuesday, in a huge win for shareholders, Manhattan federal district court Judge Denny Chin took the unusual step of lifting the statutory discovery stay in the securities fraud case. His order will give the plaintiffs access to the mountains of documents that BofA and related defendants have already turned over to Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York attorney general and other government entities scrutinizing BofA's acquisition of Merrill Lynch. In addition, lawyers for the shareholders will be able to use transcripts of depositions taken by other investigators.
They will also probably get access to communications between BofA and its lawyers that the bank turned over to various government agencies after it waived the attorney-client privilege in October. Chin's ruling does not carve out an exception for privileged materials. The protective order issued by Manhattan federal district court Judge Jed Rakoff in the SEC's case against Bank of America states that BofA is not deemed to be waiving its privilege "regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits." That language can be construed to mean that BofA can still claim privilege over materials government investigators didn't ask for -- not necessarily that plaintiffs in private lawsuits can't have access to the documents the bank did turn over.
The class action plaintiffs asked Judge Chin to lift the discovery stay automatically imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in an Oct. 6 letter to Chin. The three-page letter -- signed by co-lead counsel from Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check -- argues that the discovery stay, which typically remains in place until after motions to dismiss have been decided -- placed the class at a disadvantage compared to others investigating BofA's merger with Merrill.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Susan Beck
They will also probably get access to communications between BofA and its lawyers that the bank turned over to various government agencies after it waived the attorney-client privilege in October. Chin's ruling does not carve out an exception for privileged materials. The protective order issued by Manhattan federal district court Judge Jed Rakoff in the SEC's case against Bank of America states that BofA is not deemed to be waiving its privilege "regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits." That language can be construed to mean that BofA can still claim privilege over materials government investigators didn't ask for -- not necessarily that plaintiffs in private lawsuits can't have access to the documents the bank did turn over.
The class action plaintiffs asked Judge Chin to lift the discovery stay automatically imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in an Oct. 6 letter to Chin. The three-page letter -- signed by co-lead counsel from Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check -- argues that the discovery stay, which typically remains in place until after motions to dismiss have been decided -- placed the class at a disadvantage compared to others investigating BofA's merger with Merrill.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Susan Beck
FCC to review regulatory and legal impacts to cloud services and identity management
The FCC is embarking on a review of several innovations that have now gained critical mass, among them, cloud computing, identity management, government data transparency. Cloud computing means so many different things to different groups so the FCC has clarified what areas it will review and raises the question of the definition as part of its review;
a. The National Institute of Standards and Technology defines cloud computing as “a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.” Does this definition accurately capture the concept of cloud computing?
b. What types of cloud computing exist (e.g., public, hybrid, and internal) and what are the legal and regulatory implications of their use?
Cloud computing for many is a simple form of outsourcing tasks, applications and services driven by economics and ICT management costs. There is after all nothing magical about cloud computing compared to say Grid computing.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: government.zdnet.com
By: Doug Hanchard
a. The National Institute of Standards and Technology defines cloud computing as “a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.” Does this definition accurately capture the concept of cloud computing?
b. What types of cloud computing exist (e.g., public, hybrid, and internal) and what are the legal and regulatory implications of their use?
Cloud computing for many is a simple form of outsourcing tasks, applications and services driven by economics and ICT management costs. There is after all nothing magical about cloud computing compared to say Grid computing.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: government.zdnet.com
By: Doug Hanchard
Did E-Mails Factor in Harassment Verdict?
The recent verdict in Seybert v. International Group Inc., a sexual harassment and retaliation case, was swift and simple. The jury foreman just said "no" three times.
No, the foreman said, plaintiff Susan Seybert was not harassed by her supervisor, Brett Marchand, "because of" her sex. No, Marchand did not retaliate against Seybert because of her complaints to management. And no, IGI did not terminate Seybert to punish her for complaining.
After the verdict, lawyers on both sides were hoping to chat with the eight-member jury about their reasons for rejecting Seybert's claims. But the jury seemed to be unanimous on another point -- they didn't feel like talking about it.
Likewise, several jurors declined to be interviewed when contacted by The Legal Intelligencer, and several others didn't respond to messages seeking interviews.
As a result, it's impossible to say whether the jury of four men and four women was swayed by some of the more controversial evidence in the case -- a cache of sexually explicit, humorous e-mails found on Seybert's workplace computer -- or were simply unimpressed with the evidence she mustered to back up her claims.
