It is a big deal for a public sector organization to revise guidelines. The fact that the Competition Bureau has made two important changes relating to electronically stored information this year is noteworthy.
First, in April, 2015, the Bureau released new “Guidelines on the Production of Electronically Stored Information”. They deal with the technical aspects of production, and were an update to old and odd guideline which was software specific and shy on important details. There was a real need for a refresh. The April Guidelines are a solid step forward and consistent with other e-Discovery exchange protocols. Unfortunately, they make no reference to the use of technology in either the sorting or the tagging of records.
Second, the Bureau took a surprising step forward a few weeks ago in the release of an Appendix to the Merger Review Process Guidelines. One of the big challenges in Competition Bureau productions is the requirement that each document be linked to the specific paragraph on the demand (a form of issue coding). This step is expensive and time consuming. Buried in the new Appendix is the fact that they will now accept “a list of search terms used to identify potentially responsive documents and information or to eliminate potentially non-responsive documents and information provided in response to each paragraph and subparagraph” of the request. While the Competition Bureau has not overtly embraced analytics, at least they have accepted that software may be sufficient for identifying content for a response.
Privacy is difficult to protect in the digital world. New technologies are allowing us to work whenever and wherever, using a variety of devices. With more organizations dealing with decisions on Bring Your Own Device policy, privacy is again in the spotlight. With mobile devices and cloud storage being more stable and easy to use, they sometimes falsely give the impression that someone else MUST be taking care of the privacy and security of the information. But is that the case?
Privacy cannot be passively protected. It requires constant attention, and an informed strategy. In August, the Federal, Alberta and British Columbia Privacy Commissioners issued a joint publication on strategies for BYOD policies and practices as they relate to privacy. Notably, rather than pointing out the risks (there are many) and recommending that BYOD be avoided at all costs, the Commissioners recognize the need to adapt. They helpfully provide insight on ways to mitigate risk without standing in the way of progress.
On such a dynamic topic, the Commissioners were prudent in taking a strategic rather than directive approach. The document provides clear considerations for developing a BYOB policy. Most helpful is the Appendix that summarizes the 11 strategic considerations. If your organization is thinking about BYOD, this resource is a good starting point.
Our blog, Wortzmans Weighs In, has been nominated from more than 2,000 legal blogs to compete in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest. There are 250 blogs nominated but each only competes in one category. Wortzmans’ blog is competing in the Technology category. The contest runs until October 9th. To vote for our blog please click here: https://www.theexpertinstitute.com/legal-blog/wortzmans/. You can also click here to read our most recent blog: Three Privacy Commissioners agree on BYOD Guidelines