[cap-talk] cap-share - membranes - optional/mandatory, unwrapping? (was: Blue sky)

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:30:29 -0500,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap at eros-os.com> wrote:
> > You may have all sorts of reasons to separate access to digital
> > objects in your organization, but when the judge brings the hammer
> > down God's eye is on you, and you better be able to produce, or face
> > heavy fines.
> 
> No. A judge cannot compel production of something you demonstrably do
> not possess the ability to produce.

There are two aspects to this: What the law actually requires, and
what the judge will expect from you anyway.

To my knowledge, in the US the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires a retention
time of yup to 5 years for all audit-relevant documents from companies
regulated by the SEC, and I believe this has been expanded to all
publicly held companies very recently.

A judge may be very impatient with your attempts to demonstrate that
you do not possess the ability to produce something, and just assume
that you have something to hide and fine you anyway.  In fact, by
demonstrating that you never had the ability you may prove yourself
guilty of the omission to retain the documents.

http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1540,1998003,00.asp

  "Unfortunately, for CIOs in similar situations, the "I don't know"
  response ranks as the legal equivalent of "the dog ate my homework."
  Now that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other laws dictate that
  companies not destroy data records, e-mails and even instant
  messages are being used increasingly as evidence in high-profile
  court cases. Technology managers must get at their data fast and
  vouch for its completeness. Those who can't produce what the courts
  require on a timely basis put their companies at risk for fines or
  punishments."

Followed by three examples where it already happened.

Thanks,
Marcus