IGI's lawyer, William T. Wilson of MacElree Harvey in West Chester, Pa., said he always tries to chat with jurors after a trial. "You probably learn more from the ones you lose than the ones you win, but I always try to do that," Wilson said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Shannon P. Duffy
No, the foreman said, plaintiff Susan Seybert was not harassed by her supervisor, Brett Marchand, "because of" her sex. No, Marchand did not retaliate against Seybert because of her complaints to management. And no, IGI did not terminate Seybert to punish her for complaining.
After the verdict, lawyers on both sides were hoping to chat with the eight-member jury about their reasons for rejecting Seybert's claims. But the jury seemed to be unanimous on another point -- they didn't feel like talking about it.
Likewise, several jurors declined to be interviewed when contacted by The Legal Intelligencer, and several others didn't respond to messages seeking interviews.
As a result, it's impossible to say whether the jury of four men and four women was swayed by some of the more controversial evidence in the case -- a cache of sexually explicit, humorous e-mails found on Seybert's workplace computer -- or were simply unimpressed with the evidence she mustered to back up her claims.
IGI's lawyer, William T. Wilson of MacElree Harvey in West Chester, Pa., said he always tries to chat with jurors after a trial. "You probably learn more from the ones you lose than the ones you win, but I always try to do that," Wilson said.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Shannon P. Duffy
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
10 common backup mistakes
All of us in IT have been taught from Day One that performing regular backups is critical to an organization’s well being. Yet even seasoned pros sometimes make certain mistakes. Here are a few of the common mistakes I’ve encountered.
Note: This article is also available as a PDF download.
1: Not making system state backups often enough
In Windows environments, system state backups have a shelf life. For domain controllers, the shelf life is equal to the maximum tombstone age (60 days by default). After that, the backup becomes null and void. Even for non domain controllers, the age of the backup is an issue.
Each computer on a Windows network has a corresponding computer account in the Active Directory. Like a user account, the computer account has an associated password. The difference is that the password is assigned, and periodically changed, by Windows. If you try to restore a system state backup that is too old, the computer account password that is stored in the backup will no longer match the password that is bound to the computer account in the Active Directory, so the machine won’t be able to participate in the domain. There are workarounds, but it is usually easier to just make frequent system state backups of your servers.
2: Failing to adequately test backups
We all know that we should test our backups once in a while, but testing often seems to be one of those tasks that either falls by the wayside or that isn’t done thoroughly. Remember that making the backup is only the first step -if you can’t restore from them, you’re dead in the water. You need to ensure that those backups will work if and when you need them.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: blogs.techrepublic.com
By: Brien Posey
Note: This article is also available as a PDF download.
1: Not making system state backups often enough
In Windows environments, system state backups have a shelf life. For domain controllers, the shelf life is equal to the maximum tombstone age (60 days by default). After that, the backup becomes null and void. Even for non domain controllers, the age of the backup is an issue.
Each computer on a Windows network has a corresponding computer account in the Active Directory. Like a user account, the computer account has an associated password. The difference is that the password is assigned, and periodically changed, by Windows. If you try to restore a system state backup that is too old, the computer account password that is stored in the backup will no longer match the password that is bound to the computer account in the Active Directory, so the machine won’t be able to participate in the domain. There are workarounds, but it is usually easier to just make frequent system state backups of your servers.
2: Failing to adequately test backups
We all know that we should test our backups once in a while, but testing often seems to be one of those tasks that either falls by the wayside or that isn’t done thoroughly. Remember that making the backup is only the first step -if you can’t restore from them, you’re dead in the water. You need to ensure that those backups will work if and when you need them.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: blogs.techrepublic.com
By: Brien Posey
Keeping a Secret Across Jurisdictions
Beware the differing privilege regimes in the global environment
Few potential exports are more controversial in the global marketplace than aspects of a country's legal system, and in few instances are the effects of a product's acceptance or rejection more profoundly felt.
In the context of antitrust litigation, cross-border privilege questions and document seizures (often in the form of "dawn raids") in international cartel cases are familiar problems. These issues also received some measure of broader attention two years ago when the European Union Court of First Instance issued its decision in the Akzo Nobel matter,[FOOTNOTE 1] now on appeal to the European Court of Justice, discussed below.
