There’s nothing quite like an unexpected year-long period of remote work to highlight gaps and inefficiencies in an organization’s information governance (IG) strategies. Thanks to the events of 2020, there was an explosion of data sources across most organizations—from team collaboration platforms (Slack, MS Teams, etc.) and video conferencing tools (Zoom, Google Meet, Cisco Webex), to mobile text messages, company websites, and social media accounts—and many companies recognized the fact that more mature IG strategies were needed to successfully manage this data and reduce risk.
Electronic communication has come a long way in a few short decades. In 2006, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended to confirm that discovery of electronically stored information stood on equal footing with discovery of paper documents.
The events of 2020 highlighted two major challenges that modern in-house legal teams face. First, there has been an explosion of data sources across most organizations. From team collaboration platforms (Slack, MS Teams, etc.) and video conferencing tools (Zoom, Google Meet, Cisco Webex), to mobile text messages, company websites, and social media accounts, companies are faced with new kinds of ESI being generated in real-time throughout their organizations.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been law for three decades (it turned 30 in 2020), but it’s fair to say that the world has changed considerably since it was first enacted in 1990.
Optical character recognition (OCR) offers organizations the opportunity to get a much better digital handle on the information they store.
In a previous article, we discussed the importance of protecting your website content from intellectual property (IP) theft. By keeping a complete archive of your website—including all edits and deletions—it becomes much easier to prove that original content from your site has been stolen by another party.
Social media might seem like a lawless environment where cruel comments and reckless libel are simply the order of the day—but there have been instances where courts have classified social media posts and comments as defamation. This is true both in a country like the UK, where defamation is generally easier to prove, and the US, where the legal threshold is much higher.
Almost every day after a European football match, there’s another media headline highlighting a player who received racial abuse on social media. Football clubs condemn it. The content gets reported to social media platforms. Accounts are deleted. Authorities are notified and declare a ‘zero tolerance’ policy against discrimination and prejudiced behavior. Many players share the posts, highlighting the racism they continually face.
Social media offers investigators incredible opportunities to collect evidence. There are plenty of examples on the Internet of supposedly injured individuals posting runs and rides on Strava and incriminating car crash footage making its way onto YouTube. In fact, social media intelligence (SOCMINT or SMI) has become a standard part of many investigations—including insurance fraud, IP theft, online defamation, and even criminal cases.
The issue of defamation has been in the news a lot over the last few months. Johnny Depp lost a prominent case against the publisher of the UK’s The Sun newspaper. Prince Harry sued a tabloid. The source behind the New York Post’s infamous Hunter Biden laptop article sued Twitter for allegedly making him out to be a hacker. And an Indian court cleared a journalist in a #MeToo defamation case involving a major political figure.
