Consolidation of Blogs: New Location of Content on ComplexDiscovery.com

Effective April 1, 2015, the Information Governance Engagement Area blog will no longer be updated on a regular basis.  New content ranging from news and events to opinions and assertions will now be available exclusively on the ComplexDiscovery blog at ComplexDiscovery.com.

This change is simply to streamline the publishing process of regular content and reflects no change in the commitment to provide interesting and insightful updates to those with interest in the growing field of information governance.

Thanks for your consideration and please take the time to visit and benefit from the ComplexDiscovery blog and supporting social media conduits.

• NEW RSS FEED:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/complexdiscovery/
• COMPLEXDISCOVERY on LinkedIn: http://bit.ly/ComplexDiscovery-LinkedIn
• COMPLEXDISCOVERY on Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/complexD
• COMPLEXDISCOVERY NEWSLETTER: Newsletter Subscription Link

Study Shows People Act To Protect Privacy When Told How Often Phone Apps Share Personal Information

By Byron Spice

Message That Grabs Attention: “Your Location Has Been Shared 5,398 Times”

Many smartphone users know that free apps sometimes share private information with third parties, but few, if any, are aware of how frequently this occurs. An experiment at Carnegie Mellon University shows that when people learn exactly how many times these apps share that information they rapidly act to limit further sharing.

In one phase of a study that evaluated the benefits of app permission managers – software that gives people control over what sensitive information their apps can access – 23 smartphone users received a daily message, or “privacy nudge,” telling them how many times information such as location, contact lists or phone call logs had been shared.

Read the complete article at: Study Shows People Act To Protect Privacy When Told How Often Phone Apps Share Personal Information

Too Many Notes: In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

By Craig Ball

The core challenge of discovery is identifying information that is responsive but not privileged, achieved without undue burden or expense.  There are multiple ways to approach the task, none optimal. The most labor-intensive method is called “linear human review,” where lawyers (for the most part) look at everything and cull responsive and privileged items.  It sufficed in the pre-digital era when much effort and resources were devoted to recordkeeping.  Despite being costly, slow and error prone, linear review was all we had, so became the gold standard for identifying responsive and privileged information.

Read the complete article at: Too Many Notes: In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

Frivolous Law Suits? 26+ Reasons to Laugh at eDiscovery (Cartoon and Clip)

The Cartoon and Clip of the Week for March 25, 2015

Regularly we read, see and hear incredibly serious presentations and pontifications related to the theory, practice and business of electronic discovery.  This week our cartoon and clip features a quick look at Rule 26(f) conference planning for a frivolous lawsuit (cartoon) and a quick reference link to a very serious retrospective listing of 26 eDiscovery-related cartoons (clip).

---

---

The Humor of eDiscovery: 26 Cartoons and Clips

Click here for a short retrospective of 26 recent eDiscovery-related cartoons and clips published on the ComplexDiscovery Blog.

---

Do smart machines require ethical programming?

From Help Net Security

Realizing the potential of smart machines — and ensuring successful outcomes for the businesses that rely on them — will hinge on how trusted smart machines are and how well they maintain that trust. Central to establishing this trust will be ethical values that people recognize and are comfortable with. “Clearly, people must trust smart machines if they are to accept and use them,” said Frank Buytendijk, research vice president and distinguished analyst at Gartner. “The ability to earn trust must be part of any plan to implement artificial intelligence (AI) or smart machines, and will be an important selling point when marketing this technology. CIOs must be able to monitor smart machine technology for unintended consequences of public use and respond immediately, embracing unforeseen positive outcomes and countering undesirable ones.”

Read the complete article at: Do smart machines require ethical programming?

A Look Back: NetDiligence 2014 Cyber Claims Study

From Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry

The NetDiligence 2014 Cyber Claims Study relies on data voluntarily provided by insurers about amounts paid out on cyber claims occurring from 2011 through 2013. Since the Study only accounts cyber claims reported to larger insurers, NetDiligence believes its study only accounts for 5-10% of the total number of all cyber claims handled in those years.

Among the highlights, the Study found that the predominant type of information exposed in any cyber claim remains personally identifiable information (“PII”). Under a definition of PII expanded to include email addresses and passwords, 97% of the information exposed constitutes PII. The remaining data exposed included protected health information (“PHI”) under HIPPA and payment card information (“PCI”).

Read the complete article at: A Look Back: NetDiligence 2014 Cyber Claims Study

Ending the Debate on TAR Seed Sets

By Hal Marcus

In the wake of Judge Peck’s recent Rio Tinto opinion on technology assisted review, the ediscovery blogosphere has been repeatedly quoting its bold pronouncements that judicial acceptance of TAR “is now black letter law” and that “it is inappropriate to hold TAR to a higher standard than keywords or manual review.” And rightly so — these statements appear intended to put outdated predictive coding debates to rest once and for all. Yet a good deal of the focus is going to the question Judge Peck raises but does not fully resolve: whether disclosure of TAR seed sets may be required.

Read the complete article at: Ending the Debate on TAR Seed Sets