However, as "globalization" of claims becomes more prevalent both substantively and procedurally, with major U.S. plaintiffs' firms simultaneously testing the jurisdictional bounds of U.S. courts and also opening offices overseas, risks of disclosure are amplified for communications that American lawyers may have long taken for granted as protected. Prudent counsel should safeguard such communications proactively when representing any client with footprints in more than one foreign jurisdiction, including through the use of some practical, even obvious, measures that are too frequently overlooked and therefore merit reminders here.
THE AMERICAN PRIVILEGE DOCTRINES
As a brief threshold matter, it is worth taking stock of the special places that privilege doctrines inhabit in American jurisprudence.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Scott Martin
Few potential exports are more controversial in the global marketplace than aspects of a country's legal system, and in few instances are the effects of a product's acceptance or rejection more profoundly felt.
In the context of antitrust litigation, cross-border privilege questions and document seizures (often in the form of "dawn raids") in international cartel cases are familiar problems. These issues also received some measure of broader attention two years ago when the European Union Court of First Instance issued its decision in the Akzo Nobel matter,[FOOTNOTE 1] now on appeal to the European Court of Justice, discussed below.
However, as "globalization" of claims becomes more prevalent both substantively and procedurally, with major U.S. plaintiffs' firms simultaneously testing the jurisdictional bounds of U.S. courts and also opening offices overseas, risks of disclosure are amplified for communications that American lawyers may have long taken for granted as protected. Prudent counsel should safeguard such communications proactively when representing any client with footprints in more than one foreign jurisdiction, including through the use of some practical, even obvious, measures that are too frequently overlooked and therefore merit reminders here.
THE AMERICAN PRIVILEGE DOCTRINES
As a brief threshold matter, it is worth taking stock of the special places that privilege doctrines inhabit in American jurisprudence.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Scott Martin
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Do We Still Need E-mail?
The issue of e-mail management is now old hat for anyone involved in the practice of law. Rather than asking whether lawyers use it, it is a story when lawyers choose not to use it. The world has grown more complicated, though, as we try to figure out where to place our energy integrating new technologies, like Twitter or Google’s Wave, into our work. Even our choices about how to use e-mail have expanded.
E-mail often reminds me of books. It is a technology that, for all its faults, remains a tremendously useful way to share information. More importantly, there are strong tools to control how we interact with it. Whether or not you are one of the 85% of lawyers using Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express, according to the 2009 American Bar Association Legal Technology Survey Report, you should be able to exert a lot of control over your e-mail.
Filtering, spam control, and junk mail blocking are all within your e-mail toolkit.
Even Web-based e-mail is providing a home to large numbers of lawyer messages. The third most popular product mentioned in the ABA survey was “Web-based e-mail”, like Google Mail, Yahoo! Mail, and Microsoft Live, formerly known as Hotmail. According to a March 2009 Experian Hitwise report, Yahoo! Mail accounts for over half of all Web-based e-mail visits in the U.S, with Google Mail a distant third with about 10%.
So e-mail is our foundation. Do we need to even worry about microblogging tools like Twitter or collaboration technologies that quack like e-mail but aren’t, like Google Wave?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: SLaw
By: David Whelan
E-mail often reminds me of books. It is a technology that, for all its faults, remains a tremendously useful way to share information. More importantly, there are strong tools to control how we interact with it. Whether or not you are one of the 85% of lawyers using Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express, according to the 2009 American Bar Association Legal Technology Survey Report, you should be able to exert a lot of control over your e-mail.
Filtering, spam control, and junk mail blocking are all within your e-mail toolkit.
Even Web-based e-mail is providing a home to large numbers of lawyer messages. The third most popular product mentioned in the ABA survey was “Web-based e-mail”, like Google Mail, Yahoo! Mail, and Microsoft Live, formerly known as Hotmail. According to a March 2009 Experian Hitwise report, Yahoo! Mail accounts for over half of all Web-based e-mail visits in the U.S, with Google Mail a distant third with about 10%.
So e-mail is our foundation. Do we need to even worry about microblogging tools like Twitter or collaboration technologies that quack like e-mail but aren’t, like Google Wave?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------------
Source: SLaw
By: David Whelan
Skype for Business sounds the all-clear on legal pitfalls
Businesses that were scared of saving money by using Skype because lawsuits might take away its essential VoIP technology may not have to worry anymore.
Ownership of the company will shift from eBay to include others, but the company will finally own rights to essential code, meaning it won't fall victim to having that code stripped away by a
judge and stranding customers.
