MT>3
  • Home
  • About
  • People
  • Services
    • e-Discovery
    • Managed Review
    • Information Governance
    • Due Diligence
  • Blog
  • News
  • Contact

Confused about Cloud Computing? You’re In Good Company

29/11/2012

 
More than being simply good alliteration, “cloud computing confusion” is apparently common.
In a recent article published in ARMA’s Information Management Magazine (November/December 2012, page 7), the results of an American survey commissioned by Citrix was cited. 1,000 adults age 18+ were surveyed by Wakefield Research regarding their understanding of cloud computing.
Given that “cloud computing” is a very common term, the results were somewhat surprising:

  • 51% of those surveyed believe that stormy weather could interfere with cloud computing (it doesn’t).
  • Almost 97% of those surveyed use cloud services (banking, online shopping, social networks), yet 33% believe cloud computing is a thing of the future.
  • Approximately 20% of people pretend to understand what the cloud is and how it works. Once the concept was explained to them, 68% reported seeing the economic benefits from using it (lower costs, to stimulate small business growth and increased consumer engagement with businesses).

Common barriers to using the cloud were the cost (interesting that it was cited as both a benefit and a barrier), security and privacy concerns.

​Confusion and misconceptions about new and emerging technologies is not an uncommon phenomenon. It is likely that these survey results would translate similarly in Canada. Accordingly, if you find yourself discussing cloud computing at holiday cocktail parties, it might be wise to have a brief primer on the subject at the ready, or at least an umbrella to protect your data from stormy weather.

A Case for Email Usage Policies

26/11/2012

 
​Last week, ABC World News Online reported that a Taliban spokesperson in Afghanistan had sent a routine press release email with one noticeable difference – he had included every recipient in the CC field, instead of (presumably) in the BCC field, where the names and email addresses would be hidden.

Of the more than 400 copied recipients, the list included a provincial governor, an Afghan legislator, several academics and activists and a representative of Gulbuddein Hekmatar, an Afghan warlord whose outlawed group Hezb-i-Islami is believed to be behind several attacks against coalition troops.

Hard to say if the Taliban has an email usage policy or not. However it is unlikely that, if they did, the email would have been sent as it was.

In an effort to return email to its once heralded model of communication efficiency, some organizations have implemented email acceptable use policies. These policies describe best practices for communicating via email, such as:
  • Do not copy the world (even if you are a member of the Taliban). If a communication needs to be sent to more than, say, three people, find another way, such as a conference call or meeting.
  • Do not use Reply All. With each email communication, decide who really needs to receive the email, and only include those people.
  • Do not keep replying back and forth. If an email conversation runs to more than three back and forth replies, pick up the phone and conclude the communication.
  • Do not send back acknowledgment emails with a single word, such as “Thanks” or “Ok”. It is assumed that you are thankful for the email.
  • Do not type in all capital letters. It is deemed as shouting, and therefore inappropriate.
  • Consider the subject matter and tone of the email. If a matter is sensitive, personal, or open to interpretation, pick up the phone or schedule a meeting. Doing so may avoid a lot of damage control later on.
  • Prohibit the drafting or forwarding of off-colour jokes, images, or other forms of chain mail.
  • Make sure the email subject line clearly indicates the topic of the email, and do not combine two different topics in the same email or same email chain – start a new email if you need to start a new topic.

​There are many other best practices that could be included in an acceptable use policy. The goal is to create a policy, and then educate your employees so that email can be brought under control and used to make the workday more efficient.

Who Could Have Predicted This?

19/11/2012

 
The term “predictive coding” has been the big buzz word in ediscovery of late. However, in practice, lawyers have been slow to embrace this technology and approach to the lawyer review phase. You will know from blogs past that the term “predictive coding” refers generally to a process (and accompanying technology) through which lawyers train a computer to recognize relevant records in a dataset in an effort to prioritize those presumptively relevant records for review. You will also note from blogs past that predictive coding is not a substitute replacement for manual review by lawyers for relevance and privilege, but rather, a tool to expedite the normally expensive review process in certain cases.

While this type of technology assisted review (“TAR”) can increase the speed and efficiency of a review and reduce costs (sometimes significantly), it is not commonly used (yet) in Canada. It is not that commonly used in the United States either, but apparently, that may change with some pressure from the bench.

In a recent decision out of the State of Delaware (EORBH Inc. et al vs. HOA Holdings), the Hon. J.Travis Laster, (on a motion for partial summary judgment and other relief), imposed on the parties a reverse onus with respect to the use of predictive coding. He suggested that the case in front of him was an “ideal non-expedited case in which the parties would benefit from using predictive coding.” He went on to say that if the parties did not want to use the approach, they would have to “show cause as to why this is not a case where predictive coding is the way to go.”

The judge further suggested that the parties select a single discovery provider/vendor (referenced in the decision as “one of these wonderful discovery super powers”) to host the data. If the parties were unable to agree on a vendor, the judge advised them to submit names to him and he would make the selection.

​While lawyers and the judiciary on both sides of the border continue to grapple with ediscovery and technology issues, this case certainly qualifies as being an outlier. However, it does emphasize the need for lawyers to be familiar with emerging technologies in the space to ensure they are current and ready to respond. Will we see a similar case in Canada at some point? While it seems unlikely at the present time, it is also likely that Americans did not predict this decision.

<<Previous

    Categories

    All
    Artificial Intelligence
    Blockchain
    Cyber Security
    E Discovery
    Information Governance
    Legaltech
    Privacy
    Social Media
    Technology


    Archives

    February 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    September 2017
    August 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    June 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    December 2008
    March 2008
    November 2007
    October 2007

130 Adelaide Street West Suite 2020
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3P5
​ ​
t: 416-642-2220  
tf: 1-877-642-2220  
f: 416-868-0673
Contact MT>3
@MT>3 2018. All Rights Reserved
Picture

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

  • Home
  • About
  • People
  • Services
    • e-Discovery
    • Managed Review
    • Information Governance
    • Due Diligence
  • Blog
  • News
  • Contact