Safe Harbor not safe enough for EU cloud data

http://ow.ly/ci0SZ

An article by Brian Proffitt posted on the itworld.com website.

This article discusses a recent recommendation from an independent European advisory committee, proposing some changes to the US/EU "Safe Harbor" data protection agreement. The advisory comments address issues that would impact the use of US based cloud computing providers.

The article states, "While this WP 196 recommendation from the Article 29 Working Party is not legally binding, the group carries enough weight in Europe's IT circles to heavily influence decisions on where and how cloud-based data is stored. The group is made up of members from the national data protection authorities from all 27 European Union Member States… essentially the "justice league" of data security in Europe, without the tights." A link to the recommendation is provided in the article.

The article further explains, "..."The Working Party considers that companies exporting data should not merely rely on the statement of the data importer claiming that he has a Safe Harbor certification. On the contrary, the company exporting data should obtain evidence that the Safe Harbor self-certifications exists and request evidence demonstrating that their principles are complied with."

If this recommendation from the Working Party is heeded, it could represent a significant barrier in the adoption of cloud computing in Europe and the US. Most cloud providers are based in the US, and if the Safe Harbor self-certifications aren't changed, a lot of EU companies are going to shy away hosting their data on such services.

This could be the start of a geographically-based cloud war, unless the Safe Harbor procedures are changed to something more to the EU's liking."

FOIA Matters! — 2012 Information Governance Survey Results for the Government Sector

http://ow.ly/cgjKP

An article by Allison Walton posted on the clearwellsystems.com website e-Discovery 2.0

The article discusses a survey taken at the recent EDGE summit which was held in April. The survey posed specific questions about information governance.

The article states, "The main purpose of the EDGE survey was to gather attendees’ thoughts on what information governance means for their agencies, discern what actions were being taken to address Big Data challenges, and assess how far along agencies were in their information governance implementations pursuant to the recent Presidential Mandate.

As my colleague Matt Nelson’s blog recounts from the LegalTech conference earlier this year, information governance and predictive coding were among the hottest topics at the LTNY 2012 show and in the industry generally. The EDGE Summit correspondingly held sessions on those two topics, as well as delved deeper into questions that are unique to the government."

The article discusses Freedom of Information Act requests, as well as litigation and investigations, as factors that are causing government agencies to seek out new technologies.

The article further states, "Fortunately, any comprehensive information governance plan will axiomatically address FOIA requests since the technology implemented to accomplish information governance inherently allows for the storage, identification, collection, review and production of data regardless of the specific purpose. The use of information governance technology will not have the same workflow or process for FOIA that an internal investigation would require, for example, but the tools required are the same."  Links providing further information are provided in the article.

New York judge breaks ground by ordering Twitter to surrender broad user data to prosecutors

http://ow.ly/cghZo

An article by Robert Hilson posted on the aceds.org website.

This article examines a case where Twitter has been ordered to turn over user data to New York State prosecutors, in conjunction with an investigation regarding the Occupy Wall Street protest.

The article states, "On June 30, New York state Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino ruled that Twitter, Inc. must produce to local prosecutors the tweets and user information of Malcolm Harris, one of the protestors, who is facing disorderly conduct charges. Twitter had moved to quash a prior order by the judge that denied Harris’ ability to challenge the subpoena.

Judge Sciarrino said local prosecutors could subpoena the information instead of seeking a search warrant because tweets constitute a public communication.

“If you post a Tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no expectation of privacy,” the judge wrote in an 11-page order. “There is no proprietary interest in your tweets, which you have now gifted to the world.”"

2012 A-List Survey

http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202560786566

In some ways, The American Lawyer's A-List is like a decathlon for law firms, a contest that tests their strengths in a variety of exacting ways, although we've yet to ask firms to clear a high jump. The factors that go into the tenth edition of this annual ranking—revenue per lawyer, pro bono, associate satisfaction, and diversity—aim to identify firms that represent the legal industry's all-around best. Financial strength is important, but we also want to applaud firms that are committed to serving the less fortunate, and to creating a diverse and healthy work environment.