That lifts the main barrier to business use of the VoIP service that has expanded over the years from a peer-to-peer phone application to include services specially crafted for corporate use. "I would be a lot more interested in Skype than I was a week ago," says Irwin Lazar, an analyst with Nemertes Research.
Just last month, in the midst of litigation that has since been settled, he was advising businesses to stay away, but now it's safe to try to reap the cost savings Skype can afford, he says.
Any of Skype's 521 million users can call Skype-enabled businesses and customers for free, helping to control costs for contact centers or remote corporate employees. Corporate 800-number bills can drop if Skype customers use a corporation's Skype rather than commercial toll-free number. The service can also complete calls to non-Skype numbers using the Internet as a long-distance backbone and then dropping calls off at local public phone exchanges for completion.
Businesses can buy Skype minutes to make outbound calls from phones attached to call servers certified to work with Skype's implementation of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Via a service called Skype for SIP, calls are carried between callers' local Skype points of presence to Skype POPs close to the called parties, eliminating long-distance charges.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-----------------------------------------------
Source: Network World
By: Tim Greene
Ownership of the company will shift from eBay to include others, but the company will finally own rights to essential code, meaning it won't fall victim to having that code stripped away by a
judge and stranding customers.
That lifts the main barrier to business use of the VoIP service that has expanded over the years from a peer-to-peer phone application to include services specially crafted for corporate use. "I would be a lot more interested in Skype than I was a week ago," says Irwin Lazar, an analyst with Nemertes Research.
Just last month, in the midst of litigation that has since been settled, he was advising businesses to stay away, but now it's safe to try to reap the cost savings Skype can afford, he says.
Any of Skype's 521 million users can call Skype-enabled businesses and customers for free, helping to control costs for contact centers or remote corporate employees. Corporate 800-number bills can drop if Skype customers use a corporation's Skype rather than commercial toll-free number. The service can also complete calls to non-Skype numbers using the Internet as a long-distance backbone and then dropping calls off at local public phone exchanges for completion.
Businesses can buy Skype minutes to make outbound calls from phones attached to call servers certified to work with Skype's implementation of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Via a service called Skype for SIP, calls are carried between callers' local Skype points of presence to Skype POPs close to the called parties, eliminating long-distance charges.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-----------------------------------------------
Source: Network World
By: Tim Greene
Monday, November 16, 2009
‘Need to globalise legal services in India’
THE economic downturn has compelled organisations to focus on cost reduction in research and analytical work, which is typically the background process for investment banks and law firms. As a result, companies have begun to outsource higher volumes, says Matthew Banks, Senior VP – Legal Services, Integreon in an interview with Sunitha Natti of TNIE. Excerpts:
What are the emerging trends in the KPO/LPO industry?
With increased pressure to cut costs, organisations like investment banks, law firms, consulting firms and large corporates are strategically looking at outsourcing complex work. While most of the KPO/LPO players are captive, there is a clear shift towards third-party outsourcing but not all would be able to leverage the opportunity as large players have the ability to scale up to offer global delivery, quality services and step up productivity. We see a huge opportunity and there has been a steady increase in the deal size and the average contract period.
How big is the marked for LPO services in India and aboard?
According to estimates, the US corporate law departments would spend about three per cent of their budget on legal outsourcing. This translates the LPO spending in 2013 at about $2 billion. The offshore legal services industry is currently estimated at approximately $300 million and is expected to reach $600-700 million by 2011. Similarly, e-Discovery, which is one of the legal services, is expected to be about $5 billion by 2011.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: expressbuzz.com
What are the emerging trends in the KPO/LPO industry?
With increased pressure to cut costs, organisations like investment banks, law firms, consulting firms and large corporates are strategically looking at outsourcing complex work. While most of the KPO/LPO players are captive, there is a clear shift towards third-party outsourcing but not all would be able to leverage the opportunity as large players have the ability to scale up to offer global delivery, quality services and step up productivity. We see a huge opportunity and there has been a steady increase in the deal size and the average contract period.
How big is the marked for LPO services in India and aboard?
According to estimates, the US corporate law departments would spend about three per cent of their budget on legal outsourcing. This translates the LPO spending in 2013 at about $2 billion. The offshore legal services industry is currently estimated at approximately $300 million and is expected to reach $600-700 million by 2011. Similarly, e-Discovery, which is one of the legal services, is expected to be about $5 billion by 2011.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------------
Source: expressbuzz.com
Survey Finds 73 Percent of Enterprises Plan to Bring E-Discovery In-House in Response to Rise in E-Discovery Requests
Clearwell Systems, Inc., a leader in intelligent e-discovery, today announced findings from a survey conducted in partnership with analyst firm Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG). The survey, titled "Trends in Electronic Discovery: A Market Perspective" quantifies both the rise in e-discovery and litigation over the past year. Additionally, the survey findings reinforce the need for increased enterprise readiness to manage the expected growth in volume of cases in 2010.
