I was invited to participate in the LinkedIn publishing program, so I thought I would give it a shot, with my first post about the definition of information governance developed at the Information Governance Initiative, with the support of 93% of those we surveyed. Check it out here.
Pretty entertaining, and also from a case that is also interesting from an Information Governance perspective.
Just a quick post – came across this article when trying to fix a configuration issue with Apple Mail and Gmail, and I thought it nicely summed up the attitude I encounter from IT and others in our information governance engagements. Ask an attorney sometime if there really is “no harm in keeping tiny emails around in this age of ever-expanding storage space.” The drug dealers of the IG world have really done an incredible job convincing the addicts that the drug has no downside.
One of Gmail’s perks is a ridiculous amount of storage space, so Google has set it up to highly encourage archiving your email instead of having to make the decision to delete just some of it. After all, you never know if that rainy day will come next month or four years from now, and there’s no harm in keeping tiny emails around in this age of ever-expanding storage space.
More often that not, here’s what happens on that “rainy day,” in a depressing office park somewhere in the suburbs:
The company spent $900,000 to produce an amount of data that would consume less than one-quarter of the available capacity of an ordinary DVD.
RAND study on e-discovery, 2012
Now, folks outside of the IG and e-discovery bubble might reasonably think that, hey if there is ever a problem, I can just start deleting emails then, right?
Here’s a couple more quotes to consider.
And, my favorite
I just finished writing a report at the IGI that is a broad survey of market, legal, and technology developments that affect records retention and management practices. Some interesting things going on around the globe. For example, in April 2013, the UK abolished its primary financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority, and replaced it with two new regulatory bodies: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA). According to Steven Formica, CEO of Fontis International, a provider of global legal data for records retention schedules, this reform resulted in extensive changes to records retention requirements. For example, Steve’s firm replaced 104 existing records retention legal requirements related to the FSA with 686 new entries based on the requirements of the FCA/PRA. This kind of increased specificity and scrutiny on records retention is happening in the US and around the globe.
In any case, I will be discussing the paper and its key findings on a webinar hosted by Recall at 2 pm ET on March 25th, 2014. Click here to find out more and register to attend. The paper will be available for download immediately after the webinar.