Comments for Complex Discovery http://complexdiscovery.com Information, Tools, and Tactics for the eDiscovery Professional Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:08:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 Comment on Outbound Email and Data Loss Prevention by ediscoveryinfo http://complexdiscovery.com/2008/06/05/outbound-email-and-data-loss-prevention/#comment-155 ediscoveryinfo Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:16:35 +0000 http://complexdiscovery.com/?p=145#comment-155 [...] can be downloaded here or Rob Robinson has posted it here on his Complex Discovery [...] […] can be downloaded here or Rob Robinson has posted it here on his Complex Discovery […]

]]> Comment on Online Critics, Beware by wrrobinson http://complexdiscovery.com/2008/05/01/online-critics-beware/#comment-53 wrrobinson Sat, 03 May 2008 13:03:09 +0000 http://complexdiscovery.com/2008/05/01/online-critics-beware/#comment-53 I agree its a clear and objective article and the author, Stanley P. Jaskiewicz, did a fantastic job of presenting the information. I agree its a clear and objective article and the author, Stanley P. Jaskiewicz, did a fantastic job of presenting the information.

]]> Comment on Online Critics, Beware by Leah http://complexdiscovery.com/2008/05/01/online-critics-beware/#comment-52 Leah Fri, 02 May 2008 23:24:37 +0000 http://complexdiscovery.com/2008/05/01/online-critics-beware/#comment-52 I found this article at law.com, com, too, but I don't know if they sent a copy to you (I believe you're the author?). Here's what I said: This may be the clearest, most objective, and best written article on the CDA, reviews and reviewing websites I've read. You're not trying to bash anyone, but rather in a pointed, direct and honest way outline the truth of submitting comments online. I've used virtually every one of the sites you list, regularly, such as the Ripoff Report, tripAdvisor, Amazon, and many others. I find the reviews to be very helpful in virtually every case. Of course, I understand that not everyone has the best experience, so it's a good idea to read multiple reviews and get a more balanced view of the pros and cons. I often visit the rip-off report, for example, to see what the latest ripoffs are, and I'll look specifically at times for certain names, just in case. Through their use, I've become a better consumer overall. I know that some bloggers have said nasty things about the site and its owner, but like amazon for books, I find the Rip-off Report has the most comprehensive reviews about companies, particularly when it comes to customer service. They seem to be fighting a lot of lawsuits, but as far as I can tell, it hasn't forced them to remove any of the comments, and having everything there at all times, like you said, is the way of the Web today. It also gives a longer term view of how the company responded over time. Anyway, I got long winded on them, but I enjoyed your article and wanted to let you know. I found this article at law.com, com, too, but I don’t know if they sent a copy to you (I believe you’re the author?). Here’s what I said:

This may be the clearest, most objective, and best written article on the CDA, reviews and reviewing websites I’ve read. You’re not trying to bash anyone, but rather in a pointed, direct and honest way outline the truth of submitting comments online. I’ve used virtually every one of the sites you list, regularly, such as the Ripoff Report, tripAdvisor, Amazon, and many others. I find the reviews to be very helpful in virtually every case. Of course, I understand that not everyone has the best experience, so it’s a good idea to read multiple reviews and get a more balanced view of the pros and cons. I often visit the rip-off report, for example, to see what the latest ripoffs are, and I’ll look specifically at times for certain names, just in case. Through their use, I’ve become a better consumer overall. I know that some bloggers have said nasty things about the site and its owner, but like amazon for books, I find the Rip-off Report has the most comprehensive reviews about companies, particularly when it comes to customer service. They seem to be fighting a lot of lawsuits, but as far as I can tell, it hasn’t forced them to remove any of the comments, and having everything there at all times, like you said, is the way of the Web today. It also gives a longer term view of how the company responded over time. Anyway, I got long winded on them, but I enjoyed your article and wanted to let you know.

]]> Comment on Avoiding “Faux” eDiscovery by Rob Robinson http://complexdiscovery.com/2008/04/29/avoiding-faux-ediscovery/#comment-51 Rob Robinson Fri, 02 May 2008 17:06:11 +0000 http://complexdiscovery.com/2008/04/29/avoiding-faux-ediscovery/#comment-51 Interesting article. Interesting article.

]]> Comment on Understanding Data Accessibility by Steve Burgess http://complexdiscovery.com/2008/04/08/understanding-data-accessibility/#comment-9 Steve Burgess Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:46:39 +0000 http://complexdiscovery.com/2008/04/08/understanding-data-accessibility/#comment-9 It is interesting that while the new FRCP make certain things specific, there are a number of things that are left open to wide interpretation, at least insofar as mentioned in this article. I see that, while Recycle Bin data is generally accepted as accessible and "deleted data that remains in fragmented form" is not, in between we find deleted data that is neither in the Recycle Bin nor fragmented. We see that history files are fair game - but we often find more than 100,000 deleted fragments of history files, complete with dates and times. We see that certain discovery might be precluded as being "not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but note that much of this data can be retrieved from a computer for one or two thousand dollars. While the FRCP as summarized here certainly makes lines of demarcation, many are left quite fuzzy. One wonders, as computer technology (and hence the means of document production) marches on, how soon even newer Rules will be proffered to the legal community. It is interesting that while the new FRCP make certain things specific, there are a number of things that are left open to wide interpretation, at least insofar as mentioned in this article. I see that, while Recycle Bin data is generally accepted as accessible and “deleted data that remains in fragmented form” is not, in between we find deleted data that is neither in the Recycle Bin nor fragmented. We see that history files are fair game - but we often find more than 100,000 deleted fragments of history files, complete with dates and times. We see that certain discovery might be precluded as being “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but note that much of this data can be retrieved from a computer for one or two thousand dollars. While the FRCP as summarized here certainly makes lines of demarcation, many are left quite fuzzy. One wonders, as computer technology (and hence the means of document production) marches on, how soon even newer Rules will be proffered to the legal community.

]]>