It has been three years since the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended with provisions centered on discovery and management of electronically stored information (ESI). In the same timeframe, the macroeconomic climate went from explosive growth to recession, forcing organizations to cut costs as quickly as possible. As companies continue to operate in cost containment or reduction mode, they are changing the way they conduct e-discovery, moving away from a primarily outsourced approach to bringing core elements of e-discovery in-house. The intersection of these two industry trends led ESG and Clearwell to survey over 100 Fortune 2000 enterprises and government agencies.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: earthtimes.org
It has been three years since the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended with provisions centered on discovery and management of electronically stored information (ESI). In the same timeframe, the macroeconomic climate went from explosive growth to recession, forcing organizations to cut costs as quickly as possible. As companies continue to operate in cost containment or reduction mode, they are changing the way they conduct e-discovery, moving away from a primarily outsourced approach to bringing core elements of e-discovery in-house. The intersection of these two industry trends led ESG and Clearwell to survey over 100 Fortune 2000 enterprises and government agencies.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: earthtimes.org
Will Google Docs Replace Word? Perhaps, but Not Today.
Google is predicting that its online office suite, Google Docs, will soon give people the option to “get rid of” Microsoft Office. With Google Docs in a less than robust state, that pronouncement sounds more like vendor bravado than prophecy.
Google’s entire premise is based on vaporware: It is promising to update Google Docs within the next year so that it will meet “the vast majority’s needs,” Dave Girouard, president of Google’s enterprise division told ZDNet Asia in an interview published on Friday.
Google is planning “thirty to fifty” updates that will make Docs more capable and on par with Google Mail and Calendar, Girouard said. He believes that businesses do not use Google Docs because it has not reached the same level of maturity as those products.
If Microsoft made a similar pronouncement, it would have been immediately dismissed as peddling vaporware. Even if Google gets it right, there is no guarantee that enterprises will make the switch for a multitude of reasons.
I believe that Girouard is overreaching with his marketing message. Organizations have standardized on Word, and have processes built around it. Switching would require training, and replacing software that is built around it.
Issues such as electronic discovery and staying compliant with privacy laws also come to mind. Who will own the data, and where will it reside? Will developers be content with the APIs that Google provides, and will they extend its functionality to be more business-friendly? Microsoft is years ahead building out the Office ecosystem.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: technologizer.com
By: David Worthington
Google’s entire premise is based on vaporware: It is promising to update Google Docs within the next year so that it will meet “the vast majority’s needs,” Dave Girouard, president of Google’s enterprise division told ZDNet Asia in an interview published on Friday.
Google is planning “thirty to fifty” updates that will make Docs more capable and on par with Google Mail and Calendar, Girouard said. He believes that businesses do not use Google Docs because it has not reached the same level of maturity as those products.
If Microsoft made a similar pronouncement, it would have been immediately dismissed as peddling vaporware. Even if Google gets it right, there is no guarantee that enterprises will make the switch for a multitude of reasons.
I believe that Girouard is overreaching with his marketing message. Organizations have standardized on Word, and have processes built around it. Switching would require training, and replacing software that is built around it.
Issues such as electronic discovery and staying compliant with privacy laws also come to mind. Who will own the data, and where will it reside? Will developers be content with the APIs that Google provides, and will they extend its functionality to be more business-friendly? Microsoft is years ahead building out the Office ecosystem.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: technologizer.com
By: David Worthington
Digital Forensics Magazine out now in print!
The new online magazine called Digital Forensics Magazine recently launched to fill the gap between the academic journal and the news-based web sites has just been made available in print due to popular demand
There's a new source of valuable information available for the IT security specialist and for those who are involved in the growing field of digital forensics. A new magazine called Digital Forensics Magazine has been launched in print, as well as online, and it aims to fill the gap between the academic journal and the news-based web sites that were previously the only resources available to the digital forensics specialist.