1. Hughes Hubbatd & Reed
2. Paul Hastings
3. Munger, Tolles & Olsen
4. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
5. Millbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
6. Davis Polk
7. O'Melveny & Myers
8. Debevoise & Plimpton
9. Weil, Gotshal & Manges
10 Latham & Watkins.

D.C. Bar Calls Out E-Discovery Vendors in the District

http://ow.ly/ca8by

An article by Sean Doherty posted on law.com in the law technology news section.

The article discuses a Washington D.C. Bar Ethics Committee opinion (Opinion 362) which restricts eDiscovery services providers and prohibits them from activities that are determined to be the "practice of law".  A link to the opinion is provided in the article.

The article states, "The ethics committee did not define the activities of e-discovery vendors that constitute the practice of law, but the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law recently issued a detailed opinion (21-12, Jan. 12, 2012) on the matter, explaining what activities conducted by e-discovery vendors constitute the practice of law in the context of the unauthorized practice of law, prohibited by D.C. Bar Rule 49."  Links to the referenced opinions are provided in the article.

The article further states, "The ethics committee fashioned three governing principles:

1. E-discovery vendors must be located in the District or advertise that they will service a discovery project in the District.

2. E-discovery vendors that provide lawyers for document review in the District must comply with Rule 49 and the committee's Opinion 6-99...

3. E-discovery vendors that are not otherwise authorized to practice law in the District of Columbia may not provide legal advice to their clients and may not hold themselves out, or any attorneys on their staff, as authorized to practice law in the District if indeed they are not.

Narrative discussion around each principle is provided in the article, and a link to the referenced Opinion 6-99 is also provided.  The specific limitations are outlined, including provisions that require attorneys with an existing attorney-client relationship to be involved in certain portions of services that might be provided by an eDiscovery services company.

Top Five eDiscovery Technologies to Watch in 2012

http://ow.ly/ca4qn

An article by Charles Skamser posted on the eDiscovery Paradigm Shift website.

The article examines 5 specific technological solutions that the author feels are the most impressive new solutions that he reviewed in the past year.  The author states that he reviewed over 100 technological solutions, and decided to discuss the 5 offerings that he addresses.

The article states, "With over 100 technologies to choose from, culling the list down was not an easy task. Therefore, I had to rely upon some amount objective criteria such as platform technology stack and supported environments along with a heavy dose of my subjective opinion in regards to how disruptive a technology could be within the paradigm shift of the eDiscovery market. BeyondRecognition, X1 Social Discovery, X1 Rapid Discovery, TunnelVision and Equivio Zoom definitely met these criteria."

The article provides specifics about the technologies referenced, and examines what role each of these solutions is designed to provide.

 

IT-Lex and The Sedona Conference® Provide Real Help to Learn eDiscovery and Technology Law

http://ow.ly/c8pmJ

An article by Christy Burke posted on the legalitprofessionals.com website.

This article discusses the need for education within the legal profession regarding eDiscovery and the use of technology.  The article mentions IT-Lex, and the Sedona Conference® as organizations that provide resources to educate legal professional regarding matters related to technology.

The article states, "

IT-Lex is a not-for-profit recently founded by lawyers Adam Losey, Ralph Losey, and Samir Mathur. The entity is quite new and aims to bring new blood into the eDiscovery and technology law arena, linking up “technology law scholars, educators, seasoned practitioners, young lawyers, law students, paralegals, technologists, and anyone else with an interest in this constantly-evolving area of law,” according to its website.

Law students are the attorneys of tomorrow, of course, and today’s go-getter law students are hungry for eDiscovery education – or if they’re not, they should be if they want to be successful lawyers one day. Christopher Danzig of Above the Law posted on June 4th: “E-Discovery in Law School: Yes, You Need to Learn This Stuff”. Adam Losey from IT-Lex agrees with this 100%."  A link to the referenced article by Christopher Danzig is provided in the article.

The article further lists many of the upcoming training initiatives that are available from the Sedona Conference®.