| Funny typographical errors [message #317941] |
Mon, 05 May 2008 01:23  |
rleishman
Messages: 3728
Registered: October 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Got a laugh out of this and had to share it.
I'm currently working through a list of 874 Non-Functional Business requirements to establish for each one the level of compliance of the new system we are building.
A logical requirement would be that any process that automatically archives/purges data must have a manual override so that data can be protected - for example - in the case of pending litigation.
But here's what it actually says:
| Quote: | Any data destruction policy must be capable of being overwritten in the event of any actual or impending litigation
|
Overridden?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Funny typographical errors [message #318137 is a reply to message #317941] |
Mon, 05 May 2008 20:09  |
TheSingerman
Messages: 49
Registered: April 2008
Location: Brighton, Michigan
|
Member |
|
|
Er... No, I think they are very serious here.
My understanding (and not only have I never played a lawyer on T.V., I will never again stay at a Holiday Inn Express) is that case law is making it quite important that any firm making enough money to be worth suing must have a "records retention policy." If you are sued, and the plaintiff wants a 15 month old email, and it cannot be found, and your policy states that all emails over 9 months old must be purged, then you are safe. They cannot come after you, claiming you tried to destroy evidence, because you were just following orders.
However -- any record which pertains (or could pertain) to pending litigation is exempt from the standard policy. Those records must be retained as long as there is litigation.
So this requirement means exactly what it appears to mean.
And it reads as if it were written by a lawyer who didn't read what (s)he was writing.
|
|
|
|
] 
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