Driven by popular demand, the on-line version of the magazine is now available in print and the costs just £60 for a years subscription. Subscribers will also receive a monthly email newsletter to supplement the quarterly magazine between issues, keeping them abreast of the latest news of what is happening in the IT security sector.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: pr-inside.com
There's a new source of valuable information available for the IT security specialist and for those who are involved in the growing field of digital forensics. A new magazine called Digital Forensics Magazine has been launched in print, as well as online, and it aims to fill the gap between the academic journal and the news-based web sites that were previously the only resources available to the digital forensics specialist.
Driven by popular demand, the on-line version of the magazine is now available in print and the costs just £60 for a years subscription. Subscribers will also receive a monthly email newsletter to supplement the quarterly magazine between issues, keeping them abreast of the latest news of what is happening in the IT security sector.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: pr-inside.com
Two Roads Diverge in Managing E-Discovery Costs
The costs of civil discovery in the computer age appear to be prompting divergent responses by the federal and New York state courts. These differences, which are still evolving, could have significant implications for litigants and lawmakers.
Litigants with a choice of forum should consider these differences in selecting which court system best suits their objectives. And lawmakers should monitor these differences to assess what rules best reconcile the often competing goals of ready access to the civil justice system, full development of the facts relevant to the case, and the efficient, cost-effective resolution of the parties' dispute.
The costs of electronic discovery are well-known and have received ample coverage throughout this decade, in this publication and others.1 The source of these costs is society's increasing reliance on the electronic creation, transmission and retention of information, especially in the corporate context. Because information is so easily created, kept and copied, the volume that is available and potentially relevant to a dispute had ballooned geometrically.
While these costs can be somewhat controlled by the creative use of technology and counsel's use of sound management principles in managing a document review, there are limits. The application of classic liberal discovery principles can still require the production of hundreds of thousands or even millions of "documents," where in the past the same case would have involved discovery into a small fraction of that number.
Retaining and collecting this information is by itself extraordinarily expensive, even when the most efficient methods are employed. And on top of those costs, attorneys still must review the collected material for responsiveness and privilege, which can be prohibitively expensive for even a middle-sized case that is well managed. These costs can be so large that they have recently been blamed for tamping down the usual increase in litigation that accompanies an economic recession.2
These increased costs have fundamentally changed the cost-benefit calculus that had informed many of the rules of procedure applicable in civil cases. Lawmakers accordingly have responded by seeking to recalibrate the rules to reflect the new reality.
In the federal system, there have been changes in the rules of discovery and evidence that apply once a case is past the threshold pleading stage, as well as recent changes by the U.S. Supreme Court in the standards that apply even to the commencement of a potentially burdensome action. And in the New York state system, there has been increasing attention to the application of existing discovery rules in the electronic context.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: New York Law Journal
By: Robert Trenchard
Litigants with a choice of forum should consider these differences in selecting which court system best suits their objectives. And lawmakers should monitor these differences to assess what rules best reconcile the often competing goals of ready access to the civil justice system, full development of the facts relevant to the case, and the efficient, cost-effective resolution of the parties' dispute.
The costs of electronic discovery are well-known and have received ample coverage throughout this decade, in this publication and others.1 The source of these costs is society's increasing reliance on the electronic creation, transmission and retention of information, especially in the corporate context. Because information is so easily created, kept and copied, the volume that is available and potentially relevant to a dispute had ballooned geometrically.
While these costs can be somewhat controlled by the creative use of technology and counsel's use of sound management principles in managing a document review, there are limits. The application of classic liberal discovery principles can still require the production of hundreds of thousands or even millions of "documents," where in the past the same case would have involved discovery into a small fraction of that number.
Retaining and collecting this information is by itself extraordinarily expensive, even when the most efficient methods are employed. And on top of those costs, attorneys still must review the collected material for responsiveness and privilege, which can be prohibitively expensive for even a middle-sized case that is well managed. These costs can be so large that they have recently been blamed for tamping down the usual increase in litigation that accompanies an economic recession.2
These increased costs have fundamentally changed the cost-benefit calculus that had informed many of the rules of procedure applicable in civil cases. Lawmakers accordingly have responded by seeking to recalibrate the rules to reflect the new reality.
In the federal system, there have been changes in the rules of discovery and evidence that apply once a case is past the threshold pleading stage, as well as recent changes by the U.S. Supreme Court in the standards that apply even to the commencement of a potentially burdensome action. And in the New York state system, there has been increasing attention to the application of existing discovery rules in the electronic context.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: New York Law Journal
By: Robert Trenchard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
